Lord Freyberg:

Moved by Lord Freyberg

210: After subsection (1)(a), insert—“(aa) ensure that the school’s allergy and anaphylaxis policy applies to any external catering provider operating on school premises and that such providers comply with the policy when preparing and serving food to pupils,”Member’s explanatory statementThis Amendment clarifies that a school’s allergy and anaphylaxis policy must also apply to external catering providers operating on school premises, ensuring that caterers follow the same procedures as school staff when preparing and serving food to pupils.

My Lords, Amendment 209 goes to the heart of what families rightly expect schools to do: keep children safe. This is not a novel or radical proposal. It responds to a long-standing and well-evidenced failure of the current system. For too long we have relied on guidance and good will, yet allergy safety in schools remains inconsistent and, in some cases, dangerously inadequate. This amendment matters because it moves us from aspiration to assurance.

Children continue to experience severe allergic reactions at school. Some have died. Families live with the daily fear that a simple mistake—a contaminated surface, a misunderstanding, a delayed response—could be fatal. The tragic death of Benedict Blythe exposed not a single error but a systemic lack of preparedness. His family’s determination to prevent another such tragedy deserves our respect—and action. I also recognise the work of the National Allergy Strategy Group and its member organisations. Its position paper, produced with the Benedict Blythe Foundation, sets out in calm, forensic detail why voluntary guidance has failed.

Schools are under huge pressures, as we have heard, and without a statutory framework, allergy safety too often slips through the cracks. I understand that the Minister met the group yesterday, as we have heard, which is welcome, and I hope she will update the House on the outcome of that discussion and any assurances given.

I became involved in this issue for a simple reason: a neighbour’s child is afraid to eat in his own school canteen because of his allergy. When a child cannot safely eat at school, something is plainly wrong. That quiet daily anxiety is shared by thousands of families. Amendment 209 is proportionate and practical. Without legislation, we cannot guarantee consistent protection for all our children.

The four amendments in my name are probing. I seek reassurance on how the framework will work in practice. Amendment 210 addresses a well-known gap: external catering providers. Compliance with allergen labelling law does not in itself create a safe school environment. Unless a school’s allergy policy clearly applies to caterers and is reflected contractually, responsibility becomes blurred and children are put at risk. There must be no opportunity for third parties to argue that the school’s policy does not apply to them.

Amendment 212 extends that principle to other external providers. Schools, as we know, are busy places and well-meaning third parties can inadvertently introduce serious risk if they are not bound by the same policy. I have heard of a case where a third-party supplier brought a box of sweets into school as a gift, entirely unaware of the danger this posed.

Finally, Amendments 213 and 214 raise a practical question about costs and responsibility. Who should fund adrenaline auto-injectors, and how should supply and replacement be organised? An approach that relies on individual schools risks duplication, inconsistency and waste, particularly where children already receive these devices from the NHS. The same question arises in relation to training to use them. If the provisions in Amendment 209 become mandatory, responsibility for funding and facilitating proper training must be equally clear.

We have done this before. As the noble Baroness has said, the Government funded defibrillators in all schools, because the case was compelling and the cost proportionate. The same logic applies here. I hope the Minister will address these points directly, but, if the drafting of Amendment 209 is not quite right, I urge the Government to bring forward their own amendments at Third Reading. What matters is not ownership but outcome. We must not miss this opportunity to put allergy safety in schools on a statutory footing and prevent further, avoidable tragedies. I beg to move.

My Lords, I will speak briefly, having attached my name to Amendment 209, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, so powerfully introduced. I express my strongest possible support for Amendment 209 and commend the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for making important points in his amendments.

I will tell a little tale of how I got involved in this. Like most people involved in politics, I have encountered around the country parents who say that they are worried about allergies and their child at school. In my case, I was walking down a corridor of this House, past the dining rooms, and the Benedict Blythe Foundation was holding an event to highlight the issue. I was almost literally dragged in to meet Helen Blythe, who has such a tale of horror but a powerful voice to say that she does not want this to happen to any other parent’s child. That is a demonstration of where we have got to today: campaigning works and people can make a difference through their actions. I particularly want to record that.

The case has been powerfully made, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cotes, said that there may be further technical solutions to injector pens. We do not need to argue about that. It is about the idea that every school has these instruments, whatever they are, guaranteed to be in date because the law says they have to be, and has teachers and other staff confidently trained to be able to use them in a moment of crisis. That should be absolutely basic. There should never be any question that, when something goes wrong, people are asking, “What do we do?”, “Who knows?”, “Where do we find it?”, “Is the cupboard locked?” We all know that those kinds of things can happen, unless the rules are set down in black and white in legislation. That is why I very much hope we will hear positively from the Minister that the Government are prepared to put this in the Bill, whatever the fine detail, because a child’s life is so important.

My Lords, I support Amendment 209, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, to which I have added my name. I declare my interest as a parliamentary ambassador for the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation.

In doing so, I will not see my youngest daughter this evening, who is severely allergic to peanuts, because of the rather unusual hours that our House sits. I hope I will see her tomorrow evening, Chief Whip permitting, as she will be off to school in the morning very early —and, like the rest of us, I need to sleep sometimes. No doubt she will use this opportunity to ask me to explain, not for the first time, what exactly it is that we do in the House of Lords and why so much of it is done after dark. I very much hope that tomorrow, I will be able to give her the best of all possible answers.

I will remind her that, a few months ago, on 16 September to be exact, rather late that night, along with many other noble Lords who I see sitting here in the Chamber this evening, I was adding my voice in support of an amendment designed to keep children safe—children like her, in fact, who have the misfortune to suffer anaphylactic shock if they come into contact with a small piece of peanut or some other food, as she has twice, frighteningly, done. Along with others, and with the excellent support of the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, Allergy UK, Anaphylaxis UK and the Benedict Blythe Foundation, I argued then that the Government should ensure that all schools have spare EpiPens available in case of such emergencies and that staff are trained in their use.

As the clock ticked towards midnight that night, my noble friend the Minister responded as follows:

“The measures to support children with allergies proposed in this amendment could be achieved without requiring primary legislation; we will consider how we might take them forward”.—[Official Report, 16/9/25; col. 2187.]

Tonight, I am hopeful that this is precisely what has happened, and that my noble friend the Minister will stand up and confirm that the Government will shortly be issuing statutory guidance setting out in detail how all schools will be required to properly protect children with allergies, and, in particular, that noble Lords will be assured that there will be statutory guidance requiring schools to have effective allergy policies in place, to have adrenaline devices such as auto-injectors available, and that staff will receive mandatory training on the use of adrenaline devices such as auto-injectors. In which case, I will be able to tell my daughter that these late nights can achieve remarkable things, and that it is precisely because of the way the House of Lords works that this has been achieved.

After all, we are talking about an amendment which has strong support across the House, led by the noble Baronesses, Lady Morgan and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. It is supported by my noble friend Lady Kennedy, among others, who has professional expertise in the subject, and has been encouraged by those impressive charities. To give due credit, we are talking about a Government who listen to the evidence and act accordingly, assuming that I have understood correctly what my noble friend the Minister will announce shortly.

I would still prefer to see my daughter in the evenings more often, but I am happy not having been able to do so on 16 September last year and this evening if the House acts to protect children at school with allergies. She will be happy too, and, in due course, so will thousands of parents and their children at risk of anaphylaxis. What an honour it is to be a Member of this House which can change lives so effectively.

My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group, and particularly Amendment 209, in the names of my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes and other noble Lords who have added their names.

I have a granddaughter, now aged 10, who from birth has been allergic to dairy, eggs and nuts. Through a lengthy medically managed programme she has been able to reduce substantially her reaction to dairy and eggs, but remains extremely vulnerable to peanuts and sesame. She carries an EpiPen, although mercifully she has not yet had cause to use it. These allergies remain a constant concern to her and her parents. Yet I regard her as being one of the fortunate ones. She is conscientious and very aware of what she can and cannot eat, but the inherent risks are heightened away from home, whenever, say, she is at a friend’s house or in a restaurant. Most importantly, she attends a school which has adopted and follows the policies and procedures stipulated by Amendment 209.

I regard these as minimum standards to be followed by schools. They surely should be regarded as best practice. However, it appears that, despite allergy being the most chronic childhood condition in the UK, my granddaughter’s school is in the minority in specifying these protections and our legislation lags behind global comparators. This cannot be right. During term time, children spend most of their waking hours at school. Schools act in loco parentis, with all the legal duties of care that that entails, but current statutory medical guidance, as we have heard, is not specific to allergies. It is vague and open to interpretation. It has created a worrying gap in allergy safeguard provision. Even were this adapted specifically to address allergies, it would remain just guidance. Unless the Minister can assure us otherwise, it would not be mandatory and it is unlikely to be comprehensive, so it would not achieve the step change required. The adoption of Amendment 209, on the other hand, would go a long way towards filling this gap.

I am also fully supportive of Amendments 210, 212, 213 and 214 in the name, principally, of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. Amendments 210 and 212 in particular would ensure that external providers, including catering providers, follow a school’s allergy and anaphylaxis policy. If we are sensibly to mandate schools to have such a policy, for compliance with which they will be held responsible, we should give them the tools to enforce that policy.

It is especially in the provision of catering services where schools will feel most at risk if they cannot stipulate suppliers’ quality thresholds. Those in the supply chain are accustomed to being contractually bound to act in accordance with their clients’ required standards in all sorts of areas, for example living wage and modern slavery compliance, so there is no bar in principle to allergy policy being added to the list. There must be concern that, if only a minority of schools have such policies, only a minority of providers will have them too. There must also be a danger that, as cost will be a driving factor in the awarding of these contracts, quality standards may be compromised. We cannot afford a situation where there is a mismatch between a school’s expectations and requirements and a provider’s readiness and ability to fulfil them.

Finally, on the drafting of Amendment 209, I assume that my noble friend Lady Morgan has in mind that training on allergy awareness and administering EpiPens should be provided to all staff and therefore could easily be accommodated within the general safeguarding training required of all. I say this because there might be a temptation to restrict it to those in close contact with food and the kitchen. The reality is that, although anaphylactic shock tends to happen quickly, it can occur even several hours later, so all staff need to be trained to recognise it in environments and locations where the association might not immediately be apparent, for instance on the sports field.

A Labour source is quoted today in one national newspaper as saying that this Bill will

“drive improvement for every child in the country”.

I doubt whether even the most ardent proponent of the Bill could attempt credibly to justify such a sweeping assertion. It is, however, beyond doubt that these amendments, if adopted, would indeed improve the well-being of many hundreds of thousands of children.

My Lords, it was 19 years ago that I had the privilege of chairing the Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry into allergy for this House. I remind the House that, even then, we were saying that half of those who died from an allergic reaction had not had any previous serious reaction, and we highlighted the need for adrenaline auto-injectors and the fact that they were not being used effectively. The failure of pens was for several reasons, usually that the injection was not given intramuscularly, there was poor training or pens had passed their expiry date, were being used too late in a reaction or were not available at the time of the reaction. The amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, and of my noble friend Lord Fryberg are incredibly important and are 19 years overdue. We really cannot carry on like this.

There is guidance on the use of adrenaline auto-injectors in schools from the Department of Health in 2017, but it states:

“This guidance is non-statutory”.

It goes on to say:

“The Children and Families Act 2014 requires governing bodies of English schools to make arrangements for supporting pupils with medical conditions”.

The problem is, of course, that the management of allergies is not statutory, and children present with a very wide range of medical conditions, but there are not that many that present the medical emergency that an allergic reaction can present.

The summary states that schools are not required to hold adrenaline auto-injectors. If they do not have one when a child is collapsing, even if the child has their own with them, the risk of that child’s death goes up significantly. The guidance is also very clear that the MHRA expert group from 2020 said that adrenaline should be administered at the first sign of a reaction, and that the risk of delay outweighs harm. I suggest that the cost of delay is absolutely massive and must be properly considered in terms of the cost of providing these pieces of equipment that can be stored, and incorporating training, as we have already heard.

The guidance is very clear: if in doubt, give adrenaline and, if there is no improvement after five minutes, give another dose. Children’s schools must have the ability to recognise allergy wherever that child is and react rapidly, because five minutes is not very long. You cannot run from one side of a school to another to try to find somebody who knows what to do because, by then, tragically, the child may have had a cardiac arrest.

My Lords, I support Amendments 209, 210 and 212 and declare my interest as the chief operating officer of the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, the UK’s food allergy charity.

While some schools manage food allergies well, too many do not and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, expertly put it, with around two children in every classroom living with a food allergy, and one in five food-related allergic reactions occurring at school, the absence of clear policies and consistent staff training continues to place children at risk. These failings also affect attendance and undermine inclusion.

Amendment 209 seeks to address these long-standing gaps. If it is accepted by the Government, that would represent a fitting tribute to five year-old Benedict Blythe, who tragically died from anaphylaxis at school, and to his mother Helen, whose tireless advocacy has brought us to this moment.

Earlier this week, as others have said, Helen Blythe and representatives of national allergy charities met with the Minister for early years to discuss the urgent need for a robust statutory approach to allergy management in schools. The response and commitment from the Minister were extremely welcome and I hope that, tonight, those commitments from my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern will be confirmed from the Dispatch Box. At the outset, I shall list quite a few points where confirmation and clarification are needed, so, if my noble friend is unable to cover all these points today, will she commit to write to me and place a copy in the Library for all noble Lords to see?

For the benefit of campaigners, allergy charities, clinicians and parents and carers of food-allergic children following this debate, I would be grateful if my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern could confirm the Government’s position on a number of points. First, will my noble friend confirm that it is the Government’s intention to address the long-standing and well-evidenced gaps in the management of allergies in educational settings, and that this will be taken forward through statutory guidance?

Secondly, will my noble friend confirm that such statutory guidance will require schools to have a whole-school allergy policy, and ensure that all staff on site receive training in allergy awareness, risk reduction and the recognition and emergency management of anaphylaxis, and that school will be required to hold accessible, in-date, spare adrenaline auto-injectors on site for emergency use?

Will my noble friend also confirm that the Government intend to ensure leadership and accountability for implementation of such a policy, including the expectation that school governors will take a leadership role and that Ofsted will be asked to take allergen management into account in its inspection framework?

On emergency response, will my noble friend confirm that, alongside a requirement to hold spare, in-date auto-injectors, the existing 2007 guidance on the use of AIs in schools will be revised to make it explicit that, where an adult suspects anaphylaxis, they should call 999 immediately and administer the AI without delay, whether with a prescribed or a spare device, and that administration of the second AI will not cause any harm and may be life-saving?

Will my noble friend also confirm whether the Government intend to bring forward an SI to enable schools to take advantage of the new adrenaline delivery devices, including nasal sprays, as they become available?

With regard to policies and training, I support Amendments 210 and 212 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. Will my noble friend confirm that training and policies are intended to apply to all staff on site, including external providers operating on school premises, and in particular school caterers? Food provision remains a significant risk area for pupils with food allergies. Effective management requires clear systems, and it should be a shared school responsibility.

Lastly, the Bill makes provision for a unique number for every child in England to support the sharing of information for safeguarding purposes. Is allergy data being considered as part of the pilot project in Wigan testing the use of the NHS number as a unique identifier in children’s care? If not, will my noble friend consider allergy health information within that work? Will she facilitate a meeting for me and relevant representatives of charities, including school caterers, to explore this issue further with colleagues in the relevant departments?

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, for moving this Amendment, and I associate myself with the excellent speeches made in support of it and the other amendments in the group. I also associate myself with the high praise for the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, for which I have the highest regard, and for the Benedict Blythe Foundation and the remarkable dedication of Helen Blythe. Her son Benedict was five years old when his milk allergy took his life. A plan was in place, but it was not followed.

My son was five years old when we first discovered that he had a severe nut allergy. We had no idea—there were no signs or indications. He suffered a severe anaphylactic shock and we did not know what was happening to him. His life was saved by our extraordinary good fortune that it took place on a cruise and immediate hospital-level treatment was available. I am profoundly struck that his life was saved by being in proximity to the crucial care that he needed.

For the most severe, like my son, auto-injectors are only a means of providing enough time to get necessary hospital treatment. At that time, if he had had such an attack in school, it is most likely that he would not have survived. Some 30% of children affected have their first reaction at school, the most frequent location outside the home setting. While progress has been made in some schools, as the Benedict Blythe Foundation research has shown, school preparedness for dealing with allergies is dangerously and tragically low, as evidenced by the fact that half of all schools have no spare auto-injectors. However, I stress that auto-injectors are not enough; it is strategy, training and other elements that will ensure that lives can be saved.

The amendment proposes a sensible and comprehensive approach to create the right capacity and capability in all schools. I hope the Minister will provide reassurance that the Government are committed to a mandatory and comprehensive allergy safety policy framework, as set out in the amendment, and either are open to accepting the amendment or can provide details of how these objectives can be achieved.

Every child must be safeguarded and safe from harm when they attend school. I remember, 15 years ago, what were called EpiPens. I had never heard of them until a parent came into school and told me about her child who had a particular allergy. We stocked EpiPens—one in each classroom, clearly labelled —and we trained the staff. I remember the staff being fearful, so we stabbed a grapefruit in those days to train ourselves. We did that on our own initiative because we understood our duty of care, but children’s lives cannot depend on individual schools taking the initiative. This must be guaranteed by government policy.

The current system, I am sorry to say, is a postcode lottery. Some children are fortunate to attend schools that are honest about what they can guarantee. Others face confusion, inconsistency and danger. Children have learned from the age that they first enter school to bring their own food to school, to every meal, and to self-administer treatment, because the adults around them are untrained and unequipped.

Parents across this country can recount a terrifying number of near misses and mistakes, and some, of course, have suffered the greatest loss of all. Children with allergies deserve to attend school knowing that the staff have the right processes, knowledge and equipment in place to protect them. They should not have to go to school and fear for their own well-being. School should be a place where every child can live a normal life, where they are not defined by what they cannot eat but are supported by a system that understands their needs.

The UK lags behind many other countries in how we manage food allergies in schools. Children are suffering and dying as a result. It is our duty to ensure thar no more families endure such a preventable tragedy. I have not met Helen Blythe, but I am in complete awe of those parents who have suffered the loss of a child and, as a result of that loss, want to campaign to save other lives. In this case, along with others, Helen has done that.

When the noble Lord, Lord Nash, was a Minister, there was the case that he will remember of Oliver King, who had a sudden cardiac arrest at the age of 12. Oliver tragically died in the school swimming pool. His parents, like Mrs Blythe, campaigned for every school to have a defibrillator. The noble Lord, Lord Nash, sitting in his place today, met the parents on a number of occasions and started that process of ensuring that defibrillators are in schools.

The Minister has been billed to give us some important news this evening. I hope that the Minister will tell us directly how the Government are going to ensure that schools have the guidance, the policies, the resources and the training in place to make sure that no other child loses their life because of a food allergy.

My Lords, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition understand how crucial allergy safety is in schools, and access to adrenaline auto-injectors is pivotal. Centralising and co-ordinating policy across education establishments is a much-needed step that would standardise current voluntary safety measures such as the provision of AAIs and provide a universal level of access to all students. That is a principle in Amendment 209, referred to as Benedict’s law, that we support.

It would be remiss of me not to remind noble Lords: half of schools do not stock a spare auto-injector; 70% of schools do not have the recommended measures of spare pens, training and allergy policies, and individual healthcare plans in place; and 20% of fatal food anaphylaxis reactions in school-aged children or young people in England happen in schools.

This is a critical issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said that it was “basic”, the noble Lord, Lord Remnant, referred to it as “best practice”, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said that the cost of delay is “massive”. They are entirely correct.

We also support the principle behind the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. It makes sense that those contracted on school premises should predominantly follow the same policies as the schools themselves. This is all the more important when catering firms are involved, given the obvious heightened risk of allergic reactions to food.

While there should, as always, be an appropriate analysis of the impact on both the taxpayer and the affected firms, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition understand the great importance of these measures. We hope, as many noble Lords have hoped tonight, that the Government see the merit of focusing on this and agree that schools should be safe places for everyone—and that should be non-negotiable.

My Lords, in concluding this group, I start by paying tribute to those who have campaigned so hard on school allergy safety, especially Helen and Peter Blythe, Tanya and Nadim Ednan-Laperouse, my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley and other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, in introducing Amendment 209 this evening. The tragic deaths of Benedict Blythe and Natasha Ednan-Laperouse are a stark reminder of the dangers of anaphylaxis. We have heard other examples of that this evening, including the personal experiences of noble Lords.

Amendment 209 seeks to introduce mandatory allergy safety provisions for all schools, including policy adoption, individual healthcare plans, adrenaline auto-injectors and staff training. As stated in Committee, schools have existing duties, under Section 100 of the Children and Families Act 2014, to make arrangements to support pupils with medical conditions including allergy.

However, I am pleased to set out the Government’s plans to transform allergy safety in schools and take forward the campaign for Benedict’s law. Before September 2026, we will issue new statutory guidance and we will consult on it imminently. For the first time it will put specific focus on allergy safety alongside other medical conditions. Through statutory guidance, we will require schools to have a dedicated allergy safety policy. This will set out how the school will manage the risks of allergy and anaphylaxis. It will emphasise the importance of whole-school awareness and understanding, grounded in training for all staff. As this training will be set out in statutory guidance, schools will be expected to comply with it.

Schools need to be conscious and active in managing the risks of allergy, and they need to take steps to minimise the risk of pupils coming into contact with their known allergens. We will be clear that pupils with allergy must be fully included in the life of the school, with arrangements to support them on external trips and visits. Our guidance will set out that a school’s allergy safety arrangements need to be managed actively, with a named governor and senior leader. The reports of incidents, near misses and safety drills will provide evidence to review and improve policies.

But no precautions can be perfect. In many cases, as noble Lords have said, children with no history of allergy will have their first reaction while at school, so it is essential that schools have robust emergency response procedures. While many of those with severe allergies carry their own prescribed adrenaline auto-injectors, schools are able to purchase their own as spares. Many do so, but our statutory guidance will be clear that we expect schools to do so.

This is an important responsibility for schools. Two adrenaline auto-injectors can be purchased at a high street pharmacist for around £150, and many schools already stock them as part of their existing allergy safety arrangements. They must take ownership of these life-saving devices. We are working with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that schools are able to purchase spares as easily and cheaply as possible.

Strong school-wide policies are essential, but it is equally important to capture key information for each child or young person. Our guidance will be clear that every child whose medical condition requires active management by their school should have an individual healthcare plan which specifies the arrangements that will be put in place. This includes those with allergy.

As others have mentioned, yesterday my colleague, the Minister for Early Education, met sector experts, including members of the National Allergy Strategy Group, the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation and the Benedict Blythe Foundation. We have invited them to help us co-produce our new statutory guidance. We are working quickly so that we can consult and issue new guidance as soon as possible. For that reason, let me be clear that we do not disagree with the principle, the objectives or the detail of the noble Baroness’s amendments, but we are already introducing robust measures to address those concerns.

Amendments 210 and 212, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, would require schools to include detailed allergy provisions in contracts with external caterers—policy compliance, allergen information sharing, measures to prevent cross-contamination, and actions if an allergic reaction occurs. I recognise the noble Lord’s determination to secure robust safeguards. However, prescribing contractual content through primary legislation is far too inflexible. Requiring catering providers to comply with each school’s individual allergy policy would be enormously bureaucratic and difficult, probably driving up costs to schools. It is also unnecessary. I understand the concern that caterers should be clear about the requirements to protect children with allergies, but they must already provide allergen information and must manage allergens safely as set out in food regulations and in Food Standards Agency guidance.

Amendments 213 and 214, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, would make the NHS responsible for providing adrenaline auto-injectors to schools. The NHS already provides devices to individuals on prescription, and regulations permit schools to purchase spare adrenaline auto-injectors, as I have already outlined. As I have also said, that is an important responsibility for schools, and they must take ownership of these life-saving devices. We will continue to work with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that they can be secured as easily as possible.

Turning to my noble friend Lady Kennedy, I believe I have covered the Majority of the questions she asked, but I understand that I have not covered all of them. I undertake to write with anything that has not been covered in my response so far.

I hope noble Lords will recognise the considerable and important progress that has been made, thanks to the engagement of the department and my Honourable Friend the Minister for Early Education with campaigners who have, as we have heard, made an enormous difference to children. Everybody in this Chamber should be pleased to have ensured that, and I commit the Government to—

I get the impression that the Minister may be about to finish so, before she does, may I just ask her two very specific questions? First, I do not think she has addressed the funding point. If I have missed it, I apologise, but please could she clarify whether the Government intend to back up the statutory guidance they propose by September this year with central funding of those spare pens, training and everything else? Secondly, as I understand it, the Minister said that the draft guidance states that schools “can” purchase AAIs. That is not the same as saying that schools must have spare AAIs. Is the Minister open to changing that wording, or could she just clarify the position? Schools must hold spare AAIs. It is of critical importance, for the reasons we have heard.

On the second point, I said that schools are able to purchase their own spares. Many do so, but I said that our statutory guidance will be clear that we expect schools to do so. The statutory guidance will say that schools should have those spares.

On the point about funding, no, I am not saying that there will be centrally provided funding. I was identifying, by talking about both the cost to schools of buying the adrenaline auto-injectors from high street pharmacies, for example, and the ongoing work with the Department of Health and Social Care, how we will ensure that, by schools using their funding, as half have already done, those auto-injectors are available as cheaply and easily as possible.

I just reiterate, though, that I did say that training would be part of the statutory guidance, as well as an expectation that that training happens across the school.

On that basis, I hope noble Lords will feel reassured and that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her Amendment.

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. We have paid tribute to the campaigners; many of them will be watching these proceedings tonight. I thoroughly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, that the House works best when we have the kind of debate we have had on this, and that, exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said, what matters is not ownership but outcomes.

I think we were all moved by the personal examples that have been shared and the family members who are deeply affected by this. I thank the Minister for the assurances she has been able to give about a mandatory policy and training. I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that this is 19 years overdue and that there are undoubtedly significant costs of delay in treatment for pupils.

Although the Minister has been able to help on the first point, about spare AAIs—although I wait to see the wording—I know, as we all do, that school budgets are under pressure and that when it comes to government commitments without funding there is a danger that they do not happen. The point is that the schools which are committed to doing this will find the money and those for which this is not a priority—they are not going to match the guidance—will find a way to say that they do not have the money to do it. That is a postcode lottery for our young people.

Before the noble Baroness tells us what she is going to do, I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, to find out what he is going to do with his amendments.

I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 210.

Amendment 210 (to Amendment 209) withdrawn.

Amendment 211 (to Amendment 209) had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendments 212 to 214 (to Amendment 209) not moved.

I am sorry for that cliffhanger. I am still learning about procedure after six and a bit years.

May I just prolong the cliffhanger slightly? I reiterate that I was clear that this is statutory guidance which all schools should follow unless there are very exceptional reasons why they do not. The point that the noble Baroness makes about the postcode lottery is not right because all schools will be covered by this statutory guidance covering all the issues that I identified.

I take the Minister’s point. I understand what she is saying and I know that schools will want to follow statutory guidance. But we have heard the example of the defibrillator rollout: the department was able to find the money. We are talking about money that I think the Government would be able to find. Without government funding behind a key policy, schools will have to think about whether or not they do it.

The other point is that we have heard powerful speeches from the Minister’s own Back Benches this evening, all of which have been in favour of this Amendment. I think that the way this House works best is to test opinion. Therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House on this amendment.

Ayes 176, Noes 132.

Amendment 209 agreed.