Andy Slaughter
MP for Hammersmith and Chiswick · Labour · United Kingdom
“I welcome the Bill, and thank the Government for introducing it and bringing it back to the House before the summer recess. It is the result of years of committed campaigning, led by the families of the victims and survivors of Hillsborough.”
“I know that case means a huge amount to the hon. Lady as a constituency MP, and I thank her for all the work she does on the Justice Committee. I think we have only begun to scratch the surface. This Bill will be a transforming piece of legislation. I will make one final comment.”
“This would be a new, independent public body that collated, analysed and followed up on the conclusions and recommendations made after official investigations into deaths and state failings, in order to improve oversight and implementation of them.”
“I think I have taken enough time, but I thank the Member for that intervention. This afternoon, the Justice Committee signed off a new major report on legal aid, which will be published on Friday. Those who are interested can read more there.”
“In the time that I have, I will focus my remarks on clauses 1 to 16, which create a new appeals body for immigration and asylum cases known as the independent immigration appeals authority.”
“From that visit, our diagnosis was that these are operational problems. There are two key questions for the House: will the IIAA fix the problems with the current system, and will it be truly independent from the Home Office?”
The complete record
Every one of 7,200 lines we hold for Andy Slaughter, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 17 of 144.
“That is the statement from the chief executive officer at Imperial, Professor Tim Orchard, and those words should resonate with the Minister.”
“The trust goes on: “It is clearly very disappointing that we will not now be funded to complete these schemes before 2030.” It also states that “some funding to progress to final business case approval and to support enabling work” should be provided, and “we are awaiting a response in terms of a decision and a funding allocation.” It then talks about the business plans that it is going to put forward. In rather more emotive but absolutely accurate language, it says: “If we waited until 2030 to start building works at St Mary’s it would become impossible to patch up our oldest facilities, many of which house key clinical services. As the provider of London’s busiest major trauma centre and host of the NHS’s largest biomedical research centre, that would be hugely damaging for the health and healthcare of hundreds of thousands of people”.”
“In preparation for this debate today, it said: “the main funding for our schemes has been pushed back beyond the original commitment of 2030 as other schemes have been added to the programme and prioritised. We had two schemes in the original list of 40 hospitals to be built by 2030: a complete rebuild of St Mary’s Hospital in Paddington; and extensive refurbishment and some new build at both Charing Cross Hospital and Hammersmith Hospital”— confusingly, the Department of Health classifies the two hospitals of Hammersmith and Charing Cross as one scheme, but it certainly affects the two hospitals.”
“It is a significant sum of money, but it is to make those essential and world-class hospitals fit for purpose for decades going forward, not just to patch them up. It was always going to be difficult, and it was disappointing that the hospitals were in cohort 4 and would just squeak in by 2030—that is when the work would be completed. We would have a newly built hospital at St Mary’s and refurbished hospitals at Charing Cross and Hammersmith over that time. That is why it was so disappointing when they were moved out of that without any further future date being given. What is at stake here? Because there has been so much information, I do not want to use my own words, but the words of the trust itself.”
“It was rumoured that the money that would have been gained by selling most of the land at Charing Cross might have gone into the St Mary’s scheme, which, by common consent, is the hospital that most needs emergency work. But although the bill for essential repairs on the three hospitals is about £350 million—far and away the biggest repair bill of any hospitals in the country—if we want to make those hospitals fit for the 21st century, the actual cost, which I believe is accepted by Department of Health and Social Care officials, will be about 10 times that, between £3 billion and £4 billion. If that seems an unspecific figure—my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North will say more about this—it is because it depends to some extent on what receipts can be received from land value and moneys at Charing Cross.”
“In 2012, an Orwellian programme called Shaping a Healthier Future, which had been the product of two years’ secret work by the consultants McKinsey, said that several A&Es should close, including the one at Hammersmith, and that Charing Cross should be demolished and replaced by primary care and treatment services on the site. It was the biggest closure programme in the history of the NHS. Sadly, we did lose the A&E at Hammersmith in 2014, but after a herculean battle fought over seven years by community groups, such as Save Our Hospitals, and by Labour local authorities, particularly that in Hammersmith, that battle was won and Charing Cross had a reprieve and would go on being a major hospital. That happened in 2019.”
“We are told there is £20 billion, which sounds like a lot of money—it is a lot of money—but it is not the £32 billion to £35 billion that the Health Service Journal says would be needed to complete all the schemes that have at one time been put forward for the new hospital programme. Those are legitimate grievances, but I do not have time to deal with them all today. I have time only to deal with the one matter that I have already raised. I need to give a little bit of background. As I have indicated, the hospitals have a long and illustrious history, going back more than two centuries in the case of Charing Cross.”
“I understand that there is confusion associated with the new hospital programme—as would be true of any scheme that came in under the aegis of the former Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip—about whether those were new hospitals or not. Almost a year ago, I asked the then Prime Minister about the new hospitals—the “new” hospital at Hammersmith that opened in 1902, and the “new” hospital at Charing Cross that opened in 1818—but I will not focus on that point today. This is about the funding and the timetabling of the scheme; frankly, the Minister can call them whatever he likes. There have been a number of schemes moving in and out. At one stage there were going to be 48 new hospitals. I think 128 bids came in for the extra eight places and five were successful.”
“How much will the budget be for that, and will it come out of the £20 billion new hospitals by 2030 programme? What is the total budget for the rebuild schemes at each of the three hospitals? Is this secured funding, and when will it be allocated? By what date or dates will the works for each hospital be completed? I have put together what I think are the answers—I have done my sleuthing—but I really need to hear it from the Minister’s own mouth, this afternoon if possible, or in a follow up if he needs to use that. I might also add a sort of meta-question to that: when will I receive a response to the email that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North sent to the Secretary of State on 28 May, which raised those same issues?”
“I need to deconstruct what has happened since that time, because there has been some misleading presentation of the facts. In order to clarify this, I sent some rather key questions to the Minister in advance of this debate. Essentially, looking at the statement that was made, the Secretary of State said, in respect of those seven schemes: “The work will start on those schemes over the next two years, but they will be part of a rolling programme where not all work will be completed by 2030.” —[ Official Report , 25 May 2023; Vol. 733, c. 479.] That is the key change, as far as we are concerned, in relation to that statement. The questions that still sadly remain unanswered are these: what works will be done at each of the three hospitals before 2030?”
“To be clear, this debate is about one thing specifically: the defunding and removal from the 2030 new hospital programme of three major hospitals—Charing Cross, Hammersmith, and St Mary’s—all of which form part of the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust. They are teaching hospitals, major emergency and trauma hospitals, research hospitals, academic hospitals, tertiary hospitals—hospitals with a huge national and international reputation—but they are also local hospitals for my constituents and those of many other Members. In the Secretary of State’s statement on the new hospital programme on 25 May, seven of the schemes that had previously been in the 40 hospitals scheme were removed from that programme with respect to completion by 2030—we must be careful in our words here.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered the New Hospital Programme and Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Sir Mark. I understand that our proceedings may be interrupted for some time, but let us make a start. I am delighted to see my west London colleagues here—my hon. Friends the Members for Westminster North (Ms Buck), for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury)—and indeed the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), and, of course, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), without whom no debate would be complete, perhaps to remind us that although this is to some extent a local or regional issue, it has much wider implications.”
“We will live with the consequences of that, and we will continue to campaign as we have done for our wonderful hospitals and local NHS. The Government do a disservice if they are not straightforward and clear in the message they send out.”
“There has been some work, with £20 million spent on preparing plans so far, but we are in limbo at the moment. We are suffering repeatedly from misinformation. I understand that this is a highly contentious political area. The chairman of the Conservative party will, if the Boundary Commission proposals go through, be the MP who covers Charing Cross Hospital. That is no excuse for putting forward matters that are simply misleading to my constituents and many other people. That does us a great disservice. We all want to see these hospitals thrive, in the interests of patients, staff, management, the trust and the hospitals themselves. Therefore, I will end my comments, because I want to give others an opportunity to contribute. What I need from the Minister today is clarity and honesty about what is happening.”
“An energy centre is mentioned. There will need to be a new energy centre, partly because we have major supply issues in west London, and the existing energy supply would not supply modern, state-of-the-art hospitals. All that is true, but what is not true is that this is somehow the beginnings of the major works of the scheme. That is a fig leaf to cover the fact that the major works have been postponed beyond 2030. The fact is that they are not in the 2030 programme or the current spending review. I ask the Minister again: when will the work be done and what funds have been assigned? Yes, there has been preparatory enabling work, but does that come out of the £20 billion? What is the Government’s commitment to the major work of rebuilding those hospitals?”
“The cardiac work is nothing to do with the new hospital programme; it is part of the ordinary work, as is the refurbishment of wards. The temporary ward at Charing Cross will be necessary, but not until the main funding for the floor-by-floor hospital renewal refurbishment is ready to go. Some greater clarity would be helpful on those very contentious matters. My first question is: what are the enabling works? What does that mean? We have heard several definitions. The trust says: “We do not yet know when we will be able to start work.” There has been mention of surveys. Of course there will have to be surveys before the works, which are estimated to cost several billion pounds, start. We are hoping to get a significant sum of money for the business case—perhaps as much as £200 million. This is about rebuilding the three main hospitals.”
“485.] There are 47 words in that statement, and four errors had to be corrected in the ministerial correction. That may be an all-time record; I do not know. Some are more important than others. There are bids, not one bid. We are not starting to build; we will start to build at some time in the unspecified future. There is no cardiac elective recovery hub; there is a cardiac catheter lab. The idea that we are just moving cardiac services to the Hammersmith Hospital site would be a surprise, given that St Mary’s is a world-leading cardiac hospital at the moment. I accept that mistakes happen, but there were other errors in that statement. It implied that works are under way, whereas it is common consent now that they have not yet started.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution, and I entirely endorse what she said. I want to deal briefly with the misinformation—I accept that it was wholly unintentional—in the Secretary of State’s statement, or rather in his responses to questions following his statement, because it is important. A ministerial correction was made following a point of order that I made arising out of that. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North, the Health Secretary said: “We recognise the importance of the Imperial bid; that is why we are starting to build the temporary ward capacity at Charing Cross and the first phase of work is under way on the cardiac elective recovery hub, to bring cardiac work on to the Hammersmith site.” —[ Official Report , 25 May 2023; Vol. 733, c.”
“I will take up the offer of meeting the Lords Minister, but today’s Minister will not be surprised to hear that my hon. Friends and I will pursue this day by day and line by line until we have those assurances. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the New Hospital Programme and Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust.”
“I thank everybody who has contributed to the debate, and the Front Benchers for their contributions. I have a huge amount of respect for the Minister and genuinely wish him great success in his future career, wherever that may be, but he will not be surprised to hear that my constituents will not hear “early stage” and “fluidity” as comforting words. They had schemes for the completion of these major rebuilds of their hospitals by 2030 and assured funding. That is what we do not have, and however we dress it up, we are waiting in hospitals that are not fit for purpose. It is an insult not just to my constituents and patients but to the incredibly dedicated staff. Some of the best clinical staff in the world work in those hospitals, in frankly terrible conditions. That is why we need concrete answers.”
“How much of the reduced £20 billion for the 2030 new hospital programme, if any, is secured for Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust hospitals, and what are the new completion dates for building works to Charing Cross, Hammersmith and St Mary’s hospitals, now that they have been removed from the list of projects to be completed by 2030?”
“This is extremely vexing for my constituents, who rely absolutely on those hospitals, which have the biggest backlog of repairs of any in England. The failure to address that would, in the words of the chief executive of Imperial, be: “hugely damaging for the health and healthcare of hundreds of thousands of people.” Rather than be so coy, would it not be better for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to come to the Dispatch Box and explain matters fully, including when the works will now be completed and where the estimated £4 billion cost can now be found? I seek your assistance, Madam Deputy Speaker.”
“He also said: “that is why we are starting to build the temporary ward capacity at Charing Cross and the first phase of work is under way on the cardiac elective recovery hub, to bring cardiac work on to the Hammersmith site.” —[ Official Report , 25 May 2023; Vol. 733, c. 485.] However, Imperial, responding to questions from the BBC, said: “We do not yet know when we will be able to start work.” Indeed, no building work is currently under way. Earlier this afternoon, I was made aware by Mr Speaker’s office that a ministerial correction would be made in due course to the Minister’s statement. However, Hansard was unable to share that with me and the Minister chose not to do so, beyond informing me an hour ago that he had requested a ministerial correction without giving details thereof.”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 25 May, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care made an oral statement to the House to announce revisions to the new hospital programme, including the removal of Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust hospitals from the programme due to complete by 2030. Two of the hospitals, Charing Cross and Hammersmith, are in my constituency and the third, St Mary’s, serves the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck). In response to questions from my hon. Friend and me, the Secretary of State made a series of statements that may have unintentionally misled the House. He said: “there is the work at Charing Cross in Hammersmith, where we are building the temporary ward to unblock the refurbishment”.”
“Could we talk about the fraud strategy, which, sadly, is itself a bit of a fraud? As revealed by Spotlight on Corruption, the new national fraud squad is patched together with £100 million already announced last year and 400 officers, up to 300 of whom are already in post. With no new money and precious few new staff, how on earth will that make a dent in the £6.8 billion a year lost to consumer fraud, let alone the £21 billion a year in public sector fraud that this Government let run rife?”
“I think the Minister needs to get his story straight on the asylum backlog. Is he saying that he wants to get it down—in which case he is not doing a very good job, because it is up to 172,000—or is he saying that he is keeping it high, with all the attendant costs and misery, in order to deter fresh claims?”
“Can we have a debate in Government time on the regulation of e-bikes and e-scooters? Privately owned e-scooters are uninsurable on public roads. Serious fires are caused by faulty lithium batteries and chargers, and thousands of bikes and scooters are just dumped on pavements every day. What should be a positive addition to transport is a hazard because of the Government’s failure to act”
“In what way is delaying work on Charing Cross and Hammersmith Hospitals speeding things up? This is the most shameful, self-serving and nakedly political statement I think I have ever heard. We have heard that Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust has the biggest backlog in the country. The Government tried for eight years to demolish Charing Cross Hospital, and now they are promising a portacabin there. The only thing that gives me comfort is that the Secretary of State and the whole rotten lot of them will be out of here in a year’s time, and we will have a Labour Government who will actually deliver for Imperial, for Charing Cross, for Hammersmith and for my constituents.”
“In the Labour party, we welcome that. I hope that we see a realistic appraisal by the Government—a genuine review of the situation—because from any impartial or unbiased view of Heathrow, it should not expand. There are many alternatives.”
“We understand the advantages of Heathrow to the economy—across the whole Thames valley, as well as to London, and west London in particular—but it is obscene to think of increasing its capacity by 50%, given its location. Transport policy has moved on. We have heard that the airports national policy statement is five years old, and the airports commission is eight years old. Transport policy has moved on and history has moved on, but Heathrow has not; it is stuck trying to talk in the language of one or two decades ago and, unfortunately, the Government are listening. Well, the Minister is clearly not listening, because he is texting away, but I hope that when he responds, he will show a shift in Government policy on the issue. It is long overdue. Other Opposition parties have thought about this and changed their policy over time.”
“Manchester is at about 50% capacity, and Birmingham airport, which will be about half an hour from Old Oak station in my constituency by High Speed 2 when it is constructed, is an alternative and is running at 40% capacity. We have heard that the airlines have withdrawn their support and some, such as Virgin, actively oppose the expansion. What has changed since covid and the pause is that climate targets have got harder to meet, and the cost of doing so has become greater. Construction costs have gone through the roof. Heathrow has lost about £4.5 billion. It has also lost its chief executive and not yet recruited a new one. It is not in a good state. Like the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), I believe in a better rather than a bigger Heathrow.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for securing the debate. I agree with everything that she said, including about the toxic effects of Heathrow, which apply equally, if not more so, to my constituency of Hammersmith and Shepherd’s Bush and across west London. We know the arguments against Heathrow: congestion on the roads and on public transport, noise pollution, air pollution, safety and the threat to whole communities. Those arguments have not changed. What has changed is that the aviation sector does not support Heathrow. We have expansion plans from London airports—Stansted, Luton and Heathrow—that will take up the carbon allocation. Regional airports, as we have just heard, are severely underused.”
“That is a whole ’nother debate. Given that the Government will not fund major strategic infrastructure because it is in London—if it were anywhere else in the country, they would be paying 80% or 90%—and given how much they have dragged their feet for years on this project, the Minister has a cheek, quite frankly, to make the comment he has just made.”
“I pose this question because my hon. Friend is an expert in the subject. There have been calls for a national allergy tsar for a long time. Does he understand why the Government are resistant to them?”
“If he will not say that, I ask him to say that he will sit down and seriously listen in detail—he can do so far better than others in this room can—to the reasons why an allergy tsar is needed. Lives have been lost, and lives are at stake. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the Minister’s response today can make a huge difference to how we go forward on the issue.”
“The foundation also organised the global allergy symposium in September last year, which was hosted by the then Prince of Wales, now King Charles, at Dumfries House in Scotland, home of the Prince’s Foundation, to discuss allergy and the environment, which was attended by 16 of the world’s leading allergy scientists. That is the work of one family—one foundation. What have the Government done during that time to compare to it? The third reason why a meeting is necessary is that we have waited too long. I have talked about the musical chairs of Ministers coming and going. The time is long overdue for a Minister to sit down and talk seriously to the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation and other interested parties, and to confront the issue. I would love to hear the Minister say that the Government are going forward with an allergy tsar.”
“I have already indicated that the work done by the foundation since her death really puts the Government to shame. It is not just about the passage of Natasha’s law. The foundation also launched a £2.5 million Natasha clinical trial across six British university hospital sites, seeking to prove that everyday food products could be used in NHS settings as a cheap alternative to expensive pharmaceuticals, to provide oral immunotherapy treatment for children and young people. It has also funded bursaries over four years for students and healthcare professionals at the University of Southampton on the internationally recognised allergy master’s degree and PhD courses at this world-leading allergy research centre.”
“The case for why we should have an allergy tsar is overwhelming and I would like a clear answer from the Minister today. I do not want a restatement of the current position, because the current position is clearly inadequate. The second question for the Minister is whether he or one of his colleagues, ideally the Secretary of State, would meet the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation and other interested and expert parties. I ask for that meeting for three reasons. The first is that people at the foundation have personal experience, which to their great pain they have shared publicly, and they have a great deal to offer to the Government and to the NHS in explaining the needs of people with allergy. The second reason is that the foundation and these other organisations have expertise.”
“Allergy is too often trivialised and passed down to primary care practitioners, who are inadequately trained and over-committed in other areas. Allergy is equated with mild disease, but even hay fever has a much greater impact on those affected by it than is appreciated. It would be far better to have a national lead who could also be a clinical lead and who is an expert in managing allergic disease. Training in clinical allergy is minimal, whether for specialist clinicians or for primary care practitioners. We need special efforts to build this specialty. Finally, deaths from anaphylaxis are appreciably lower in those countries with a joined-up clinical allergy service, and in such countries population knowledge about allergy is more highly developed.”
“The debate and the concern about the lack of a national lead on allergy has been going on for 20 years. During that time, clinical outcomes have barely improved, but the number of hospitalisations has tripled. An adviser who specialises in immunology and who simply chairs the existing clinical reference group does not meet the requirements for a national allergy lead. Allergy is currently managed by too many different professional groups. The immunologists do not see it as a priority and are more pathology-focused or laboratory-focused rather than clinically focused. That means that different specialties manage allergy disorders differently. There is not a strong appreciation that allergy leads to severe symptoms that sometimes lead to death, for example through anaphylaxis or asthma.”
“I am pleased to take this opportunity to outline the allergy leadership that we already have in place. In October 2022, Dr Claire Bethune was appointed national speciality adviser for specialised immunology and allergy. Dr Bethune chairs the NHS England clinical reference group that provides clinical advice and leadership on the specialised immunology services, and advises on how specialised services can best be delivered.” —[ Official Report, 11 May 2023; Vol. 732, c. 264WH.] That is not good enough. That is somebody who has a partial role—a part-time role—who may well do a good job in their own field, but who is not an allergy tsar. It is not a single person who is taking overriding responsibility for allergy. Let me briefly give a few reasons why an allergy tsar is essential.”
“They would be a dedicated lead who works with the Government to implement mandatory reporting on all anaphylaxis events presented to hospital to support comprehensive investigations of fatal and near-fatal anaphylaxis events, and a champion and advocate for those who live with allergic conditions and need more specialist practitioners in their corner. There is a lot more that I could say, but I will concentrate on two questions that I would like the Minister to answer. First, in relation to the appointment of an allergy tsar, may I remind the Minister what his colleague the Minister for Social Care said in responding to the debate last Thursday? She said: “There have been calls over recent years—I have heard them echoed today—for stronger leadership on allergy.”
“I hope the Minister will give us positive news today, not just warm words, and that he will tell us about tangible steps he will take to appoint a lead person for allergies as soon as practicable. I have not heard anybody coherently argue against the merits of having an allergy tsar, which is why I posed the question I did to my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham. An allergy tsar would be dedicated to and focused on the development of research into cures for allergies, and tasked with ensuring specialist allergy clinics and services up and down the UK.”
“There is a constant expectation that something is going to be done, and then it is dashed, either because of inaction by a particular Minister or because the Minister has simply moved on. Time and again, progress has stalled because of the musical chairs—the many Prime Ministers and the sacking, promotion and demotion of Ministers—and the allergy community has been left waiting patiently for the matter of an allergy tsar to be taken seriously once more. This reminds me of the long battles we fought to have inquiries into Hillsborough and the contaminated blood scandal. Ministers constantly promise things, or at least say they will look into things, and then they move on and we are suddenly back to square one.”
“In June 2022, following those events, the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation met a new Health Minister, who showed an interest and assured the foundation that meetings were ongoing with the National Allergy Strategy Group and my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham. Three months later, because of the carousel of Prime Ministers turning, the Health Minister was demoted to a different Department and the momentum was lost, notwithstanding the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), who was then the shadow Health Minister, tabled an amendment to the Health and Care Bill to create an allergy tsar. Although the Government refused to accept the amendment, the then Health Minister promised to raise the issue with NHS England.”
“In Shante’s case, the coroner’s report said: “there is no person with named accountability for allergy services and allergy provision at NHS England or the Department of Health as a whole”. The response from the then Minister for Social Care, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), was: “Although there is no single, named individual with oversight for all aspects of allergy policy, individuals and teams work closely together in the Department on all aspects of policy relating to allergies.” The inadequacy of that response led to the petitions being launched and to the call by tens of thousands of people for the Government to appoint an allergy tsar to act as a champion for people with allergies and ensure they receive appropriate support and joined-up healthcare, and so prevent avoidable death and ill health.”
“Following the inquest, Emma Turay, Shante’s mother, said: “Nothing will ever bring our beautiful Shante back to us but what has kept me going throughout this process is knowing that she would want me to get answers and make sure the same thing doesn’t happen to anyone else…The coroner highlighted the fact that no one person in NHS England or the Department of Health is responsible for allergies, and it is quite clear we need an allergy tsar to co-ordinate and implement steps to prevent others from suffering avoidable deaths like Shante’s.” It is interesting that we still do not have access to a compendium of prevention of future deaths reports. We rely on individual reports, which are very important, but if coroners’ reports were better organised, this issue would have much greater public attention.”
“Given the current state of the NHS, we all understand that resources are stretched, but if the Government committed to an allergy lead, along with funding, they would allow someone to take ownership of the matter and drive forward a strategy to improve the lives of those with allergies. If I may, I will give a brief, or at least recent, history and timeline of the lack of progress made towards appointing an allergy tsar. Back in January 2020, an inquest was held into the death of another young person who tragically died as a consequence of an allergy: Shante Turay-Thomas.”
“Children go to school with medication bags including EpiPens and adrenaline, in case the worst happens. We should not underestimate the distress and anxiety that that can cause a child, who must learn from a very early age the consequences that can come from eating the wrong thing. The weight of that on a child is really quite unfathomable, yet we have nobody in the Department of Health and Social Care or NHS England who is responsible for a strategy to tackle allergies. We know that this is a growing problem and research is desperately needed, but to ensure that allergic conditions get the focus they need, someone must be appointed to champion the issue.”
“About one in three people have an allergy-related disorder, and over the past 20 years there has been a more than 600% increase in hospital admissions due to allergic diseases. It is not just the numbers of allergy sufferers that are escalating, but the severity of the symptoms. Over 200,000 people in the UK require emergency adrenalin on prescription to manage their allergy. The very real and ever-present risk of death from an allergic reaction is an ongoing trauma for families and parents of young children who have an allergy condition. As we have heard, about 50% of our child population now live with an allergic condition. Many of our schools have rightly become nut-free zones, due to the numbers of children who would be at risk if someone brought in a nut-based food in their lunchbox.”