Skip to main content

1-20 of 426 results for subject:Quarantine

Subject X
Employment

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

More

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

More
Employment (426)

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

My Lords, I understand that there is an amendment to the Motion. Given that, I think it would only be appropriate to allow the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to speak first so that I can respond at the end. I beg to move.

Member
Lord Kamall (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 March 2022
Reference
820 c483
House
House of Lords

Moved by

Baroness Brinton

Member
Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 March 2022
Reference
820 c483
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I have some sympathy with the arguments that the noble Baroness has just made, but I think this is probably not the time to have a general debate about the Government’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic.

These regulations are fairly narrowly drafted and are designed to repeal the earlier...

Member
Lord Hutton of Furness (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 March 2022
Reference
820 c484
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I speak in support of the amendment from my noble friend Lady Brinton. One of the main reasons I am doing so is that I think the messaging being put over at the moment is entirely wrong and out of sync with where we are in this pandemic.

I...

Member
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 March 2022
Reference
820 cc484-8
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I would like to ask some questions about data. We are told that the Government’s policy has been data driven. As my noble friend just pointed out, the Prime Minister suggested that the case figures and hospitalisations are going down, when in the last seven days cases have...

Member
Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 March 2022
Reference
820 c488
House
House of Lords

My Lords, as I said in this House on Monday, I had to stay at home for seven days because I had a very bad chest cough, a bad cold and a lot of catarrh. I tested myself and the test was negative. Those bad symptoms continued for nearly six...

Member
Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 March 2022
Reference
820 cc488-9
House
House of Lords

My Lords, we, too, do not want to see restrictions in place for a day longer than necessary but, as noble Lords have said, lifting the legal requirement to self-isolate needs to be backed up with a plan and an understanding. While it is one thing to acknowledge that free...

Member
Baroness Merron (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 March 2022
Reference
820 cc489-490
House
House of Lords

I begin by thanking all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate today, and in the previous debate on this issue last week. I will try to answer the questions posed, some of which were raised again today.

I think we should be clear about one thing: in every...

Member
Lord Kamall (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 March 2022
Reference
820 cc490-3
House
House of Lords

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister and I thank him for all that information, but is he in a position to answer the question asked by my noble friend Lady Tyler about vaccination of primary age children? There is an awful lot of Covid in primary schools. Vaccinating children...

Member
Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 March 2022
Reference
820 c494
House
House of Lords

Yes, I apologise for my enthusiasm to answer.

We have accepted the JCVI advice to offer the vaccine to all children aged five to 11. The advice follows a thorough review by the MHRA, which approved Pfizer’s paediatric vaccine as safe and effective for children aged five to 11. The NHS...

Member
Lord Kamall (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 March 2022
Reference
820 cc494-5
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I want to make it clear that this amendment to the Motion is not a discussion about plunging the UK back into lockdown or imposing mass restrictions on individual liberties. I am talking here about the Government’s decision to scale back sensible public health measures—measures that would help...

Member
Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 March 2022
Reference
820 cc483-6
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken.

The Minister said that we were saying that the pandemic is over. Not one person speaking today has said that it was over. We have all said that is has been moving to endemic and that the WHO advice was about...

Member
Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 March 2022
Reference
820 c495
House
House of Lords

Lords motion to approve. Amendment to regret debated and withdrawn. Original motion agreed to on question.

Lead member
Lord Kamall
Answering member
Baroness Merron
Department
Department of Health and Social Care
Type
Debates on delegated legislation
Date
17 March 2022
Reference
820 cc483-495
House
House of Lords

In the light of these really important regulations and the protections they have provided for so long, I believe it is important to scrutinise the Minister on how we will maintain public safety as we move forward, in particular for vulnerable groups who have had protections during the pandemic. For...

Member
Rachael Maskell (Labour; Co-operative Party)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
1 March 2022
Reference
709 c1009
House
House of Commons

The all-party parliamentary group on coronavirus took evidence this morning from SAGE—the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies—academics and clinicians. They were clear in their concern that the living with coronavirus strategy does not include what needs to happen. It tells us what needs to stop, but it does not say...

Member
Debbie Abrahams (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
1 March 2022
Reference
709 c1009
House
House of Commons

I was also at the all-party parliamentary group on coronavirus evidence session this morning and the health experts were unanimous in saying that to remove the restrictions around self-isolation right now is premature. They were all concerned about the impact it would have on the 3.7 million clinically vulnerable people....

Member
Caroline Lucas (Green Party)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
1 March 2022
Reference
709 c1009
House
House of Commons

First, I would like to outline that the House has been asked to revoke the legal requirements around self-isolation if one tests

positive for covid-19, including: the duty to self-isolate if one tests positive, the duty to provide NHS Test and Trace with details and contacts, the duty to notify...

Member
Maggie Throup (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
1 March 2022
Reference
709 cc1009-1010
House
House of Commons

Motion, That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation etc.) (Revocation) (England) Regulations 2022 (SI, 2022, No. 161), dated 22 February 2022, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22 February, be approved. Agreed to on question.

Lead member
Maggie Throup
Department
Department of Health and Social Care
Type
Debates on delegated legislation
Date
1 March 2022
Reference
709 cc1009-1010
House
House of Commons
Laid by
Maggie Throup
Department
Department of Health and Social Care
Type
Statutory instruments
Date
22 February 2022
Reference
SI 2022/161
House
House of Lords; House of Commons

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what assessment her Department has made of the potential impact of the Government's proposals to end the legal requirement to self-isolate in Spring 2022 on the ability of immunosuppressed people to access their places of work.

Asked by
Mick Whitley (Labour)
Answering body
Department of Health and Social Care
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Date
15 February 2022
Reference
119820
House
House of Commons