Tag: Kate Osamor

  • Kate Osamor – 2023 Parliamentary Question on Racial Disparities in Convictions for Joint Enterprise

    Kate Osamor – 2023 Parliamentary Question on Racial Disparities in Convictions for Joint Enterprise

    The parliamentary question asked by Kate Osamor, the Labour MP for Edmonton, in the House of Commons on 10 January 2023.

    Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)

    If he will make an assessment of the reasons for racial disparities in the level of convictions for joint enterprise.

    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)

    The Government recognise that convictions based on joint enterprise appear to affect ethnic minority groups disproportionately. However, the Crown Prosecution Service can only apply the law when making charging decisions and plays no part in the decision making on individual joint enterprise cases. Data is collected on the ethnicity of defendants who are prosecuted and convicted of a criminal offence, but not on whether the crime was part of a joint enterprise. However, we are considering whether such data could be collected as part of the common platform programme.

    Kate Osamor

    I thank the Minister for his response but research by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies suggests that the doctrine of joint enterprise is routinely applied in a racist way leading to many miscarriages of justice. Assessing why it disproportionately targets ethnic minority communities, especially young black men, is only the first step; what is needed is urgent action. Will the Minister tell us what he is doing to right historical wrongs and prevent future miscarriages of justice due to joint enterprise?

    Mike Freer

    What I can do is confirm that the Government have of course implemented many of the recommendations of the Lammy review. I understand how passionately the hon. Member feels about this, so I would like to sit down with her and go through some of the specific issues she wants discussed in more depth, rather than talk across the Dispatch Box; I think that would be more fruitful and practical and I hope the hon. Member will accept my invitation.

  • Kate Osamor – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Kate Osamor – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Osamor on 2015-11-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what steps his Department is taking to raise awareness of the risks of carbon monoxide poisoning.

    James Wharton

    Building upon the success of the Fire Kills campaign, the Department for Communities and Local Government is running a campaign to raise awareness of the risks of carbon monoxide poisoning in the home. The Department has developed new Public Safety Radio Broadcasts that give advice on how best to avoid the risks and how to spot the danger signs of carbon monoxide poisoning. These are available for broadcasters to download free of charge.

    The Department has also published guidance to be given to tenants at the start of new tenancies which includes references to new requirements on private landlords to install and check carbon monoxide alarms in rooms where there are solid fuel burning appliances.

    The guidance is available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/how-to-rent.

  • Kate Osamor – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Kate Osamor – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Osamor on 2015-11-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will make representations to his Saudi Arabian counterpart calling for the release of Mr Ashraf Fayadh who was sentenced to death in Saudi Arabia on 17 November 2015 on charges of apostasy.

    Mr Tobias Ellwood

    We are aware of, and concerned about, the case of Mr Ashraf Fayadh (who is Palestinian). We oppose the death penalty in all circumstances and strongly support freedom of expression in every country. We regularly make the Saudi Arabian authorities aware of our views, and will consider suitable opportunities for raising our concerns over this case.

  • Kate Osamor – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Kate Osamor – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Osamor on 2016-03-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what assessment his Department has made of the potential effect of the Post Office’s franchising plans on local communities.

    George Freeman

    Franchising plans for its directly managed Crown post offices is the operational responsibility of Post Office Limited.

    The Post Office’s aim in seeking franchise partners for some of its Crown branches is to ensure continued access to Post Office services for customers in local communities on a sustainable basis going forward. Over 97% of the network already operates through agency or franchise branches and the change from a Crown to a franchise branch has been undertaken previously in many locations across the UK and is a successful way of sustaining Post Office services in those areas.

  • Kate Osamor – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Kate Osamor – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Osamor on 2016-09-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the effect of narrowing the definition of torture in the draft guidance on adults at risk on people who have been subjected to (a) discriminatory treatment in their community as a result of their sexual orientation, transgender identity, mental or other disability, (b) ethnic, racial, religious inter-communal violence including genocide, (c) political violence at the hand of non-state actors, (d) male rape and sexual violence and (e) human trafficking.

    Mr Robert Goodwill

    For the purposes of the Government’s “adults at risk in immigration detention” policy, which was implemented on 12 September, the Government has adopted a definition of torture in line with that set out in the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT). This covers acts of torture carried out by, or on behalf of state authorities and, in guidance issued to Home Office staff, to doctors working in immigration removal centres, and to other staff, it has been made clear that the definition also covers acts of torture or ill-treatment carried out by groups exploiting instability and civil war to hold territory. It does not, however, cover acts of violence carried out in the course of, for example, neighbourhood disputes. The definition employed most accurately reflects the need to protect those who are most likely to be deleteriously affected by detention – that is, those who have been harmed by the state (or by an organisation exercising similar control) and for whom detention is most likely to be redolent of the harm they have suffered. In addition, individuals will fall within the scope of the adults at risk policy if the harm to which they have been subjected causes them to suffer from a condition which also falls within the “indicators of risk” set out in the policy, regardless of whether it falls within the strict definition of “torture” and regardless of the perpetrator of the violence. The policy recognises a broad range of groups of individuals as those likely to be particularly vulnerable to harm in detention without necessarily having to define them as victims of torture.

    In making the decision to employ the UNCAT definition of torture, the Government took into account a range of considerations, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees guidelines, but concluded that the UNCAT definition provided the appropriate level of protection. The Government believes that this approach is fully in line with Stephen Shaw’s recommendations in respect of vulnerable people. The adults at risk policy as a whole represents a broadening of the scope of individuals considered vulnerable, by virtue of the inclusion within the list of indicators of risk set out in the policy of, for example, victims of sexual or gender based violence (including female genital mutilation), transsexual individuals, and those suffering from post traumatic stress disorder. Overall, the impact of the adoption of the UNCAT definition on different groups of vulnerable individuals will depend on the circumstances of the particular case. The Government does not anticipate that it will have a disproportionate impact on any specific group. In particular, the Government does not see that there are contradictions in applying the new definition of torture alongside the inclusion in the policy, as an indicator of risk, being a victim of sexual or gender based violence. Although the perpetrator of the violence is, by necessity, a key part of the definition of torture, the adults at risk policy focuses as a whole on the impact on the individual and on whether detention is appropriate in their particular case. Home Office caseworkers have been provided with training and communications on the new adults at risk policy, including in respect of the definition of torture. Guidance on the adults at risk policy has been issued, including to the commissioners of healthcare in Immigration Removal Centres.

  • Kate Osamor – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Kate Osamor – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Osamor on 2015-11-16.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what proportion of women detained in Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre in the last year have (a) attempted to or (b) inflicted harm upon themselves.

    James Brokenshire

    Published statistics for the period July 2014 to June 2015 show that 1,501 women entered Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre as the first place of detention. Provisional management information for the same time period shows that there were 54 incidents of self-harm requiring medical treatment at Yarl’s Wood that involved women.

    These numbers do not necessarily equate to the number of detainees requiring medical treatment. An individual may have received medical treatment on more than one occasion, therefore a maximum of 54 women could have received medical treatment for self harm, the equivalent of 3.6% of the total female population that entered Yarl’s Wood for the specified period.

  • Kate Osamor – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Kate Osamor – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Osamor on 2015-11-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what assessment her Department has made of the potential effect of costs arising from a school becoming an academy on (a) school budgets and (b) educational standards.

    Edward Timpson

    There are no changes to an individual school’s core funding when it converts to academy status, since academies are funded on an equivalent basis to maintained schools in the same area. Schools take on additional functions when becoming an academy, which local authorities provide for maintained schools; academies receive funding for those functions on an equivalent basis to local authorities.

    On educational standards, we continue to see the positive effects of academisation. Results in primary academies open for two years have improved, on average, by 10 percentage points since opening, a result which is double the rate of local authority maintained schools over the same period. Similar results are seen for secondary schools where the recently opened academies are matching or bettering their performance year on year.

  • Kate Osamor – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Kate Osamor – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Osamor on 2016-04-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if his Department will carry out an assessment of the potential (a) health, (b) economic and (c) social effects of its proposals to reduce community pharmacy funding.

    Alistair Burt

    Community pharmacy is a vital part of the National Health Service and can play an even greater role. In the Spending Review, the Government re-affirmed the need for the NHS to deliver £22 billion in efficiency savings by 2020/21 as set out in the NHS’s own plan, the Five Year Forward View. Community pharmacy is a core part of NHS primary care and has an important contribution to make as the NHS rises to these challenges. The Government believes efficiencies can be made without compromising the quality of services or public access to them. Our aim is to ensure that those community pharmacies upon which people depend continue to thrive and so we are consulting on the introduction of a Pharmacy Access Scheme, which will provide more NHS funds to certain pharmacies compared to others, considering factors such as location and the health needs of the local population.

    The Government’s vision is for a more efficient, modern system that will free up pharmacists to spend more time delivering clinical and public health services to the benefit of patients and the public.

    We are consulting the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee (PSNC) and others, including patient and public representatives, on our proposals for community pharmacy in 2016/17 and beyond. We announced on 16 March 2016 that the consultation period was to be extended to allow more time to develop the proposed changes with the PSNC and others. It will now close on 24 May 2016.

    An impact assessment will be completed to inform final decisions and published in due course.

  • Kate Osamor – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Kate Osamor – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Osamor on 2016-09-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the effect of applying the narrower Article 1 definition of torture in the draft guidance on adults at risk on the task of medical practitioners in immigration removal centres and UK Visa and Immigration caseworkers in determining where the threshold between torture and ill-treatment lies in any particular case.

    Mr Robert Goodwill

    For the purposes of the Government’s “adults at risk in immigration detention” policy, which was implemented on 12 September, the Government has adopted a definition of torture in line with that set out in the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT). This covers acts of torture carried out by, or on behalf of state authorities and, in guidance issued to Home Office staff, to doctors working in immigration removal centres, and to other staff, it has been made clear that the definition also covers acts of torture or ill-treatment carried out by groups exploiting instability and civil war to hold territory. It does not, however, cover acts of violence carried out in the course of, for example, neighbourhood disputes. The definition employed most accurately reflects the need to protect those who are most likely to be deleteriously affected by detention – that is, those who have been harmed by the state (or by an organisation exercising similar control) and for whom detention is most likely to be redolent of the harm they have suffered. In addition, individuals will fall within the scope of the adults at risk policy if the harm to which they have been subjected causes them to suffer from a condition which also falls within the “indicators of risk” set out in the policy, regardless of whether it falls within the strict definition of “torture” and regardless of the perpetrator of the violence. The policy recognises a broad range of groups of individuals as those likely to be particularly vulnerable to harm in detention without necessarily having to define them as victims of torture.

    In making the decision to employ the UNCAT definition of torture, the Government took into account a range of considerations, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees guidelines, but concluded that the UNCAT definition provided the appropriate level of protection. The Government believes that this approach is fully in line with Stephen Shaw’s recommendations in respect of vulnerable people. The adults at risk policy as a whole represents a broadening of the scope of individuals considered vulnerable, by virtue of the inclusion within the list of indicators of risk set out in the policy of, for example, victims of sexual or gender based violence (including female genital mutilation), transsexual individuals, and those suffering from post traumatic stress disorder. Overall, the impact of the adoption of the UNCAT definition on different groups of vulnerable individuals will depend on the circumstances of the particular case. The Government does not anticipate that it will have a disproportionate impact on any specific group. In particular, the Government does not see that there are contradictions in applying the new definition of torture alongside the inclusion in the policy, as an indicator of risk, being a victim of sexual or gender based violence. Although the perpetrator of the violence is, by necessity, a key part of the definition of torture, the adults at risk policy focuses as a whole on the impact on the individual and on whether detention is appropriate in their particular case. Home Office caseworkers have been provided with training and communications on the new adults at risk policy, including in respect of the definition of torture. Guidance on the adults at risk policy has been issued, including to the commissioners of healthcare in Immigration Removal Centres.

  • Kate Osamor – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Kate Osamor – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Osamor on 2015-11-16.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what information she holds on the likely publication date for the independent review of Yarl’s Wood, commissioned by Serco.

    James Brokenshire

    Serco intend to publish the main findings of the report by the end of the year.