Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) Thank you, Madam Deputy
Speaker, for granting this important debate. For too long,
allergies have been seen as a personal issue to be managed by the
individual affected. That needs to change. Allergies in school-age
children are rising quickly, and around 45,000 people born each
year will develop an allergy. School should be a safe space for our
children to grow and develop, yet for those with allergies and
their families the...Request free trial
(Rutland and Melton)
(Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting this important
debate.
For too long, allergies have been seen as a personal issue to be
managed by the individual affected. That needs to change.
Allergies in school-age children are rising quickly, and around
45,000 people born each year will develop an allergy. School
should be a safe space for our children to grow and develop, yet
for those with allergies and their families the joy of education
is too often compromised by safety and medical risk. There are
680,000 pupils in England with an allergy, so every classroom has
at least one or two living with an allergy. Tragically,
anaphylaxis occurs in educational settings more than in any other
public space, and that shows in and of itself that we need to
take action. We need to address this today—it has already gone on
for too long—to give parents and children the confidence of
knowing that our schools are allergy safe. If we do not, the
consequences are truly heartbreaking.
Benedict Blythe from Stamford was a gifted child. He was able to
complete a 24-piece puzzle by himself aged just one. He could
match number cards by 18 months and create pie charts by the time
he was school age. His mother Helen recalls purchasing him a book
of the complete human nervous system in an attempt to quench his
thirst for knowledge. By aged four, Benedict was a member of
Mensa and practising maths at the level of a 10-year-old. He was
a truly talented child, but it was his compassion and care for
his family, and his infectious energy that made him just so
loved.
Despite all his strengths, his life was marked by challenges
stemming from his asthma and his allergies. As he began to try a
wider range of foods, as all children do, Benedict suffered
allergic reactions, first to baby rice, then to baby porridge and
then to whey powder. What should have been a normal part of
growing up saw him hospitalised. His family, through careful
planning and care, worked out what he could eat safely. But while
they could guarantee his safety at home, they had to trust others
with Benedict when he went on play dates, mixed with other
children and, eventually of course, went to nursey and
school.
He was aware of his allergies. Like my nephew and so many others,
he learnt to ask what was in a product before he ate. He was so
cautious about he could and could not eat, but he also had to
rely on those around him to keep him safe. Aged two, a nursery
worker poured cows' milk over his cereal, causing a severe
reaction. The worker claimed he had been given oat milk and only
admitted the mistake once young Benedict's lips and tongue had
begun to swell, and he suddenly stopped being able to breathe.
The delay in admitting the mistake and beginning treatment for
the reaction could have been fatal. However, tragically, that
repeated itself when, aged just five, Benedict ate something at
school that caused him to collapse, and he died the same day.
I know that the whole House will join me in honouring Benedict
and recognising his unique character and intelligence. He dreamt
of becoming a doctor, and I am sure he would have achieved that
ambition and so much more. His story is every mother and father's
nightmare: the loss of their child, the pain so profound as to be
unimaginable; their child going to school and just never coming
home. Yet despite that nightmare, Benedict's mother has
endeavoured to ensure that other children can go to school
safely, and I salute her for her fortitude and her strength.
(Strangford) (DUP)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has himself
held debates on this important issue.
I commend the hon. Lady for raising the issue. She has told the
story of young Benedict so well. She has honoured him and
honoured his family, and we thank her for that. My second son is
now a young man, but as a wee boy he had a number of allergies,
so I understand the issue all too well: I understand the
importance of controlling a boy's diet and, indeed, the very life
that he leads. Does the hon. Lady agree—in fact, I think she may
be coming to this point—that given the increase in the incidence
of allergic reactions, each school must have a trained member of
staff on the premises at all times to know the signs and how to
deal with them? Does she also agree—and here I look to the
Minister—that the necessary funding uplift must be allocated in
addition to existing school budgets?
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. The problem is that because
the guidance is currently not mandatory, schools have completely
different responses. At my nephew's school, for example, there is
a picture of every child with a severe allergy on the teachers'
board, so that every day when the teachers go in they know which
children to be more alert to, and in an emergency they know
exactly what to do because there is a commentary under each
picture. That is the kind of response that we need, but yes, we
will need more. We saw the Government act strongly and quickly in
response to the need to install atrial defibrillators in schools,
and I ask them to take the same approach in this regard. The
number of children who have died of allergies in our schools is
far higher than the number who have died of any sort of heart
incident, so I really think that it is time for action.
(North West Cambridgeshire)
(Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour on
securing this important debate, and on the fact that although
Adjournment debates are normally lonely affairs, others are
present for this one. Does she agree that the cost the Government
would incur in helping schools to provide, for example,
adrenaline pens is, in the overall scheme of things, very small
indeed, and should not be a barrier to supplying schools with a
little bit of extra cash to procure a few adrenaline pens which
may save lives?
My right hon. Friend is right, and I pay tribute to him for
raising this issue during Prime Minister's questions only last
week on behalf of Benedict and his family. Other countries have
taken action, and we have the opportunity to do the same.
The Benedict Blythe Foundation has worked tirelessly under
Helen's leadership to investigate the issues facing pupils with
allergies, and—most importantly—to make policy recommendations to
solve them. That work culminated earlier this year with the
publication of the REACT report, and I want to summarise its
findings; it is the first time that the House will have heard
them. The authors investigated 2,198 schools across England, 10%
of the total, and found, concerningly, that a third of them had
no clear policy on allergies—not that they had a reduced or
non-mandatory policy, but that they had no policy at all. Many
schools did not record allergy incidents accurately, and, most
worryingly, half of them did not have lifesaving medicine on
site. Only two years ago, a young child died at school because
another child had thrown a piece of cheese at his face. His
reaction was so extreme that he died that day. If he had had
access to lifesaving medicine, that child would still be with
us.
Extensive research has made it clear that allergy provision in
schools is a lottery. Some schools go above and beyond to create
an allergy-safe environment, but the lack of an allergy policy in
others is absolutely wrong. I ask Members to imagine being the
parent of a child with an allergy. How would they feel about
sending their loved one to school not knowing whether he or she
would be safe? Too many parents are not confident about sending
their child to school, which unfortunately means that we are
seeing too many children with allergies miss days of school. That
is a priority for us to tackle. Following the pandemic, we know
just how damaging it is not to have our children in school.
I am afraid that the root cause of these issues is a lack of
clarity in the Department for Education guidance, and a lack of
accountability mechanisms to ensure that existing guidance is
followed. In the previous debate on this matter, which was
organised by the hon. Member for Strangford (), we discussed the need for that to be part of Ofsted
inspections, because it should be part of the mechanisms. The
medical conditions statutory guidance currently given to schools
does not mention allergies specifically, and there is evidence
that some schools consider allergies to be a dietary issue,
rather than a medical consideration. That is just not good enough
and, frankly, it is dangerous. Some 70% of schools do not have
the recommended allergy safeguards in place, which demonstrates
that having well-meaning guidance is just not sufficient. I
therefore ask the Minister to consider issuing new, bespoke
guidance to all schools on how to be allergy safe. That would not
be onerous; it would simply require an email to go out to every
single school in the country.
Drawing on extensive research and expert opinion, the REACT
report has produced a set of safeguards that would ensure that
our education system is safe for all pupils. First, it argues
that every allergic reaction should be recorded and reported. I
am not surprised that the Department for Education may well
under-recognise the importance of this issue, because that is not
taking place. It would allow schools with a high number of pupils
with allergies to get more support, and it would give decision
makers the information they need to make informed decisions and
ensure the intelligent distribution of resources.
Secondly, all schools should have a specific allergy policy,
including an anaphylaxis plan. Allergies are potentially
life-threatening and are so common that they should have their
own bespoke policy, separate from those for other medical
conditions.
Thirdly, every school should have an individual healthcare plan
for every child with an allergy, and it should be reviewed with a
doctor. Seemingly mild allergies can quickly morph into severe
reactions, and attempts at distinguishing between children on the
basis of allergy severity are misled and potentially damaging.
Just because a child is assessed as having a low allergy risk
does not mean that they will not have a severe reaction one day.
Mandating individual healthcare plans for every child with an
allergy would create a safe environment.
Fourthly, funding should be given for every school to train its
staff in how to administer adrenalin auto-injectors in an
emergency. Each school should also keep a spare inhaler and
antihistamine as part of a bespoke, allergy first-aid kit.
Fifthly, all school staff should receive basic training in
allergy awareness management and emergency response, which is
also about a duty of care for them. If I were a teacher, I would
not want to operate in that environment if I did not know how to
respond should a child in my care have a severe allergic
reaction. It is vital that we give teachers the tools they need,
and that we ensure that best practice is learned from schools
with comprehensive allergy plans.
Finally, accountability mechanisms should be established to
monitor and support schools as they implement their allergy
plans. Sadly, as we have seen, there is already a gulf between
what the Government recommend on allergies and what schools are
actually implementing. As we introduce better and clearer
guidance, we must ensure that it is followed across the
country.
Adopting those policies would ensure that children with allergies
can go to school safe in the knowledge that they will not be
exposed to danger. There is no way to eradicate all risks when it
comes to allergies, but we can make schools as allergy-safe as
possible. Every parent needs to know that their child's condition
is not being ignored, dismissed, misunderstood or played down,
and teachers also deserve that surety.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire
() pointed out, our
international partners have shown that change is achievable.
Sabrina's law requires Canadian schools to provide allergy and
adrenaline auto-injector training for all teachers and staff.
Minnesotan law mandates that all allergic students have access to
emergency medicine and an individual healthcare plan. The Allison
Rose Suhy Act incentivises schools in Ohio to train both staff
and students on allergy awareness. Elijah's law ensures that
daycare employees in New York are trained to recognise
anaphylaxis and to administer adrenaline. Finally, Amarria's law
requires public schools in Virginia to stock adrenaline
auto-injectors. There is no reason why children in the UK should
face greater risks at school than their peers abroad. These
allergy provisions have been common practice across the US,
Australia and Canada for decades, and we now need to adopt them
here.
The policies set out by the Benedict Blythe Foundation in the
REACT report show how we can not just match international
standards, but surpass them and make the UK the safest place in
the world for pupils with allergies to attend school. This is a
condition on the rise. More and more children have allergies, and
we need to take action. I therefore ask the Government to commit
to producing Benedict's law, and to meet me to discuss how it can
be implemented. We are not looking at significant costs or
wanting to put more duties on teachers. We want to make sure that
teachers feel that they are in a safe workplace where they can
take the action needed to do what they care about most:
protecting and supporting their children and young people to
become strong adults with bright futures ahead of them.
In memory of Benedict Blythe and in honour of his mother Helen's
tireless advocacy, we should ensure that no pupil with an allergy
and their family ever again have to choose between feeling safe
and medical safety and taking up education. No parent should live
in fear that their child will not come home from school one day
as a result of a condition that can be prevented. There is no
reason for any child to die in our schools of an allergy. We just
need simple allergy policies, adrenaline auto-injectors and to
take action. We can save lives by taking action now. I thank the
Minister in advance for his consideration, and I look forward to
hearing his response.
6.40pm
The Minister for Schools ()
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton () for bringing this debate to
the Floor of the House. I greatly value the opportunity to hear
her insights today and elsewhere on this important topic. I must
first take a moment, as she did, in memory of Benedict Blythe,
who died at his school in December 2021 aged just five years. I
was saddened immensely to hear of that unimaginable tragedy, and
I know that Members from all parts of the House join in offering
our sincerest condolences to his family, to other families who
have lost children in such circumstances and to those who have
suffered what must be terrifying near misses. No parent should
have to go through that.
Colleagues will appreciate that it would not be right or proper
for me to comment on the details of Benedict's individual case
while we are awaiting the outcomes of the coroner's inquest. I
can confirm that last year officials from the Department for
Education met Benedict's mother, Helen Blythe, to hear about the
important work she has led through the Benedict Blythe Foundation
to raise awareness of how best to protect children with
allergies. I echo the words that my hon. Friend used of Helen
Blythe, speaking of her fortitude and strength. I commend Helen
for those efforts and her commitment, and I commend
parliamentarians who have supported this work—not only my hon.
Friend, but my right hon. Friend the Member for North West
Cambridgeshire () and the hon. Member for
Strangford ().
When parents send their children to school, it is only right and
natural that they expect them to be kept safe. For parents of
children with allergies, there is that additional level of
concern. Allergies can be complex conditions and can range
enormously in severity. Although today we have been speaking
mostly about food allergies, not all allergens are foods, which
makes the issue more complicated again. Allergies themselves are
therefore a highly individual and varied condition that require
individualised responses. That is why the Government have put
into place a number of pieces of legislation, as well as guidance
to schools and parents covering a range of areas and
circumstances. I have heard the calls to strengthen the law
around allergies and references to voluntary approaches and
voluntary guidance. I stress that section 100 of the Children and
Families Act 2014 places a legal duty on schools to make
arrangements for supporting pupils at their school with medical
conditions, and that includes allergies.
I know the Minister is diligent, conscientious and caring in all
that he does, and the tone he is adopting clearly shows that.
While he is absolutely right that there is legislation and
guidance for schools as to how to deal with this issue, I and
others would say that it is too general in nature, and it leaves
much discretion with the schools as to what precisely they do in
the event of a child having an allergic reaction. I urge him to
reflect and to consider tightening the laws, so that they become
mandatory. That should be in a limited way, but nevertheless we
need some mandatory rules for schools, rather than them being
left as general and vague as they are at present.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I acknowledge the
gravity of what he says. Of course, we are talking about
conditions that can be very varied, and the responses that are
called for can be quite different. Schools know their pupils
almost best; they, working with parents, who absolutely know
their children best, are in the best place to enact that. I want
to be clear that the guidance that accompanies what I have just
been outlining is statutory guidance supporting pupils with
medical conditions. It is not voluntary, and governing bodies
must have regard to it when carrying out their duties.
I apologise for intervening on my right hon. Friend because I
know that he wants to make progress, but this might be something
that he could commit to today. The problem, as I set out in my
speech, is that too many schools think that allergies are a
dietary issue, not a medical issue. If the next mailer to all
schools reiterated that we see allergies very clearly as a
medical condition, and reminded them of their statutory duties,
that could go a long way to forcing all schools to take the
action that he rightly says that they can take. This would not be
as top-down; it would reiterate the regulations, and allow
schools to take the action that they need to.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about awareness and
understanding, and the role of communication in that. I will
speak a little more about communication, but there is always more
that we will need to do. Of course, I would also be happy to
continue the conversation with her about how best we do it.
The guidance makes it clear that schools should ensure that they
are aware of any pupils with allergies, and should have processes
in place to ensure that the allergies can be well managed.
Practices to identify children with such needs could include
wristbands, or, as my hon. Friend said, having a photograph of
the child alongside details of their allergy in the kitchen or
serving area of the school. I stress again that individual
schools are best placed to work with parents to put in place the
most effective responsive system.
In addition to the section 100 duty, schools are subject to other
requirements. In the UK, food businesses must inform consumers if
they use any of the 14 mandatory allergens as ingredients in
their food. How allergen information should be provided depends
on whether the food is prepacked, non-prepacked or prepacked for
direct sale. This includes food provided by institutions such as
school caterers, who have a responsibility to protect the people
in their care. As colleagues may know, rules on the provision of
food labelling are set out primarily in the retained 2014
regulations, and these include a requirement to identify the
presence of any of those 14 mandatory allergens to consumers.
The Department for Education also works closely with the Food
Standards Agency, which provides free food allergy and
intolerance training online. This offers practical advice to
local authority law enforcement officers and anyone wanting to
learn more about food allergies, such as those working in the
food manufacturing and catering industries. The FSA also offers a
whole host of other training, technical documents and
guidance.
Turning to auto-injectors, these can be vital when a child is
suffering an allergic reaction. To support schools in meeting the
needs of children with allergies, the Government passed the Human
Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2017, which allow schools to
obtain and hold spare adrenaline auto-injectors for
administration to pupils in an emergency. The Department for
Health and Social Care has produced guidance on the use of
adrenaline auto-injectors and emergency inhalers in schools,
including the purchase of spares. The guidance makes it clear
that any adrenalin auto-injectors held by a school should be
considered a back-up device, rather than a replacement for a
pupil's own adrenalin auto-injector.
Beyond this, families have a vital role to play in managing their
child's condition. We are very clear with schools that no one
will know a child's needs as well as their parents, and that
schools should work closely with parents. The parents of children
with allergies will work with medical professionals and other
organisations to plan for and navigate their child's specific
needs. Parents should be fully consulted and engaged in any
discussions relating to their child's allergy.
Schools will also need to ensure that the parents or carers of
children with food allergies or intolerances are given
information about the allergenic ingredients used in the foods
available. Good communication between parents and schools on
allergies and pupils' needs is essential to keep children safe
while in school.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton referred to the
role of Ofsted, further to the points made by the hon. Member for
Strangford, and the importance of schools having a clear
allergies policy and involving parents in discussions about the
needs of their children. Ofsted inspectors gather a wide range of
evidence to make their judgments, and evaluate the experience of
individuals or groups of individuals, which can include the
experiences of pupils with medical needs, if the issue is raised
by parents or pupils. In an inspection, inspectors will assess
the effectiveness of safeguarding at the school, which includes
the extent to which pupils with specific needs and
vulnerabilities are kept safe. The safeguarding culture is also
explored by speaking to leaders and staff about their work and
the messages that pupils receive through the curriculum.
During last November's Westminster Hall debate on pupils with
allergies, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton
informed the House that she would write to all schools in her
constituency to ask them to adopt the voluntary schools allergy
code, co-created by the Benedict Blythe Foundation, the
Independent Schools Bursars Association and the allergy team.
Taking her lead, Ministers in the Department for Education
instructed officials to share a link to the code in our
fortnightly email bulletin to schools issued on 1 March. That
communication also reminded school leaders of their duties
concerning pupils with allergies.
For younger children, the early years foundation stage framework
sets the standards that all registered early years providers must
meet for the learning, development and care of children from
birth to age five. The EYFS states:
“Before a child is admitted to the setting, you must obtain
information about any special dietary requirements, preferences
and food allergies that the child has, and any special health
requirements.”
Providers must have a policy and procedures for administering
medicines, and they must have systems for obtaining information
about a child's medicine needs and for keeping this information
up to date. Training must be provided for staff where the
administering of medicine requires medical or technical
knowledge.
Within all early years settings, there is a requirement for at
least one person with a current paediatric first aid certificate
to be on the premises and available at all times when children
are present, and they must accompany children on outings. The PFA
criteria are clear that the training should include being able to
help a baby or child who is suffering from anaphylactic
shock.
Last September, we changed the adequate supervision requirement
in the early years foundation stage to be explicit that adequate
supervision while children are eating meals means that children
must always be in sight and hearing of an adult, rather than
within sight or hearing. This will help practitioners to see the
signs of an allergic reaction as soon as they are present, and it
will allow them to act quickly.
The new early years educator level 3 qualification criteria will
also come into force in September, ensuring that early years
practitioners have an understanding of allergies and anaphylaxis.
In April 2024, the Department published nutrition content on the
“help for early years providers” online platform. The content
includes a section on allergies and anaphylaxis to help early
years providers prevent allergic reactions, to recognise the
signs and symptoms of an allergic reaction or anaphylactic shock,
and to know what to do if they occur.
On 22 April, the Department launched a consultation on the
safeguarding requirements in the EYFS. One of the proposals is
the inclusion of a safer eating section, which includes
requirements for all staff to be aware of the symptoms and
treatments for allergies and anaphylaxis, and to obtain allergy
action plans for children with allergies. We plan to publish our
response to that consultation in the autumn.
I have outlined the various pieces of legislation and guidance
that cover allergies in school. Given the complexity and
individual nature of food allergies, the Government's view is
that it would not be appropriate for the Department for Education
to legislate for food providers to cater for all requirements.
However, through legislation, the minimum standards for school
food have been clearly set out. Beyond that, headteachers, school
governors and their caterers are best placed to make decisions
about their school food policies that take into account local
circumstances.
I think we find ourselves in absolute agreement that schools
should own their own allergy policies. Perhaps the Minister can
reiterate from the Dispatch Box his request for schools to bring
forward allergy policies focused specifically on the children who
have allergies. They need to hear a clear instruction from the
Minister at the Dispatch Box. We are clearly in agreement:
schools should be leading on allergy policies in their schools,
but the freedom of information research done by the Benedict
Blythe Foundation shows that not enough of them do so.
I agree. As I said earlier, understanding and awareness are
vital, and communication is what gives rise to them. That is why,
following my hon. Friend's lead, we issued a communication by
email. I totally accept that there will be more to do, and I am
more than happy to carry on that conversation with her.
Overall, we feel that the existing mix of national requirements
and local flexibility is the appropriate approach to this complex
and extremely important issue, though we always keep the policies
under review. We welcome feedback on how we can better support
schools' implementation of them. I am pleased that DFE officials
now sit on the expert advisory group for allergy, convened by the
Department for Health and Social Care, and the National Allergy
Strategy Group, which recommends priorities for allergy policy
across Government. I encourage stakeholders to feed any ideas and
points on these issues to officials via that route. I conclude by
thanking once again my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and
Melton for bringing forward this important debate.
Question put and agreed to.
|
