UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Kate Osamor

  • 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 consideration she has given to the UNHCR Guidelines on the Applicable Criteria and Standards relating to the Detention of Asylum-Seekers and Alternatives to Detention when deciding to narrow the definition of torture in the draft guidance on adults at risk.

    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 – 2022 Parliamentary Question on the Asylum Backlog

    Kate Osamor – 2022 Parliamentary Question on the Asylum Backlog

    The parliamentary question asked by Kate Osamor, the Labour MP for Edmonton, in the House of Commons on 19 December 2022.

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

    What recent progress her Department has made on reducing the backlog of asylum applications.

    Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)

    What recent progress her Department has made on reducing the backlog of asylum applications.

    The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)

    Last week we set out plans to clear the initial decision backlog of asylum legacy cases by the end of next year. Over the summer and autumn, the Home Office reduced the number of older asylum cases by 11,000, and the number of asylum caseworkers has doubled.

    Kate Osamor

    Last week the International Development Committee heard from organisations working closely with refugees in the UK. I was disappointed but not surprised to hear Enver Solomon, the chief executive of the Refugee Council, say that it was not consulted about the proposals, announced last week, to tackle the backlog. Why have the Government neglected to widely consult experts, and would the Minister be willing to consider their recommendations if I was to write to him?

    Robert Jenrick

    I would be interested in the views of any of our stakeholders, but the Prime Minister set out a very compelling case last week to radically re-engineer the end-to-end process, with fewer interviews, shorter guidance, less paperwork, specialist caseworkers by nationality, including tackling Albanian cases, and reforming modern slavery by reducing the cooling-off period from 45 to 30 days—all steps to clear the backlog as quickly as possible.

    Vicky Foxcroft

    One of my constituents arrived in the UK from Afghanistan and claimed asylum in September 2021. Despite my caseworkers making regular inquiries since August 2022, we have received no updates regarding the status of his application. He tells us that the situation has made him seriously depressed. Does the Minister agree that excessive wait times can have a hugely detrimental impact on mental health, and will he agree to look at this case in further detail?

    Robert Jenrick

    I would be happy to look at that case and any others that are brought to my attention. The backlog, however, is a symptom of the problem, which is that far too many people are crossing the channel illegally, and that is what this Government are determined to tackle. The hon. Lady and her Opposition colleagues have voted against every tough measure that we have sought to take in recent years. I hope that she will now get behind the measure that we are taking, the statement the Prime Minister made last week and, of course, our world-leading Rwanda partnership, which the Court today gave its agreement to.

    John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)

    Will the Government introduce urgent legislation to strengthen control of our borders, and could that include a notwithstanding clause to guide the courts against using other laws that undermine the fundamental principle of the Prime Minister’s policy?

    Robert Jenrick

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out last week our intention to bring forward legislation early next year, and at the heart of that legislation will be a simple point of principle that we on this side of the House believe: no one should gain a right to live in this country if they entered illegally. From that, all things will need to flow. Nothing is off the table. We will take our obligations to deliver on that policy very seriously. That is in stark contrast to the Labour party. At the weekend, the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), could not even say whether illegal entry to this country should be an offence. That says it all. We believe in securing our borders and in controlled migration. The Labour party is the party of mass migration.

    James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)

    We in Wiltshire are proud of the fact that some 900 Ukrainians will be enjoying Christmas dinners with us, and that we have entertained a large number of Afghan people who looked after us so well during the war. However, we were very surprised when last Friday 82 young Albanian men were moved into the very rural, very distantly located Wiltshire golf club without any notice at all being given to the neighbouring retirement village. Does the Minister agree that this is an inappropriate location for people of this kind, who are very probably economic migrants, and will he seek to advance them elsewhere as soon as he possibly can?

    Robert Jenrick

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. We do not want to use hotels in any part of the country; we want to tackle the issue at its source. I understand his constituents’ concerns with respect to the hotel in Wiltshire. As I understand it, a smaller number of individuals have been accommodated there than he has perhaps been advised and the local authority was informed in advance, but that does not diminish his constituents’ concerns. I am happy to talk to him to see what we can do to end that at the earliest opportunity.

    Mr Speaker

    I call the shadow Minister.

    Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)

    The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 is profoundly counterproductive legislation, as illustrated by the fact that, since it was passed, the number of dangerous crossings has reached a record high. The Act includes the so-called inadmissibility clause, but the fact that the Government have failed to negotiate a returns agreement with a single European country means that just 21 out of 18,000 inadmissible people have been returned. Sending 300 asylum seekers to Rwanda will not even touch the sides of that 18,000. Does the Minister recognise the inadequacy of the legislation? Will he explain why the Government’s utterly self-defeating approach has led directly to the British taxpayer footing an extra bill of £500 million?

    Robert Jenrick

    First, whatever the inadequacies of the current system, they would be far worse if the Opposition were in power—in fact, the backlog of cases was 450,000 when the last Labour Government handed over to us. They have opposed every tough measure that we have taken, including the Nationality and Borders Act. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that Act did not go far enough, I will welcome his support next year when we bring forward further and even tougher legislation. We will make sure that we secure the borders and control migration. He cannot see the difference between people genuinely fleeing persecution and economic migrants. He is testing the will of the British people; we will take action.

    Mr Speaker

    I call the SNP spokesperson.

    Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)

    My casework in Glasgow Central speaks to the fundamentally broken asylum system, and a failing immigration system more widely, as other types of applications are regularly delayed and people are left waiting for years. The barrister Colin Yeo suggests that, to get the asylum backlog down to 20,000, the Home Office would need to make 8,000 decisions a month. In the year to September, only 16,400 decisions were made in total, so precisely how will the Minister meet his target?

    Robert Jenrick

    Last week, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out our plan to re-engineer the process and hire more decision makers. It is about not just people and resource, but ensuring that the process is faster and less bureaucratic, and that the guidance is cut and simplified. If the hon. Lady wants to help us with the issue, perhaps she will get on to her colleagues in the Scottish Government, because today in Scotland, in contrast with the rest of the United Kingdom, only one city—Glasgow—is doing its fair share and taking asylum seekers. In the whole of Scotland, only a dozen hotels outside of Glasgow are taking asylum seekers, which is not fair and equitable. She might sound pious, but her words and rhetoric are not matched by action from the Scottish Government.

    Alison Thewliss

    Local authorities in Scotland are reticent to take more because they know that the UK Government are not funding asylum seeker provision properly, and that pressed budgets due to another round of austerity are coming down the road, as the Minister knows just fine. Can he confirm that the Home Office is recruiting asylum decision makers from people in customer service and sales positions at McDonald’s and Aldi who have no prior experience of the asylum system, who are consulting Lonely Planet guides for knowledge of applicant countries, and who have described being

    “left to fend for themselves”

    after two days to conduct complex interviews and make life or death decisions? Is that really an adequate way to conduct sensitive decision making?

    Robert Jenrick

    I do not recognise anything that the hon. Lady just said. The problem with the current system is that it is too complicated and too bureaucratic. We want to simplify that, speed up those decisions and make sure that the teams are more productive. To come back to her first point, the Scottish Government are refusing to take any of the asylum seekers who are arriving in the UK on small boats, which is not right. There is a widening gulf between the actions of the Scottish Government and their rhetoric, which I ask her to consider.

  • Kate Osamor – 2022 Parliamentary Question on the Sovereign Debt of African Countries

    Kate Osamor – 2022 Parliamentary Question on the Sovereign Debt of African Countries

    The parliamentary question asked by Kate Osamor, the Labour MP for Edmonton, in the House of Commons on 13 December 2022.

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

    What assessment he has made of the potential effect of trends in the level of sovereign debt in Africa on stability in that region.

    The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)

    The significant debt vulnerabilities in many sub-Saharan African countries create risks for their growth, development and stability.

    Kate Osamor

    I thank the Minister for his reply. We have seen crippling crises affect various parts of Africa this year, from drought in the horn of Africa to floods in Nigeria. The debt burden of many low and middle income countries impacts the state’s capacity to cope, and the crisis only worsens the economic outlook further. As the charity Debt Justice has proposed, will the Government commit to supporting a universal framework for debt cancellation when an extreme climate event strikes, to prevent that double whammy?

    Mr Mitchell

    We look at every way of helping to address the problem that the hon. Lady sets out. We are providing bilateral technical assistance to help many countries better manage their public funding, and we are working with partners in the Paris Club and the G20 on how to address international debt issues together. We have already seen the progress that results from that in Ghana, where I am going today, and in Malawi.

    Sir James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)

    Is my right hon. Friend concerned, as I am, that Chinese sovereign debt is perhaps understated in countries such as Zambia, where banks lend directly to the Government but are effectively controlled by the ministry of finance in China? Will he do more to understand the totality of the debt and the indebtedness of specific countries to the Chinese Government?

    Mr Mitchell

    Yes. My right hon. Friend makes a very good point, and we need to show through what we do that there is a much better alternative. In 2020, we provided debt relief on repayments to the International Monetary Fund for 23 countries and contributed £150 million to the IMF catastrophe containment and relief trust. It is by doing such things that we show that there is a better way than the one the Chinese are using.

    Mr Speaker

    I call the shadow Minister.

    Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)

    The IMF says that three out of five of the world’s poorest countries are now in debt distress. The last Labour Government cancelled billions of pounds of multilateral debt. Any solution now depends on China, which receives 66% of all bilateral payments, and private creditors such as BlackRock. The future of millions of the world’s poorest depends on halting debt defaults, so what steps will the Government now take to engage seriously with China and bring forward the incentives, regulation and education needed to force private creditors to the table?

    Mr Mitchell

    The shadow Minister makes a good point. I think she is referring specifically to vulture funds, which we will certainly address. I want to make it clear to the House that we are working very closely with the international financial community. We understand absolutely the risks of instability that the situation creates, and the hon. Lady will have seen the work on stabilisation that has been done by both the Africa Development Bank and the World Bank.

  • 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 2015-10-21.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, if she will bring forward legislative proposals to ensure that reviews into Ofsted’s conduct are conducted by an independent body.

    Nick Gibb

    Ofsted has well-established policies and procedures to investigate thoroughly and objectively any concerns received about its work. From August 2015, when a complaint about an Ofsted inspection is escalated to internal review, the handling of the case will also be assessed by a new scrutiny committee. For added independence, the scrutiny committee will include an external panel member who is a senior education practitioner or other sector leader not involved in carrying out inspections for Ofsted.

    If a complainant remains dissatisfied after this process, they can request an external review of the handling of their concerns by the Independent Complaints Adjudication Service for Ofsted.

  • Kate Osamor – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Kate Osamor – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Osamor on 2015-10-21.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, if he will initiate a review of the welfare support available to homeless people.

    Priti Patel

    There are no plans to initiate a specific review of welfare support available to homeless people as our ongoing policy work takes account of different vulnerable groups, including homeless people.

  • Kate Osamor – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Kate Osamor – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Osamor on 2015-10-22.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what his policy is on the provision by the NHS of free IVF to women whose partners have had immigration applications rejected.

    Jane Ellison

    The provision of in-vitro fertilisation services is a matter for clinical commissioning groups, in compliance with the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 2015, and with regard to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines on fertility services.

  • 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 2015-10-21.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, if he will take steps to ensure that reviews decisions by local authorities to rule that a person is intentionally homeless are conducted by people independent of that authority.

    Mr Marcus Jones

    The homelessness legislation gives households rights to request a review of local authority homelessness decisions. A review may be carried out by the housing authority itself or by someone acting as an agent of the housing authority. Where the review is to be carried out by an officer of the housing authority, the officer must not have been involved in the original decision, and must be senior to the officer who took the original decision.

  • 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 2015-10-21.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what provisions are in place to safeguard vulnerable adults who are declared intentionally homeless and who do not want to be separated from family members also declared intentionally homeless in order to be rehoused.

    Mr Marcus Jones

    Local authorities are under a duty to provide accommodation to vulnerable households who have made themselves intentionally homeless, for such time as will give the household a reasonable opportunity of securing their own accommodation. They must also provide them with advice and assistance to help them secure their own accommodation. There is no time limit on this duty and authorities should consider each case in light of its particular facts.

    Local housing authorities are also under a duty to make arrangements to ensure that social services are aware of cases where households with children may be intentionally homeless.

  • 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 2015-10-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many pregnant women are detained at Yarl’s Wood.

    James Brokenshire

    Although we are now recording management information on the number of women who have disclosed their pregnancy to the Home Office, collection of data about the detention of pregnant women will be limited.

    We will not necessarily be aware that a woman is pregnant unless she chooses to make this known to us and a woman may not know herself that she is pregnant when she enters detention. It may not always be appropriate for healthcare professionals to disclose information that the patient has asked not to be disclosed.

  • 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 2015-10-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will suspend the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia.

    Mr Tobias Ellwood

    We take our arms export responsibilities very seriously and the UK operates one of the most rigorous and transparent arms export control regimes in the world. All defence and dual-use exports are required to meet the UK’s strict export control requirements, which include consideration of the UK’s international commitments including under international treaties and obligations. We do not issue an export licence if there is a clear risk that the proposed export might be used in the commission of a serious violation of international humanitarian law. We also take account of any risk that the goods might be diverted to undesirable end-users or end-use.