NHS: Patients with Allergies
Lord Mendelsohn Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath for this debate and for such an excellent introduction. I associate myself with every point made by my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, and my noble friend Lady Healy. There is a strong view, from those who have some understanding of this matter, on the need to take significant action to upgrade where we are.
I state my interest, which is pretty similar to many others in that I am the father of two children who have allergies—one to a much more severe extent. I feel acutely that we were incredibly fortunate, when first finding out that one had a severe allergy, that we were in the unusual circumstance of having adequate medical care to support him. I always worry what would have happened if we were not in such a position at that stage, and I am sure that is the terror many parents experience when they first find out.
In this country, there has been a massive increase in allergies, for a variety of reasons, as research has shown. The extent to which this condition has increased—including hospital stays for severe incidents, which has gone up to 25,000 according to recent data—is a matter of not inconsiderable concern. Many points have been made, but I will say that, in relation to NHS provision, for anyone who has gone through this process, the system, in moving from children to adolescents to adults, is really not clear. More importantly, it is distorted around different parts of the country, as is the provision of specialist care, and it is extremely difficult for GPs to manage this. We have to rethink how we do that.
We also have to consider more carefully the situation with autoinjectors. It was only a short while ago that the UK was out of provision of the most significant autoinjector. We had to buy one which was not allowed in many other countries because it was ineffective. Even today it remains a very significant issue, in many circumstances, that the injectors either fail or are inadequate for the situation. That comes down on many occasions to needle size and the size of body that it has to go into. The Government really have not taken enough into consideration on what we should do on autoinjectors, and I urge them to do so.
It is important that the Government increase their work with industry. We saw in the tragic case of Natasha how Pret a Manger responded extremely well. There are willing partners out there and the Government could play a crucial role with them. There are many location-specific issues, such as the provision of autoinjectors on airlines and trains, and as illustrated by the Benedict Blythe Foundation, which has done tremendous work on this, the most significant location outside a home is school, so we need to make sure we have all the right provisions there.
On some of the treatments, desensitisation therapy can be effective, but we have woefully inadequate provision for it on the NHS, and, even then, it is geographically specific. There is still an awful lot yet to do. The work of some of the organisations, such as the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, in advocating for some of these courses has been groundbreaking, as has its research. I too am very pleased that it has been selected again for the Times this year.
Underlying that, the idea of introducing a tsar is essential and one the Government must give serious consideration to, simply because of the range of things that are needed through the entire journey that someone—and their parents—facing an allergy will go through. Having something that connects it is essential, and if there was one thing that I wish the Minister would take away from this discussion, it is understanding that piecemeal measures will be insufficient. We need something which will shepherd this as we face an ever-increasing demand on dealing with allergies across the NHS and, if something was to be done, then appointing a tsar would be an extremely welcome addition.
Covid-19: Vaccines and Medical Equipment
Lord Mendelsohn Excerpts(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bethell (Con)
The UK has pledged more than £1 billion in aid to counter health, humanitarian and economic risks, including £829 million on the development and delivery of vaccines. I thank all those involved in the COVAX Facility, a multinational mechanism administered by Gavi which pools funding. The COVAX scheme is an emphatically impactful scheme. Britain has taken a leadership role in it, and I thank all those involved in its development.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is essential that those at economic and social disadvantage be given proper access to a functioning distribution strategy. Can the Minister reassure the 200,000 people with blood cancer in the “extremely vulnerable” classification that they can rely on proper evaluation of the suitability of vaccines, treatments and equipment for their distinctive condition, and provide some insight into how construction of the prioritisation list will be undertaken to address the acute problem those in such circumstances face? In this regard, would the Minister be prepared to meet with representatives of Blood Cancer UK to take these matters forward?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord raises an important point about those with blood cancer. In fact, many who are in the “extremely vulnerable” group have conditions that may or may not be affected by the vaccine. We are working extremely hard to accommodate their particular needs. The JCVI has an extremely thoughtful prioritisation process. I would be happy to meet the group the noble Lord describes.