Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) I beg to move, That this House has
considered pupils with allergies in schools. I sincerely thank hon.
Members for making time for this afternoon’s debate. I am ever
mindful that the reason why people are here is that they want to be
here. The House has risen—even the Adjournment debate is over—and
those of us here today are here with a purpose, which is to put
forward our request. We are very pleased to see family
members...Request free trial
(Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered pupils with allergies in
schools.
I sincerely thank hon. Members for making time for this
afternoon’s debate. I am ever mindful that the reason why people
are here is that they want to be here. The House has risen—even
the Adjournment debate is over—and those of us here today are
here with a purpose, which is to put forward our request.
We are very pleased to see family members of allergy sufferers in
the Public Gallery, and we are here to fight for them. I thank
them for the books they have made available to us. I read Helen’s
story about her wee boy in today’s paper. I know that she sent
the story of her child to all MPs and explained why this debate
is so important.
May I say what a pleasure it is to see the Minister in his place?
I do not believe I have had the opportunity to address him in his
current capacity, even though I am a regular in Westminster Hall.
I am really pleased, as always, to see my good friends the shadow
Ministers from Labour and the SNP in their places, and other
colleagues who have made an effort to be here.
What are we doing today? We are raising the important issue of
allergies in our local schools. I am the Member for Strangford in
Northern Ireland, where education and health are devolved, but I
will make a case for Helen, her family and her wee boy Benedict.
The debate is important not just for those of us present, but for
people across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland.
Food allergy affects around 7% to 8% of children worldwide, or
about two children in an average-sized classroom of 25, which
gives a perspective on what the impact can be. It highlights the
sheer volume of young people and parents on whom allergies
impact. It is so important that we address this issue in the
right way. I understand that the Minister has a copy of my
contribution and the four requests at the end of it—the four
requests that Helen and others in the Public Gallery have also
made.
I am the DUP’s health spokesperson, and I am grateful to be able
to make the case on behalf of all representatives and those who
could not attend but wish to be here. Our schools are safe places
for our children—somewhere to grow and learn—which is the way we
want it and the way it should be. If we want that to be the case
in our schools, we need to make sure that it is safe for that to
happen. Children spend at least 20% of their waking hours in
school, and further data shows that 18% of food allergy
reactions, and approximately 25% of first-time anaphylactic
reactions, occur at school. Collectively, we are asking for
action on behalf of parents who have lost loved ones and those
who are concerned for the future, because the figures highlight
the need for better strategies to tackle allergies in schools.
Anaphylaxis due to food allergy occurs more in schools than in
any other setting. The very nature of schools is that they are
places where kids socialise, chat and eat food. Schools are our
focus for this debate, and it is important that we get things
right.
Around 30% of allergic reactions in schools occur in children
previously not known to have a food allergy. With that being the
case, we really need this debate to highlight the issue. There is
no doubt that we all have some experience of allergies and
intolerances—there is probably not a family that does not—and
maybe some Members in this Chamber have an intolerance. One of my
sons had some allergies when he was smaller. The lady I was
speaking to before the start of this debate was talking about
airborne allergies and how this triggers asthma. My second son
had asthma; he was born with it. We were told that although he
had psoriasis when he was first born, when the psoriasis left him
the asthma would come—there was a combination. I am not medically
qualified to say that; it is what the nurses and doctors told me.
We were always very cautious about the things he ate, and ensured
that anti-allergen tablets were taken.
One of my staff members has a son who has a severe allergy to egg
whites. That is another example. He has spent numerous nights in
hospital over the last 20 years of his life, and his mother has
had to be especially vigilant when he has been offered certain
vaccines because the vaccines themselves can complicate the
issue. We are able, over the years, to build an understanding of
how to cope with these allergies, but for younger children, who
are being exposed to new foods and new surroundings, it is not
always that easy, especially in schools.
Every debate I do, I learn something; I have clearly learned
today that there are probably airborne allergens in this room at
this moment and, if we have an allergy, we could react to one of
those. However, what is responsible for my being here today and
for making this debate happen is the story of Benedict Blythe and
engaging with his mother, Helen. I understand that she sent an
email to every MP. I got it, and the issue caught my attention,
as it did for other hon. Members here today and those who
unfortunately cannot be here but wish that they could be. Helen
is utterly fantastic and a devoted voice for this cause. It was
her energy, commitment and dedication that ensured that we all
found out about this issue.
Benedict, Helen’s son, was allergic to milk, eggs, nuts, sesame,
soya, chickpeas and kiwi. He also had asthma. In 2021, he
collapsed at school and died in hospital. I am ever mindful that
Helen has fought this campaign through the Benedict Blythe
Foundation. She wants every school to have an allergies policy
and tailored healthcare plans for all pupils with allergies, so
if I could ask for just one thing at the end of this debate, on
behalf of Helen and others, that would be the request. The
Minister already knows what my requests are, and I am very
confident that he will be interested and dedicated and committed
to making those changes.
The relevant petition garnered some 13,000 signatures, so it is
not a small petition by any means. It galvanised the opinion of
many across this great United Kingdom, and that is also part of
the story. If people have not heard the story, or read the story
in the paper today, I encourage them to do so, please.
I know that Helen has raised the case of her son, Benedict, with
many Members across this House, and not just that—there are
thousands of people across the United Kingdom, including me and
my constituents in Strangford in Northern Ireland, who support
her wholeheartedly in doing this. I will just give some
background to Benedict’s story, if I may.
This debate is taking place on the eve of the second anniversary
of Benedict Blythe’s death. Benedict was only five years old at
the time. He was a lovely young boy with so much to live for. The
Benedict Blythe Learning Foundation was established in 2021 in
memory of five-year-old Benedict following his collapse at school
and subsequent death from anaphylaxis. He was an enthusiastic
learner—as children are at that age. Children are almost like a
sponge because they want to learn it all and they want to learn
it right now. And that was what Benedict did. He loved to “play
numbers” and learn about the natural world. Inspired by his
passion for knowledge, exploration and play, the Benedict Blythe
Foundation seeks to support other children to have the same
positive relationship with learning and education, regardless of
their ability, and to remove barriers to education. If young
Benedict had survived, he could well have gone on to become an MP
in this House, such was his interest in making things change and
making things happen.
Benedict was allergic to dairy, eggs, peanuts, sesame and
chickpeas. Helen and her husband, Pete, are still waiting for the
inquest to shed light on how and why their son died, but they say
the horrifying speed with which he became ill—I understand that
there is an inquest to be heard—demonstrates the need for pupils
with allergies to be better protected at school. That is one of
the requests of this debate.
Helen and her husband, all of us here and all those in the
Gallery today are calling for new legislation to make that
happen, including mandatory allergy and anaphylaxis training,
statutory allergy policies, individual healthcare plans for all
children with allergies and spare adrenalin pens in every school.
We have many requests, but that is our core request. That would
allow children with allergies to have a fantastic experience of
school and enjoy all the fun of learning and social interaction
with their friends, despite their allergies. It is about having a
normal life and yet, at the same time, having an agreement to
deal with the problems of allergies.
There is a need for schools to be better prepared to manage the
increasing number of children with allergies entering a
classroom. In September 2017, the UK Department for Education
published guidance on the use of adrenalin auto-injectors in
schools. It states that from 1 October 2017 schools may purchase
AAI devices without a prescription for emergency use in children
who are at risk of anaphylaxis. Schools may administer their
spare AAIs to children in emergencies but only to a pupil at risk
of anaphylaxis, where both medical authorisation and written
parental consent for use of the spare AAI has been approved.
To parallel the UK’s guidance, Northern Ireland’s version issued
by the local Department of Education back home, updated in
October 2018, essentially reflects the DFE document. In Northern
Ireland, while schools are expected to develop policies to
support pupils with medical needs, including allergies, and
review them regularly, there is no statutory requirement for them
to do so. It is a guideline that schools will follow. Today, we
are trying to underline the need for legislation that can make
that compulsory. While everyone says, “Yes, we will do that,” we
need to make sure there is enforcement to do that. That is not
about being critical of anybody and it is not about pointing the
finger; we are just saying, “Let’s get it right.”
I can speak for the schools in my constituency that go above and
beyond to cater for pupils with medical needs. The extent of the
allergies that children have can vary, but ensuring that teachers
are aware of the correct protocol, no matter how severe the
allergy, is the core of the solution. Support for children with
allergies can vary significantly across the country. Examples of
best practice exist and include some in my constituency of
Strangford and across Northern Ireland where schools find ways to
be inclusive and keep children safe.
Whenever a mum or dad leaves a child in school, they are fairly
confident that their child is safe. We need to make sure that the
child is safe. That often depends on teachers going above and
beyond that guidance. For every instance of good practice, there
are many cases of severe allergic reactions and, unfortunately,
sometimes death. The lack of universal standardisation of school
allergy policies is a concern given that around a quarter of
allergic reactions to food in children occur at school, some of
which result in fatalities from anaphylaxis.
I am conscious of time so I will briefly make some comparisons.
There are international jurisdictions that have schemes in place
that could provide us as a collective with inspiration. I mention
some, such as Canada and Sabrina’s law, the first of its kind
ever, which requires Canadian public schools to create and
execute anaphylaxis plans to reduce allergen exposure and
communicate with parents, students and staff about allergies. It
is about getting the communication thing right. That has to be
done so that everyone understands, and people know what to look
out for and what to stop the children from taking. It also
requires allergy and AAI training for educators and for
individual plans to be created for high-risk students. US states
such as Colorado, Michigan and Ohio have laws to ensure students
have access to AAIs and that schools keep adequate stocks. Again,
that is precautionary but it is important that it is done.
Schools must also have individual health plans in place to keep
students safe.
The Benedict Blythe Foundation has already achieved some
important milestones. Just last week, on 23 November 2023, the
foundation launched a schools allergy code, co-created by
parents, educators, clinicians, the Benedict Blythe Foundation,
the Independent Schools’ Bursars Association and The Allergy
Team. The foundation is to the fore in leading on that, and we
congratulate it. The code is a guide to best practice in
achieving a whole-school approach to allergy safety and
inclusion. If you wanted a guide or legislative framework, hang
it on this, because it will make the difference. It has been made
available as a free resource to all schools to ensure good
allergy management in their settings, and it is based around four
key principles.
First, take a whole-school approach. Every member of the school
community should understand allergy and their responsibility for
reducing risk, from pupils and parents to staff members. Allergy
management is not just the responsibility of the catering and
medical teams; it is everybody’s responsibility. I know the
Minister understands that and will respond to that point when he
speaks. Secondly, information about the school’s approach to
allergy must be communicated and given to people clearly and
frequently. Thirdly, there must be clear governance and risk
management—create an awareness of allergy risk across all
activities and processes. Fourthly, be ready to respond. Have
systems, processes and medication in place for emergencies.
Earlier this year, the foundation launched a petition, which as I
said has garnered some 13,000 signatures. It called for the
current voluntary guidance to be replaced by a funded, mandatory
requirement for all schools. The petition has four asks—the
Minister has access to them, and I am hoping that others have as
well. They are that we need to have an allergy policy in place;
to co-create an individual healthcare plan for all pupils with
allergy and anaphylaxis; to hold spare adrenaline auto-injector
pens in schools; and to train school staff and teachers in
allergy awareness and allergy first aid.
The wonderful thing about the request I am making today is that
it will not cost the earth. The Minister knows the figure,
because I have mentioned it already. To be fair, he already knew
it; he did not need me to tell him. As a gentle reminder, the
steps would cost less than £5 million per year to implement in
England. That is a modest sum to save a life. It would ensure
that current best practice is implemented nationally, making a
significant difference to keeping children safe while providing
peace of mind for parents, who send their children off to school
and have every intention and hope of seeing them at the end of
the day. What we have here is value for money in these trying
financial times.
As Members may be aware, I have worked very closely with the
Oliver King Foundation to campaign for public access to
defibrillators, especially in schools. I always put it on the
record if somebody does something right, so I am grateful that
the Government took forward my recommendations. I am no better
than anybody else—far from it—but the Bill that I presented on
this issue was taken up by the hon. Member for Castle Point
(). Along with Ministers with
responsibility for health and education at that time, she
encouraged me to take this on board. The Minister here today and
the Minister who preceded him made sure that defibrillators were
available in schools and took steps to fund that.
Once again I make a plea to the Government, and it is about a
cause similar to the one they endorsed before, which undoubtedly
saved lives. We can stop severe illness and death from allergies
among young people in schools if we have the correct provisions
in place. I do not care who does it, as long as somebody does it.
I am not worried about whether it is a ten-minute rule Bill that
I introduce or somebody else introduces. Just do the job—that is
the most important thing—and take the credit.
As I always state, there is an understanding that education is
devolved and that it is not the sole responsibility of the
Education Secretary to introduce law in Northern Ireland, but I
believe we can—indeed, we must—initiate a joint approach to
ensuring that the whole of this great United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland has a strategy in place to protect
young people with allergies.
Dr Adam Fox, professor of paediatric allergy at Guy’s and St
Thomas’s Hospital—not too far from here—has stated:
“There is a clear need for a change in culture around how food
allergies are managed in schools. The UK”—
unfortunately—
“lags behind other countries and children are suffering and even
dying as a result. By really educating the whole school community
about food allergy we can turn things around.”
That is my request to the Minister in this debate. It is a
request that all of us, including those in the Gallery, will make
collectively, and we look forward to a positive response from the
Minister.
(in the Chair)
I remind Members who wish to catch my eye that they should
bob.
3.20pm
(Rutland and Melton)
(Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer,
and it is lovely to swap roles, given the other jobs we hold. I
thank the hon. Member for Strangford () for securing this debate. He is truly such a good
man, as I think everyone in this place would say. It speaks so
much to the kind of man he is that, having received an email from
someone far away from his isles—although only 10 minutes from my
home—he put this subject forward for debate. I thank him on
behalf of the entire House for doing so, because it goes to the
heart of the kind of man that he is.
I also, once again, welcome Helen and her husband, who are here
from Stamford. I thank them for all their work with the Benedict
Blythe Foundation; it works not only to raise awareness of the
risks facing children with allergies, but to support children
with unique brains and approaches to learning. I will touch on
that briefly, because it matters so much that we remember the
children for whom we are here fighting.
Helen’s son, Benedict, had an incredible talent for maths, which
I wish I had. In fact, I often say: who do I look up to most in
the world? People who can do maths. At the age of one, he could
complete a 24-piece puzzle independently; by 18 months, he was
doing pie charts; and by the age of four, he was reading books
with diagrams of the central nervous system with a maths ability
equivalent to that of a 10-year-old.
Benedict was clearly blessed with incredible intelligence, but he
also had asthma and allergies. His first allergic reactions were
identified when he was just four months old, and I cannot imagine
how scary that must have been at the time for his parents.
However, with careful planning and prevention, they were able to
keep him safe. When our children grow up and go to nursery and
school, it means that trust has to be put in those around them.
That was not easy and, as the hon. Member said, when he was aged
just two, Benedict’s nursery worker gave him cow’s milk, which
caused him to immediately throw up. They only admitted that they
had given him something that he was allergic to after his lips
and tongue had swollen so severely that he needed urgent medical
treatment.
Two years ago today, on 1 December 2021, Benedict woke up and
went to school. There he ate a snack that caused him to collapse
shortly afterwards, and he died later that day in hospital, aged
just five. That changed the lives of his family and friends
forever. I want to place on record the condolences of this entire
House. As parents, we all struggle with this, and my child is
just five, so I struggle in particular to do this. But I am so
pleased that, after a year of fighting, his family finally get
their debate—a year later—and also that it comes on the eve,
suggesting to me that this is fate and it was meant to be as a
tribute to Benedict.
Benedict’s story, however, is not unique. Although we as parents
do everything we can to keep our children safe, more support is
needed, particularly in the education system, where children
spend so much of their time. Worryingly, 18% of food allergy
reactions and 25% of first-time anaphylactic reactions occur in
school, and that will only rise. Between 1998 and 2018, 66
schoolchildren died from allergic reactions.
A really important point was made about behaviour change and
understanding change. I do not remember discussions about
allergies when I was growing up. I think they are on the rise—I
am not an expert, so I will not pretend to give a medical
diagnosis—but I think it is very difficult for those in a
position of authority, when they did not grow up having to worry
about allergies, to suddenly run an institution where this issue
has to be of fundamental importance. As we heard, at least two
children in every school classroom have an allergy.
What this means is that, every day, thousands of children walk
into schools uncertain whether they will get the support they
need that could mean the difference between life and death. I
have seen the impact and what it means for a young child to be
nervous when they sit down with their peers at lunch, not knowing
what will happen if some milk were to be poured on to their skin.
For some children, including one in my family, that is how severe
their allergies are. The vigilance needed and the pressures that
it puts on the shoulders of these children is significant. That
is partly why what we are talking about today is so important. If
we can lessen the stress and the vigilance that these children
are living with, we would be doing them a good turn—not to
mention the lives we would save.
We know that every education professional goes into the
profession because they love it and want to support children.
Nobody would want to see a child exposed to life-threatening
allergens in their school. The problem, however, is that the
current system allows risk, which I believe could be tackled. As
we have heard, the current Department for Education guidance is
voluntary, which results in vastly different standards in
schools, and even between different teachers and classrooms.
I think we are all very united in our list of asks today, but I
will go through them. We should replace the voluntary advice with
mandatory regulations—that is at the basis of ending disparity.
We should require every school to implement and maintain an
allergy policy. Let us make talking about what allergies are a
standard part of the school conversations that children have,
from the youngest age. Let us talk to our children about what it
is to be a responsible classmate. Let us make it as egregious to
mock a child who has an allergy as it is to be racist. When we
read the allergy stories in this booklet and hear children talk
about having their allergy weaponised against them in the
playground, we see we can deal with that by making that abhorrent
from the moment children start school—they have those
conversations in their classrooms.
In addition, we should require every school to work with pupils’
parents or guardians to create individual risk assessments for
pupils with allergies. A child’s allergy and the support they
receive has to be reviewed by a GP every single year. It should
be a requirement for the school to sit down every year and go
through that GP assessment with the family. That would create
additional work, but this is about saving lives. The reality is
that the type of things that a child will do changes every
year—they might start going on foreign trips, for example. I
remember that being a real cause for concern for the parent of
the child in my family, who said, “Well, I don’t know what will
happen when he goes on a school trip. That is not the same as a
school canteen, where we know it is dealt with and there is a
plan.” We have to make sure that the yearly review happens,
because the circumstances and the way in which children are
taught changes.
We also need to keep spare adrenaline auto-injector pens
available to treat emergency cases. The good news is that the
lifetime of those pens is getting longer. We need to make sure
that staff are EpiPen-trained—not necessarily every member of
staff, but a significant number—just as they are trained in CPR.
We need to end the distinction drawn by some within education
between minor and severe allergies: according to clinicians,
there is no such thing. The factors in place on a day where a
child has an allergic reaction determine whether or not that is
minor or severe, so we need to overcome that.
Finally, we should ask for all school staff and teachers to be
fully trained in allergy awareness and first aid response,
because, as we heard, many children do not know that they have
allergies. As part of that, in every single staff room—this can
be done; I know schools that do it—there should be posters of
children’s faces with the allergies that they have, and the
three-point plan for what has to be done if they have an allergic
reaction, so that teachers get used to knowing that. On an
average day, the teacher who identifies a child having an
allergic reaction in the playground or the canteen might not be
their standard teacher.
As we heard, taken together, those measures would cost less than
£5 million a year to implement, and they would mean that more
children go to school in safety. For my part, I will write to
every school in my constituency and ask them to adopt the schools
allergy code. I will ask them to come back to me and we will
offer whatever support they need to go through that.
Once again, I want to thank Helen and Pete; I am so proud that it
is someone from our communities in and around Stamford who is
going to change lives. I am confident that Benedict’s legacy will
change and save lives. Some 13,000 people around this country
felt strongly enough to sign the petition: 282 were in Stamford
and Grantham, and 81 were in Rutland and Melton. Each one of them
will be a member of a family who has been touched by this.
Allergic reactions and deaths are avoidable. I urge the
Government to take these few simple steps. I know that there are
many demands on the Education Minister’s time. Some people want
to raise other conditions—asthma, for example, which Benedict
also had—but allergies are the most likely to result in death and
are therefore far more of a priority. There is an urgent need to
support teachers. so that they can feel confident, take the
pressure off children and make sure that parents know their
children are safe. I urge the Government to take these steps to
honour Benedict Blythe’s legacy and take what the House believes
is a meaningful step that would save lives and ensure that we do
not continue to see the heartbreaking reports of children dying
in our schools for what could, with the right measures put in
place, be as preventable as possible.3.30pm
(Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton
(); that was an excellent
contribution and I associate myself with everything she said.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford () on securing the debate, as is customary in these
proceedings. In this instance, my congratulations are about more
than simply adhering to the parliamentary protocols, because this
stuff really matters. Hopefully, actions that might follow from
this debate could save the lives of scores of young people in
this country, so the stakes are high. I therefore thank him both
for securing this debate and for his detailed contribution.
During my comments, I will echo many of the things that have been
said. As the chair of the all-party group on allergy, I can say
with some confidence that the allergy community, countless young
people suffering from allergic diseases and their extended
families will be grateful for his intervention.
This is our third or fourth debate on allergy over the past year
or so, and that is great, because it marks real progress. For
years, it has been difficult to get the scale of the allergic
epidemic registered in Parliament and by Government policymakers.
It is so frustrating that over the past couple of decades, a
series of detailed, authoritative reports has consistently
demonstrated the prevalence of allergic disease, patient needs
and the lack of UK service provision, yet their policy
recommendations have generally been ignored. Hopefully that is
now changing, as is reflected in not just the number of debates
we are having, but the changing dialogue secured over the past
two years with Government.
A previous care and mental health Minister, the right hon. Member
for Chichester ()—now the Secretary of State
for Education—demonstrated real commitment in this area and began
to grip questions of allergy, primarily from a public health
perspective. Consequently, since 2021, we have established a work
programme and an ongoing dialogue between civil servants and
representatives from the National Allergy Strategy Group to
support the development of a national plan. From a public health
perspective, we are beginning to see real and, quite possibly,
sustained progress. Hopefully, following today’s debate, we might
complement those positive recent developments with progress for
those suffering from allergic disease in our schools.
It is worth remembering what we are talking about. Allergy is a
hypersensitivity reaction to substances or allergens that are
normally tolerated. Examples include peanuts, milk, shellfish,
cats, medicines and grass pollens. They can trigger harmful
antibodies and the release of inflammatory chemicals, causing
symptoms such as sneezing, itching, rashes and falls in blood
pressure. However, they may also cause airway narrowing,
shortness of breath, wheezing and swelling that, if in the mouth,
throat or airway, cause severe difficulty in breathing and can be
life-threatening.
About one in three people—more than 20 million people—in the UK
have an allergic-related disorder, 5 million of whom have
conditions severe enough to require specialist care. Fatal and
near-fatal reactions occur regularly due to foods, drugs and
insect stings, and they have been increasing over recent years.
For example, hospital admissions due to allergy rose by 52% in
the six years to 2017-18. Admissions from anaphylaxis, which is a
rapid onset of life-threatening reactions, rose by 29%.
Prevalence rates for allergy in the UK are among the highest in
the world, especially among young people. Each year’s new births
add some 43,000 cases of child allergy to the population in need.
This is not just happening here in the UK: the prevalence,
severity and complexity of allergies have increased on a global
scale over the last 60 years. Allergy UK has described allergy
as
“the most common chronic disease in Europe.”
More and more children struggle with allergic conditions. Some
50% of British children may have an allergy, and those numbers
are rising. However, this goes beyond the statistics: for the
growing number of people living with allergic disease in the UK,
their condition can have a significant and negative impact on
their lives and those of their families.
As I mentioned, the lack of interest in allergy at national level
has been frustrating. Over the past two decades, there has been a
series of specialist reports recommending action. They have
highlighted the poor management of allergy in the NHS and
specialist services, as well as in primary care, and they have
identified the negative impact of an allergic condition on a
person’s life and the lives of their family members. It is
frightening and restrictive to live with a condition that can
cause a severe or life-threatening reaction at any time.
However, there has been no wide-scale change in how we protect
people with allergic conditions and respond to anaphylactic
reactions, and a change is therefore needed. I think we can all
appreciate how parents of children with allergic conditions
suffer. A child unexpectedly vomiting, struggling for breath or
breaking out in a rash is terrifying. That is why this debate
about allergy in schools is so important.
At least a fifth of a child’s life is spent away from parents at
school. More anaphylactic reactions occur in school than anywhere
else, yet in a third of anaphylactic cases, teachers and staff
did not know that the child had an allergic condition in the
first place. That is a horrifying statistic: in a third of cases,
they did not know that the child had an anaphylactic condition.
It is against that backdrop that parents rightly worry that
schools and teachers have inconsistent and vague guidelines on
planning for anaphylactic reactions.
Although there are awkward gaps in the guidance, there is
mandatory guidance on supporting children with medical
conditions, but that does not provide details on specific
conditions such as allergy. There is specific guidance on using
adrenaline auto-injectors, but that is not mandatory. Teachers
are often unaware of which pupils in their class have an allergic
condition so strong that it might induce an anaphylactic reaction
and may need an EpiPen response. Quite correctly, parents are
therefore nervous about how schools manage their children’s
allergic conditions. Moreover, pupils might forget what they are
allergic to and need teachers to remember, but teachers may not
know or may be unprepared to respond to a severe allergic
reaction.
Things can go wrong because of no one’s fault. Let us take the
case of Karanbir Cheema. When this 13-year-old boy was eating
lunch at school in west London, a classmate flicked cheese at his
face—the sort of behaviour that is common on most school dinner
tables across the country—but Karanbir was allergic to milk. He
had a severe anaphylactic reaction and was taken to hospital.
Tragically, two weeks later, he died. Schools might well respond
to tragic occasions such as that by introducing no-nut bans or
creating special zones in dining halls for milk allergies. Those
are well intentioned, but they tend to isolate children from
their friends, so they might inadvertently increase the
vulnerability of children to social exclusion and the type of
teasing that we heard about.
The best response to improve the immediate reactions of staff is
to improve their knowledge and capacity to act. The key point is
that changing schools’ management of allergies is not complicated
or expensive. Many countries and governments around the world
have simple legislation. New York state, for example, requires
daycare employees to recognise anaphylaxis and administer EpiPens
properly. Virginia requires schools to stock auto-injectors,
which teachers are trained on. That also protects the schools
from liability. As we heard, almost 20 years ago, Canada required
its state schools to create anaphylaxis plans reducing exposure
to allergens and to communicate with parents and students about
allergies, and it required individual plans to be made for all
high-risk students. That approach seems sensible and pragmatic.
It would not be expensive or complicated to develop a similar set
of requirements for British schools.
I will repeat the request that has been made this afternoon. The
Benedict Blythe Foundation suggests four mandatory requirements
for all schools, which seem entirely sensible to me. First, it
suggests that every school must have an allergy policy in place,
and secondly, that parents and schools must co-create an
individual healthcare plan for every pupil with allergy and
anaphylaxis —similar special educational needs plans are
currently created for students with disabilities. Thirdly, it
suggests that schools must hold spare adrenaline auto-injector
pens, and fourthly, that school staff and teachers must be
trained in allergy awareness and allergy first aid. It is
straightforward to learn how to use an EpiPen. As we have heard,
those combined recommendations would cost less than £5 million a
year to implement in England. They would end patchwork guidance
and provide peace of mind for both parents and teachers.
One final point I would make is that it is important that we use
such debates to put on record our appreciation for all the
practitioners and healthcare professionals dealing with
allergy—including Allergy UK, members of the National Allergy
Strategy Group, Anaphylaxis UK, the Natasha Allergy Research
Foundation and all the researchers seeking new remedies—and for
the insights of all the families and campaigners fighting on
behalf of those with allergic conditions. These people do a
fantastic job, but they need help, because lives depend on
it.
It should be the right of every allergy sufferer to receive a
quality standard of care. Every sufferer should be able to feel
confident about the food they consume, and every young person
should remain safe at school. Allergy conditions are becoming
more prevalent and commonplace, which makes it extremely
important that we make schools safe and protect children with
allergic conditions.
I urge the Government to respond favourably to the debate and the
recommendations that have been outlined this afternoon by Members
from parties on both sides of this House, because the lives of
many of our young people may well depend on it.3.40pm
(Washington and Sunderland
West) (Lab)
I also commend the hon. Member for Strangford () for securing this very important debate and agree
with the tributes from the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton
(), who also gave a very
powerful and moving speech. I also welcome Benedict’s parents and
others who are with us today; as hard as it was for the hon. Lady
to talk about Benedict—and she did so really well—I can imagine
how hard it is for them to be here and to listen to the debate. I
just want to place on record our thanks to you for everything you
have done and for being here today.
We are all here today to discuss the incredibly urgent need for
school-wide, mandatory, standardised allergy policies—not just
guidelines—that would standardise provision and protection in all
schools across the country and end the postcode lottery of
provision that so tragically results in up to six children—I
think that is the figure the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton
gave—dying in their schools each year, with many more children
experiencing horrific anaphylactic reactions. In the case of
coeliacs, I think the term is “being glutened”, which leads to
long-term damage to the gut, as well as to short-term, painful
symptoms. At the very least, we need to discuss the need for
schools to have strict and standardised anaphylaxis plans and
in-date and accessible EpiPens.
In 2022, it was found that around 30% of allergy reactions in
schools occur in children previously not known to have had a food
allergy, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham
and Rainham () in his excellent speech, or in children with an
allergy that had not been communicated to school staff. That is
why it is so unfair to rely on parents of children with allergies
to have to be the only experts in the room, left to self-advocate
and protect their children from afar. That is also why we cannot
limit EpiPen administration to children with recorded
allergies.
I want to take the opportunity of today’s debate to focus on a
specific issue relating to allergies in schools. Food allergies
in schools come to a crucial flashpoint of risk at lunchtime.
Over the last few months, as chair of the all-party parliamentary
group on school food, I have spoken to and been lobbied by more
and more key charities and stakeholders on the allergy safety
campaign, including organisations like the Natasha Allergy
Research Foundation, Coeliac UK and the Benedict Blythe
Foundation. They have shared with me what are, frankly, horror
stories of children being served allergen-contaminated food at
school; contamination from other children’s packed lunches;
children being made to eat alone in classrooms away from their
peers; and children missing out on lunchtime activities,
Christmas lunches and teddy bears’ picnics—all because
allergy-safe provision was never prioritised. Their children’s
needs meant that they were excluded and forgotten—to keep them
safe, I suppose.
At the launch of the Food Foundation’s fantastic report on better
school food just yesterday, knowing that this debate was coming
up today, I spoke to several young people who received free
school meals about their experiences of food in their schools. I
asked them about how allergies complicate their lunchtimes and
the lunchtimes of their friends. I heard from them that their
friends with allergies end up limited, from all the choices on
offer, often to just a jacket potato or the same food every
single mealtime. I heard of young people who have had to move
schools to access school food that would be safe for them. The
lack of access to allergy-friendly food is compounded
exponentially when a child is in receipt of free school meals and
often limited to just £2.50 per meal. The level of provision is
just not there. Caterers need additional support, funding and
training to make varied and nutritious allergy-friendly
meals.
My son-in-law is coeliac. One day, God willing, I may have
grandchildren, but I am well aware that those grandchildren may
have coeliac disease, so this fear is very real for me. I am also
aware, therefore, how much more expensive gluten-free food is and
how important it is not to have any cross-contamination in food
preparation or serving areas. You only have to cook with my
daughter, when she knows we are cooking for the wider family,
including her husband, to realise how careful you have to be. She
screams at me, “Don’t use that spoon!”—because it is a wooden
spoon that I have stirred a pan of pasta with. It really, really
does matter, but it takes extra space and money, none of which
schools receive for this issue. I am also aware how hard school
chefs and catering teams work to try to meet all the needs of
their pupils with allergies, but the Government need to help them
with proper, standardised policies, and the appropriate funding
and training to enable them to do this properly.
Rightly, if we had a young person with, say, a religious food
requirement, like kosher or halal food, we would facilitate their
provision on the grounds of equality and inclusion. Similarly,
access to suitable food for a young person with, say, a special
educational need or disability, who had a feeding and food need,
would be recognised as part of the reasonable adjustments that
they require under the law. If we can recognise how important it
is for schools to adhere to equality and inclusion laws for food
for a variety of pupils, surely for allergies, many of which may
be damaging to health or life-threatening, as we have heard, it
is as—if not more—important to do the same.
I have long fought for school food for all children, and I have
long fought for high-quality, nutritious school food. As the
prevalence of food allergies continues to rise at the rapid rate
of about 5% each year—we could have a whole debate on why that is
the case, because it is interesting in and of itself—the gulf of
inequality of access will continue to grow, unless we do
something about it.
Children should not lose their ability to be well fed at school
because of something that could be recognised as an additional
need. I am not suggesting that allergies need to come under
education, health and care plans or be labelled as a disability.
But the point stands that the health and wellbeing—and sometimes
survival—needs of these children are causing them to be excluded.
That is discrimination, and that is at best; at worst, it can
cause their death. That is why I implore the Minister to urgently
implement the schools allergy code that we have heard about in
detail today, and I look forward to his response.
3.49pm
(Motherwell and Wishaw)
(SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
I, too, thank the hon. Member for Strangford (), who has given us an insight into allergies in
schools and how they should be treated. His remarks were personal
and well thought-out. Other Members who contributed to the debate
teased out the issues a bit further. My contribution will be from
a Scottish perspective—I do not think anyone here would expect me
to do anything else.
I thank those from the Benedict Blythe Foundation who have come
here this afternoon. These debates are important because, as the
hon. Member for Strangford said, we all learn new things. It must
have taken great courage to come here. Speaking as a granny, I
know that it is not easy for you, so I appreciate you coming.
Education, as Members know, is devolved in Scotland, and it is
therefore up to the Scottish Government how they do things.
Across the UK, as we might already have heard, 41 million people
and between 5% and 8% of children live with a food allergy. The
UK has some of the highest prevalences of allergic conditions in
the world, with 20% of the population affected by one or more
allergic disorder. Allergies are very common in children, and
although some go away, many do not—we have heard about the awful
consequences of that today.
New legislation for food businesses in Scotland and the rest of
the UK came into force on 1 October 2021. Known as Natasha’s law,
it requires businesses to label all food that is pre-packed for
direct sale with a full list of ingredients, with the 14 major
allergens emphasised. Such information can help parents and
students to know what they are buying and whether it is safe for
them to eat and to take into school. Food Standards Scotland
chief executive Geoff Ogle said:
“This is a huge step in helping improve the quality of life for
around two million people living with food allergies in the
UK—with 200,000 of those living…in Scotland. If these changes
drive down the number of hospital admissions caused by food
allergies, which has increased threefold over the past 20 years,
and prevent further tragic deaths such as Natasha’s, that can
only be a positive thing.”
I mention that because we are looking for more than just guidance
from all Governments in relation to allergies in school.
The Scottish Government have published guidance for NHS boards,
education authorities and schools on supporting children and
young people with healthcare needs, including allergies, in
school. Education authorities are required to work
collaboratively with NHS boards and to ensure that there is
adequate and effective provision in place in the schools in their
areas to support the healthcare needs of young people.
As noted in the guidance, the rights, wellbeing, needs and
circumstances of the individual child or young person should at
all times be at the centre of the decision-making process. Under
article 24 of the UN convention on the rights of the child, all
children have a right to the highest attainable standard of
health and to healthcare services that help them attain that.
Any child or young person at school in Scotland may require
healthcare support or the administration of medication.
Healthcare support or medication for the management of long or
short-term conditions is therefore really important and must be
available. Schools must arrange specialist anaphylaxis training
for staff where a pupil in the school has been diagnosed as being
at risk of anaphylaxis. The specialist training should include
practical instruction in how to use the different adrenalin
auto-injector devices available.
As part of the medical conditions policy, the school should have
agreed arrangements in place for all members of staff to summon
the assistance of a designated member of staff to help administer
an AAI, as well as for collecting the spare AAI in the emergency
kit. Wherever possible, children and young people should be
empowered and supported to manage their own healthcare needs and
work in collaboration with the school health team, school staff,
and their parents and carers to reach an understanding about how
their health affects them and how their healthcare needs will be
met. That option is not always possible but, when practicable, it
should be exercised.
Children with allergies are often excluded from social or
fundraising activities in school. That has an impact on them, and
it should not happen in any school in the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland.
indicated assent.
I think I got it right that time—as the hon. Member for
Strangford indicated. We play that game occasionally here.
Social or fundraising activities, including charity bakes, can be
really dangerous for children with severe food allergies. When
teachers are buying food—as they often do—for things such as
Christmas parties, they should be aware of these things, so that
they can eliminate the risk of children coming into contact with
food they are allergic to.
If this debate encourages the Minister to bring in not just
guidelines but regulations, everyone in this Chamber will be
extremely happy, and I know that the Benedict Blythe Foundation
will be too. I therefore encourage the Minister to look at the
four asks and to see what he can do to help everyone
involved.
(in the Chair)
I call to speak on behalf of
the Labour party.
3.56pm
(Newcastle upon Tyne
North) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under you as Chair, Mr Stringer. I
congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford () on securing this debate on pupils with allergies in
schools. I absolutely agree with the comments the hon. Member for
Rutland and Melton () made about the hon. Member
for Strangford—he is the reason we are here debating this
incredibly important topic—and I congratulate her on her
incredibly powerful and heartfelt speech. I also congratulate my
hon. Friends the Members for Dagenham and Rainham () and for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs
Hodgson), who have campaigned on this issue for many years in
this place.
School should be a place where every child can learn and enjoy
themselves—a place where parents can have confidence that their
children will be safe and comfortable. Unfortunately, as we have
heard at length today, when a child has a serious allergy, school
can be a cause of great stress and anxiety for them and their
parents. Many charities and campaigners, such as Allergy UK, the
Benedict Blythe Foundation and the Natasha Allergy Research
Foundation, work incredibly hard to raise awareness of allergies
and to support important research on them. Much of that work is
driven by very difficult circumstances, and I pay tribute to
Helen Blythe and her husband, who are here today and who have
campaigned tirelessly in the face of their incredibly painful
loss.
I regularly make the point that the challenges faced by children
and young people do not just disappear at the school gate.
Increasingly, schools are places where a whole range of issues
that children and young people faces impact their learning and
development. However, this debate is specifically about allergies
and their impact in schools. Allergy UK research highlights that
more than 20% of the UK population is affected by one or more
allergic disorder and that 2 million people have been diagnosed
with a food allergy. Young children are most commonly affected,
with 6% to 8% of children suffering from food allergies.
According to the British Medical Journal, hospital admissions for
food-induced anaphylaxis have tripled over the past 20 years,
with the largest increase among children under the age of 15.
Twenty per cent of allergic reactions among young people happen
in a school setting, and 30% of allergic reactions in schools
occur in children not previously known to have had a food
allergy, where schools are unaware of the allergy. As we have
heard, stress and anxiety around allergies can lead to some
children skipping meals or missing out on social events because
of concerns about the capacity to accommodate them and manage the
danger they may be in.
There is some fantastic practice happening in schools, including
significant planning and consideration to support children with
allergies, but it is vital that best practice is applied across
the board and that guidance is kept up to date with the latest
developments. Why would we settle for anything less?
In response to a petition earlier this year, the Government
pointed to the statutory guidance for schools, “Supporting pupils
at school with medical conditions”, which makes it clear that
schools should be aware of any pupils with allergies and have
processes to ensure they are well managed. They also pointed to
guidance to school caterers on displaying allergen information on
products. I understand that the Department of Health and Social
Care also issues guidance to schools on the use of adrenaline
auto-injectors and emergency asthma inhalers.
The Department for Education clearly has a role to play alongside
the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the
Department of Health and Social Care, so I have a few questions
for the Minister. I understand that the Department for Education
recently declined the invitation to sit on the expert advisory
group on allergy. I would be grateful if he can confirm whether
that is the case and explain the Department’s reasoning, given
the statistics that have been outlined today. Will he also set
out how the Department for Education monitors the effectiveness
of the guidance on allergen management and ensures that it is up
to date and in line with best practice? What action is he aware
of across Government to support forward-looking research into
potentially life-saving treatments and approaches to
allergies?
We know about the scale of the challenges in our schools—the
workforce crisis means that far too many teachers and support
staff are overworked and undervalued —but the safety of children
is paramount. The upmost priority for school leaders, teachers
and staff is their responsibility to keep the children in their
care safe.
I look forward to the Minister’s response. I hope he will reflect
on the points that have been raised and respond to the asks from
charities, schools and experts in this area.4.02pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education ()
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford () for securing this debate. It is typical of him to
bring to Parliament incredibly important issues that do not get
the attention they should. He does so consistently in Westminster
Hall and the main Chamber, and we all admire and appreciate
that.
I start by offering my deepest condolences to the family of
Benedict Blythe, who died two years ago tomorrow. No parent
should experience what Helen has gone through. I was deeply
saddened to learn of the story before I came here and to hear
more detail today; the colourful picture that my hon. Friend the
Member for Rutland and Melton () painted of what Benedict
was like moved us all. My heart goes out to any family
experiencing that sort of loss. I just wanted to say that at the
outset to Helen and her husband. As she knows, the coroner’s
inquest into Benedict’s death is ongoing, so I am unable to
comment on the details of his case, but officials from the
Department met her in May to hear about the excellent work she
has been doing through the Benedict Blythe Foundation to raise
awareness of how best to protect children.
I can, of course, address the more general points that hon.
Members made about allergies and our policies. I understand how
worrying allergies can be for parents. As my hon. Friend the
Member for Rutland and Melton said in her moving speech, when
parents send their children to school, it is only right and
natural that they expect them to be kept safe. If their child has
an allergy, that adds a particular level of concern about what is
happening in the school day.
Allergies are complex conditions that can range enormously in
severity. Not all allergens are foods either, as hon. Members
know, which makes it more complicated to manage them. I welcome
the schools allergy code that the foundation launched this week,
which will provide helpful guidance to schools on how to
implement allergies policies; we would be keen to encourage
schools to look at that code.
I know that the Minister cannot commit to anything at this
moment, but I would very much appreciate it if I could pick up
that point about the code with him, maybe in a few weeks’ time;
we could see whether that resource could be put on the Department
for Education’s website or look at the best way to ensure that
all schools around the country are aware of it, not just through
the foundation but through the Department. That would be a
meaningful way to spread that code across the country. I know
that he cannot commit to that now, but would he be happy to pick
that up with me in a few weeks?
I am very happy to have that conversation with my hon.
Friend.
Turning to the statutory duties on schools, hon. Members have
called for voluntary guidance to be replaced with a funded
mandatory requirement. We have heard from each Member who has
spoken in this debate about the four things that they would like
to see: an allergy policy in place; the co-creation of an
individual healthcare plan with all pupils with allergies and
anaphylaxis; spare adrenaline auto-injector pens in schools; and
the training of school staff and teachers in allergy awareness
and allergy first aid.
Let me start with the first of those points. Section 100 of the
Children and Families Act 2014 places a legal duty on schools to
make arrangements to support pupils at their school with medical
conditions. The accompanying statutory guidance from
2015—“Supporting pupils at school with medical conditions”—is not
voluntary; governing bodies must have regard to that guidance
when carrying out their section 100 duty. The guidance makes it
clear that schools should ensure that they are aware of any
pupils with medical conditions and have policies and processes in
place to ensure that those conditions, including allergies, can
be well managed. The guidance is clear that policy should also
include how the processes will be implemented, what should happen
in an emergency situation and the role of individual healthcare
plans in supporting pupils. It says that
“The school, healthcare professional and parent should agree,
based on evidence, when a healthcare plan would be inappropriate
or disproportionate”
and that the policy should also set out
“how staff will be supported in carrying out their role to
support pupils”
including
“how training needs are assessed, and how…training will be
commissioned and provided.”
It states that
“any member of school staff providing support to a pupil with
medical needs should have received suitable training.”
Members also raised the important issue of adrenaline
auto-injectors. The regulations already allow schools to obtain
and hold injectors and, in an emergency, they can be administered
to pupils the school knows have a risk of anaphylaxis but whose
own devices are not available or not working, perhaps because
they are broken or out of date. To support schools to meet the
needs of pupils with allergies, the Department of Health and
Social Care has produced guidance on the use of adrenaline
auto-injectors and emergency inhalers in schools, including the
purchase of spare adrenaline auto-injectors.
Will my hon. Friend give way on that point before he moves
on?
Yes, but I am going to have to get through my speech.
We have a little more time. On that point, would the Minister
accept that there is a real problem that, while the
auto-injectors are stored in schools, not many staff go through
any form of training on how to use them? We have to be honest, in
this day and age when we see Americanism being imported to our
country, teachers are scared that they will end up in law courts.
The Department has a responsibility to support staff so that they
are confident enough to provide that life-saving aid. Does the
Minister agree, therefore, that there should be funding or a
process in place? Does he agree that training should be provided
in some way, even if it is just a YouTube video that every single
teacher must watch, so that teachers have the confidence to
administer auto-injectors? That is a concern that we hear
repeatedly, and there is currently no provision.
Staff should have training in it—that is absolutely right. That
is part of what we are requiring. We continually review the
policies in this area, and if we feel that there are
deficiencies, or indeed inconsistencies, which I suspect is the
biggest problem, we will do whatever we can to ensure that they
no longer occur.
I wonder if I am following you correctly—you will confirm whether
that is true or not. We have asked for this provision to be not
just voluntary, but mandatory. In other words, we are seeking for
it to be put down in legislation—given the cost factor is so
small—to make it happen and change lives. I suppose the core
question that we are asking, Minister, with great respect, is
whether you can confirm that that is something you are prepared
to look at. It is really important.
We have a difference of opinion about the requirement on schools.
The Department’s view is that what is set out in the statutory
guidance should require schools to do most of what is being
described, and the question then is whether that is happening in
every place or not. If what we expect to be happening under the
Children and Families Act and so on is not happening, then we
definitely want to ensure that it does happen.
I thank the Minister for that response; I think that gives us
some clarity. From what we have all said in our contributions so
far, there are cases where that is not happening—wee Benedict is
an example of a case where, with respect, it did not seem to
happen. And if it did not happen, then we wish to see it
happen.
Yes. The question with these things is always whether the laws
are already there. Do you need new laws, or are the laws already
there but not being enforced? I have heard from Members today
that we are clearly not seeing in every case the practice that we
want to see. I will discuss with officials what more we can do on
that, including in promoting the code.
Can I ask the Minister one very last question? It will be the
last one, I promise—that is not something I have ever said before
in this room. [Laughter.]
Well, I have a bunch of witnesses to that. I will give way.
If the point is around the Department believing that this is
being done rightly, does the Minister know whether Ofsted, when
it reviews schools, takes into account whether or not the allergy
guidance and section 100 is being upheld adequately? I am aware
that this falls between two briefs; it is not just the Minister’s
brief. If that is not the case, could he write to me? That may
actually be the solution: we say that when Ofsted inspects
schools, because the loss of life is so high—66 children—this
should be part of its reviews. That way, it can say it is meeting
its requirements and commitments to children—to keep them safe
and ensure it is doing everything to look after them in every
single way it can, as we would all wish it to be doing. That may
be the solution that fixes this gap that, between us, we seem to
be coming to.
(in the Chair)
Order. This has been a good and important debate, but I must
remind hon. Members that interventions should be short. I did not
want to intervene previously, but I also remind Members that I am
not involved in the debate—you should not refer to other Members
as “you”.
I will write to my hon. Friend to clarify that particular point.
Ofsted has a role in inspecting safeguarding, which incorporates
a wide range of vulnerabilities that children may have. I do not
know the answer to her specific question about section 100, so I
will write to her on that afterwards.
I have no idea where I was in my speech at this point, so I will
turn back to the code. On the points in the code on taking a
whole-school approach and having clear governance and risk
management, the statutory guidance makes it clear that all
state-funded schools should have a policy for supporting children
with medical conditions. This should be reviewed regularly and be
accessible to parents and school staff.
The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson)
talked about school catering policies. Schools are expected to
make reasonable efforts to cater for pupils with particular
requirements—for example, as she touched on, to reflect medical,
dietary and cultural needs.
In deciding what is reasonable, schools and their caterers are
expected to take into account factors such as the type of diet
required by the child with allergies, the number of children in a
similar position and the cost of making suitable food available.
In exceptional circumstances it may be considered reasonable for
the school not to make special provision for particular
children—for example, where this would be very difficult and
costly to achieve.
Turning specifically to 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. It states:
“Before a child is admitted to the setting the provider must also
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
“systems for obtaining information about a child’s needs for
medicines, and for keeping this information up-to-date. Training
must be provided for staff where the administration of medicine
requires medical or technical knowledge.”
Within all early years settings there is a requirement for at
least one person who has a current paediatric first aid
certificate to be on the premises and available at all times when
children are present, and who must accompany all children on
outings. The PFA criteria is clear that the training should
include being able to
“help a baby or child who is suffering from anaphylactic
shock.”
In September, we changed the adequate supervision requirement
within EYFS to be explicit that adequate supervision while
children are eating means that children must always be within
“sight and hearing” of an adult; not within sight or hearing, as
was the case previously. This will help practitioners to be able
to notice the signs of an allergic reaction as soon as they
present themselves, and allow them to act quickly. The new early
years educator level 3 qualification will come into force next
September. That will ensure that early years practitioners have
an understanding of allergies and anaphylaxis.
I will have to write to the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member
for Newcastle upon Tyne North (), about the expert
advisory group on allergy—this is the first time I have heard of
that. Likewise, I will write to her about monitoring the
effectiveness of the allergens policy. I think her question on
research into life-saving treatments is probably better directed
to the Department of Health and Social Care, but I will obtain
for her the information about what that Department is doing in
that regard.
Having outlined the various legislation and guidance that covers
allergies in schools, the Government’s overall position, given
the complexity and individual nature of allergies—which was set
out very clearly by the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham
(), who chairs the APPG—is that the legislation we have
in place is proportionate, and allows schools to respond to
individual circumstances and the specific needs of their pupils,
but, as I said earlier, we keep these policies under review. We
welcome feedback on how we can better support schools’
implementation and awareness of these polices, particularly to
try to remedy any inconsistencies between what we require from
them and what is happening.
I will write to hon. Members about those points, and will meet my
hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton. I thank the hon.
Member for Strangford again for securing this important
debate.
4.18pm
First, I am so very pleased that we have had what I would refer
to as a united front across the political parties. I think we all
recognise the importance of this debate. The hon. Member for
Rutland and Melton () set the scene well from a
personal point of view. We all owe the family and all the
supporters here a great debt. Today—probably in our own hesitant
but very sincere ways—we put the case forward for a family who
have grieved, and for those we all wish to make a change for.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton said that the voluntary
must become mandatory—how true that is—and be made part of the
school conversation. Allergy assessment by GPs should be
alongside and in conjunction with the school. There should be
adrenalin pens training at every school as well. I apologise to
the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (), because I was not aware of the extent of his
knowledge until today; he has brought his vast experience to this
debate, and we thank him so much for that. There was that
positive response from the school, but the allergy numbers are up
and the stats are quite shocking, as he illustrated so well. That
allergies happen so often at schools underlines the depth of this
debate and why it is so important.
The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson)
always brings personal input to a debate. By her very nature, she
sums up the compassion we all have—that is what I have always
thought about her and I think others see that too. She spoke of
the incredibly urgent need for equal access to EpiPens, of other
allergies and of safety in schools. These can be life-changing
matters for children, as can nutritional food and people’s diets.
All such things need to be more than normal; we need to make them
mandatory. We thank her for that contribution.
We are regularly in debates with the hon. Member for Motherwell
and Wishaw (), and I was pleased to have
her Scottish input. Is something safe to eat? Is it safe to bring
to school? Allergies are up threefold, and children should be at
the centre for allergies and food safety, clearly.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne
North (), brought her knowledge
and interest to this subject matter, and we thank her for that.
School staff need to be skilled in keeping children safe and with
their requests. She also reminded us that the reason why we are
here today is that we are inspired by the painful loss of others.
How true that is.
I thank the Minister very much for his response. Being the
positive person I am, I suggest that I am correct in assuming
that the Minister will take what we have said in this debate to
the relevant Minister and that, where his remit falls within our
debate matter, he will look much more towards the mandatory than
the voluntary. I think that is our request; that is what we are
seeking and asking for. If that happens, I believe that today
this debate will have been won. The hon. Member for Rutland and
Melton suggested that Ofsted might have a role to play, and I
think that is true. The Minister needs to act on that. He
mentioned what happens voluntarily in schools, but we want to
take that to a different stage.
Today, this House has done the family and all those in the Public
Gallery proud. We have put forward viewpoints on their behalf. I
think that the Minister has grasped that we are seeking the
change from voluntary to mandatory—from voluntarily to
legislatively making the changes. We owe a great debt to the
family for all that they have done in educating us on what is
necessary, and to all those in the Public Gallery. Let us make a
change for wee Benedict.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered pupils with allergies in schools.
|
