In Questions today in Parliament I ask the Government what scientific advice was sought from Public Health England before the football match between Liverpool and Atlético Madrid on 11 March was permitted to take place, and while Spain had already been put into a partial lock down and I ask why, and in what ways, the Government’s  guidance Admission and Care of Residents during COVID-19 Incident in a Care Home, published on 2 April,  differs from World Health Organisation guidance for-long term care facilities.

Apr 29, 2020 | Uncategorized

 

In Questions today, in Parliament, I ask the Government what scientific advice was sought from Public Health England before the football match between Liverpool and Atlético Madrid on 11 March was permitted to take place,  while Spain had already been put into a partial lock down;  and I ask why, and in what ways, the Government’s  guidance “Admission and Care of Residents during COVID-19 Incident in a Care Home”, published on 2 April,  differs from World Health Organisation guidance for-long term care facilities.

 

Written Questions – House of Lords Order Paper April 29th 2020

 

Question text: Lord Alton of Liverpool to ask – 

 

what scientific advice was sought from Public Health England before the football match between Liverpool and Atlético Madrid on 11 March was permitted to take place; what assessment was made of permitting people to come together for a public event during a period in which Spain had placed its population in partial lockdown; who gave the advice on behalf of Public Health England; and which Ministers were involved in assessing that advice. [T]

Question text

why their guidance Admission and Care of Residents during COVID-19 Incident in a Care Home, published on 2 April, and the supplementary guidance, published on 17 April, differs from World Health Organisation guidance for-long term care facilities; and what assessment they have made of the compatibility of that guidance with their obligations under the 2009 UN Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

Question text

why their Admission and Care of Residents during COVID-19 Incident in a Care Home guidance, published on 2 April, does not recommend that a resident should be isolated until they have had two negative laboratory tests for COVID-19 taken at least 24 hours apart after the resident’s symptoms have resolved; why that guidance does not require the use of eye protection when staff are working within two 2 metres of a resident; and why that guidance does not specify what personal protection equipment should be worn by cleaners in care homes.

 

 

Question text

why their Admission and Care of Residents during COVID-19 Incident in a Care Home guidance, published on 2 April, does not include guidance for care homes on (1) the provision of infection prevention and control (IPC) focal points to lead and coordinate IPC activities, (2) the provision of clear information to residents in an understandable format and language, (3) the steps staff should take in relation to physical distancing, and (4) what staff should require of residents.

 

 

Question text

what was the evidence base behind the suggestion, set out in their Admission and Care of Residents during COVID-19 Incident in a Care Home guidance, published on 2 April, to use disinfectant of 1000ppm chlorine when cleaning care homes; what assessment they have made of whether such disinfectant is sufficient to kill COVID-19 on surfaces; and why that guidance does not include specific guidelines to ensure that laundry is washed in a washing machine with water at 60-90°C with laundry detergent, in accordance with the World Health Organisation guidelines.

 

 

Question text

why their Admission and Care of Residents during COVID-19 Incident in a Care Home guidance, published on 2 April, does not (1) acknowledge the risk of anxiety, anger and stress on residents, (2) place a duty on care homes to provide practical and emotional support and to work with residents’ families and health care providers, and (3) consider any spiritual or pastoral support residents may request.

 

https://www.davidalton.net/2020/04/25/julie-bass-chief-executive-of-turning-point-says-making-an-advance-decision-not-to-administer-cpr-if-a-persons-heart-stops-solely-because-they-have-a-learning-disability-is-not-o/

https://www.davidalton.net/2020/04/23/house-of-lords-virtual-debate-on-covid-19-and-the-impact-on-care-homes-april-23rd-2019-when-will-care-homes-be-provided-with-adequate-supplies-of-ppe-and-their-staff-routinely-and-regularly-tested/

 

 

Lord David Alton

For 18 years David Alton was a Member of the House of Commons and today he is an Independent Crossbench Life Peer in the UK House of Lords.

Social Media

Site Search

Recent Posts

For the Uyghurs, Genocide is a word which dares not speak its name. For the sake of women like Rahima Mahmut, Gulzira Auelkhan, Sayragul Sauytbay, and Ruqiye Perhat – whose heart-breaking, shocking, stories are recorded here – it’s time that the crime of genocide was given definition in the UK. On January 19th Parliament can use its voice and speak that name – insisting on justice for victims of Genocide and refusing to make tawdry trade deals with those responsible for the crime above all crimes.

For the Uyghurs, Genocide is a word which dares not speak its name. For the sake of women like Rahima Mahmut, Gulzira Auelkhan, Sayragul Sauytbay, and Ruqiye Perhat – whose heart-breaking, shocking, stories are recorded here – it’s time that the crime of genocide was given definition in the UK. On January 19th Parliament can use its voice and speak that name – insisting on justice for victims of Genocide and refusing to make tawdry trade deals with those responsible for the crime above all crimes.

For the Uyghurs Genocide is a word which dares...

The House of Lords All-Party Genocide Amendment was today defeated in the House of Commons  by a slender margin – a Government majority of 11. The Genocide amendment will now return to the  House of Lords which will be asked to consider a refined version – which, if agreed – will go back to the House of Commons. Just 6 more good men and women on the Conservative benches need to change their minds and the High Court will be given the task of deciding whether a Genocide is under way in States with which we have trade agreements.

The House of Lords All-Party Genocide Amendment was today defeated in the House of Commons by a slender margin – a Government majority of 11. The Genocide amendment will now return to the House of Lords which will be asked to consider a refined version – which, if agreed – will go back to the House of Commons. Just 6 more good men and women on the Conservative benches need to change their minds and the High Court will be given the task of deciding whether a Genocide is under way in States with which we have trade agreements.

The House of Lords All-Party Genocide Amendment...

Share This