The House | We are closer than ever to allergy-safe schools. Now Parliament must finish the job

Benedict Blythe

3 min read11 min

In the years since his death, we have campaigned for what has become known as Benedict’s Law, a straightforward set of protections: spare adrenaline auto-injectors in every school, proper allergy training for staff, and clear whole-school policies so that everyone knows how to respond in an emergency. These are basic safeguards that most parents assume already exist.

This week, the Government launches a consultation on new statutory guidance for supporting pupils with medical conditions and allergies. That is a significant moment. After years in which allergy safety struggled to gain political attention, Ministers have listened. The commitment to strengthen guidance shows that this issue is finally being taken seriously.

From September, schools in England will be expected to have clearer allergy policies, ensure staff are trained to recognise anaphylaxis, and strengthen arrangements around emergency medication. That will make children safer, it will provide clarity for schools and it marks real progress.

But guidance is not the same as law.

In Benedict’s case, his school did not have spare allergy pens available and the signs of anaphylaxis were not recognised quickly enough. Adrenaline was administered too late to save his life. These systemic gaps were the result of inconsistent standards and unclear expectations, not the failings of individual teachers.

The new guidance addresses much of that ambiguity, and is to be welcomed. But there remains a crucial difference between statutory guidance and legislation.

While statutory guidance sets expectations, they do not create a legal duty and are not legally enforceable. Guidance does not guarantee funding and it does not ensure consistent implementation in every school. Legislation does.

If the core elements of Benedict’s Law are written into statute, schools would be held to a clear, consistent standard. Crucially, funding would accompany that duty. That matters because schools are not operating in equal financial circumstances. Headteachers today are managing SEND pressures, attendance challenges, safeguarding responsibilities and rising costs within increasingly tight budgets. Schools in more deprived communities or carrying existing deficits are under particular strain. Asking them to implement additional medical safeguards without funded support risks creating uneven provision. In those circumstances, even strong statutory guidance can leave gaps.

Some schools will be able to go further and faster. Others may struggle to meet expectations. The result could be a postcode lottery of protection, where children with allergies in more affluent areas are better safeguarded than those in communities already facing disadvantage. We know from Dr Paul Turner’s published research that altering the distribution model of allergy pens -by providing them directly to schools rather than an oversupply of extras to young pupils –  can release enough funding to pay for spare adrenaline devices, meaning no extra cost burden on the treasury. Delivering safer spaces at no extra cost has to be something universally supported.

The recent vote in the House of Lords recognised the need for government to go further. Peers supported an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that would write the protections of Benedict’s Law into legislation and provide the funding mechanism to support delivery. When that amendment returns to the House of Commons it offers MPs an opportunity to build on this constructive step forward.

We are closer than ever to allergy-safe schools. Progress has been made. The government has showed it takes the protection of children with allergies seriously, the question now is whether we can secure that progress in a way that guarantees equal protection for every child in every classroom, for children like our son. 

Benedict’s life mattered. His death must matter too.