Food Labelling and Allergies

Debate between Jon Cruddas and Margaret Ferrier

Monday 15th May 2023 Westminster Hall

[Jon Cruddas]

I will come on to that point. There have been 20 years of reports that agree about a common platform for policy change, and there is a unanimity across the community. It is bewildering that over the past 20 years, Governments have not responded in a proactive way, although over the past 18 months there have been a few changes, which I will come to later.

The need for an allergy tsar is supported by the National Allergy Strategy Group. In addition, the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation and the NASG are asking the Government to better support people with allergies through, first, an expert advisory group for allergy, which would actively support the growth and delivery of high-quality, comprehensive and geographically diverse allergy provision, and secondly a national allergy action plan.

[Margaret Ferrier]

A lack of societal awareness around food allergies is dangerous. For example, 600,000 people in the UK have coeliac disease, but there is a misconception that people choose to eat gluten-free food for its health and cosmetic benefits. Does the hon. Member agree that more needs to be done to ensure that the UK public are aware of the definition and dangers of different food allergies?

[Jon Cruddas]

I agree. I would suggest that that is part of the lack of an overall strategy and of key responsibilities at national level for making people aware about the differences and the public health needs across all our communities in every constituency that we represent here in Parliament.

The second part of the proposal is a national allergy action plan, which would join up GP and hospital allergy services, increase the number of specialist allergy clinics, train more specialist allergy doctors and consultants and provide mandatory training in allergies for all GPs. Owen Carey’s family want a change in the law to compel restaurants to state the allergens in their dishes, specifically on the face of main menus. That would build on Natasha’s law, which dealt with the ingredients and allergy listings on pre-packaged takeaway foods. Natasha’s law left an uneven situation in which people who buy pre-packaged foods have more protection than those who eat in restaurants, which is what the family are keen to sort out.

The family are also campaigning for better training for waiting staff, for more thorough and certified allergy and first-aid training and, as we have heard, for the proper recording of and a national register for anaphylaxis deaths. Those are all very sensible suggestions. Businesses are also responding: in March 2023, the bosses of 11 leading UK businesses, including Tesco and Sainsbury’s, called for clearer rules on food labelling following recent tragic and preventable deaths.

As for the general context, the figures speak for themselves. One third of the UK population, or 20 million people, are living with an allergic condition, and 5 million have a condition severe enough to require specialist care. Fatal and near-fatal reactions have increased over recent years. There has been a 615% increase in hospital admissions relating to allergic disease during the past 20 years. More than 200,000 people require the prescription of emergency adrenalin because of the severity of their allergic condition. Each year, births add 43,000 new cases of child allergy to the population in need. The figures are extraordinary.

What is so frustrating—touching on what my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) raised a few minutes ago—is that over the past two decades a series of reports have consistently demonstrated the prevalence of allergic diseases, the patient needs and the lack of UK service provision. The list of reports includes two Royal College of Physicians reports, in 2003 and 2010, on allergy: the unmet need. We had the 2004 House of Commons Health Committee report on the provision of allergy services, as well as the 2007 House of Lords Science and Technology Committee report on allergy. In autumn 2021, the all-party parliamentary group on allergy and the National Allergy Strategy Group published “Meeting the challenges of the National Allergy Crisis”.

All the reports have consistently highlighted how allergy remains poorly managed across the NHS because of a lack of training and expertise. All have recommended significant improvement in specialist services as well as improved knowledge and awareness in primary care. They have all talked about a national allergy action plan and the need for a national lead person responsible for allergy services—an allergy tsar. Yet in truth, very little has happened in 20 years. Change is long overdue.

Beyond the statistics, we are talking about a growing number of people living with allergic disease. Their condition can have significant and negative impacts on their lives and those of their families. It is frightening and restrictive to live with a condition that can cause a severe or life-threatening reaction at any time.

The reports that I mentioned, spanning 20 years, have all agreed on four key recommendations for change: a national plan for allergy, which would involve making allergy a priority and investing in a national plan led by a designated Department head, a national tsar; specialist care, which would involve expanding the specialist workforce as a priority; in primary care, ensuring that all GPs and other healthcare professionals have knowledge of allergic diseases; and, in terms of commissioning, ensuring that local commissioners understand the allergy needs of their population.

As I mentioned, I want to acknowledge some progress over the last year. The previous care and mental health Minister—the right hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), who is now Secretary of State for Education—demonstrated real commitment in this area, and since 2021 we have established a work programme and an ongoing dialogue between civil servants and representatives from the NASG to support the development of a national plan. I hope that that work continues. It should be the right of every allergy sufferer to receive a quality standard of care, and every sufferer should be able to be confident about the food that they consume in restaurants, as is the case under the arrangements that successfully operate in other countries, such as the Irish Republic.

In December 2022, the Food Standards Agency executive said that as a result of the need to respond to the deadline imposed by the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, it had to delay its planned work on Owen’s law. Supporting the petition this afternoon will, we hope, put pressure on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to force the FSA to prioritise its work on Owen’s law before another person dies unnecessarily.

I congratulate all the organisers of both petitions and urge the Government to respond favourably to them, because lives literally depend on it. Government action is important, and I hope that the Government can back both petitions this afternoon.

Human Rights Legislation Reform

Debate between Jon Cruddas and Margaret Ferrier

Monday 24th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Margaret Ferrier]

The Scottish Government have been clear that they oppose this legislation and would invite Holyrood to oppose it too. That means that if the UK Government pushed ahead, they would be showing a disregard for devolution. Does the hon. Gentleman share the concerns of those living across the UK that their rights are potentially being stripped away without consent?

[Jon Cruddas]

I will come to that when I mention different approaches to economic and social rights, which should be the cornerstone of an alternative approach to a new Bill of Rights in the UK. That goes with the grain of what is happening in Scotland, in contrast to the objectives of the present Government in Westminster. To put it charitably, the Government are a total shambles, and even compared to early September, the possibility of a Labour Government is more likely. It would be useful to find out what Labour’s approach is to reform of the HRA, for instance, whether it would seek to defend the present Act or offer its own alternative Bill of Rights.

The Conservative reform of human rights, which will reappear, cannot be discussed without acknowledging the international context in which it occurs. When set against an international backdrop of war and escalating authoritarianism, the proposed human rights reform suggests a country withdrawing from our international obligations and democratic oversight, both abroad and at home. That is not an accident. The Government have stated a wish to comply with the human rights convention, but they would also seek to mandate our judges to disregard some of its most basic principles and protections. Those include the so-called positive obligations on public bodies to investigate crime and wrongdoing. These are precisely the methods that produced remedies for the victims of the black cab rapist, John Worboys, alongside a range of other cases providing justice for victims—most famously through the Hillsborough inquiry—and a series of cases of justice for soldiers, including the case at Deepcut.

The reform would likely see more cases going to Strasbourg, not less, and would once again expand the power of the Executive, which would be more free to rule by regulation and restrict the interpretive power of the courts. When Europe and the world are crying out for international leadership and solidarity, our Government appear to be running in the opposite direction. We might assume that it is was only the likes of Russia, Poland and Hungary that cynically remained in treaties, such as the human rights convention, while corroding them from within. What I find truly extraordinary is to think that in 2023, the 75th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights—partly crafted by British lawyers—the Government planned to axe the Human Rights Act, the direct descendant of that convention, which sought to unite countries after fascism, authoritarianism and genocide.

Winston Churchill would arguably be turning in his grave. In his opening speech to the Congress of Europe in May 1948, Churchill said that the new Europe must be

“a positive force, deriving its strength from our sense of common spiritual values. It is a dynamic expression of democratic faith based upon moral conceptions and inspired by a sense of mission. In the centre of our movement stands the idea of a Charter of Human Rights, guarded by freedom and sustained by law.”

That statement, 75 years on, has a contemporary feel to it, as authoritarianism and fascism are once again on the march, threatening the foundations of liberal democracy.

While I am glad to see that the legislation has been withdrawn, it comes with one downside. The Government’s withdrawn attempt to deny rights to the British people, wrapped up in the almost Orwellian language of a new Bill of Rights, did offer opportunities for opponents to build a coalition around an alternative, rather than simply defend the status quo. It would be a radical new Bill of Rights that builds on the Human Rights Act rather than dismantles it, and one that might echo themes from Franklin D. Roosevelt’s vision of a second Bill of Rights in 1944, which informed the universal declaration of human rights.

Such an alternative Bill of Rights might include the right to work, to free education, to access to public health, to housing, to security for all and to freedom from fear. If Labour rethinks its whole approach to modern citizenship, I like to think that could be part of a radical levelling-up agenda. It would be a new democratic and economic covenant between the state and its citizens, one that is aligned with Administrations in Scotland and Wales, which are also seeking to build such an agenda. It would not only honour the Good Friday agreement’s commitment to the human rights convention, but would be in keeping with the long-term quest for a Bill of Rights in Northern Ireland. That offers a different type of radicalism to that of the Queen’s Speech, and the ditched attempts to attack our human rights, alongside the desire to consolidate power within the Executive and strip away access to justice.

In conclusion, my basic point is a simple one: the last Queen’s Speech was no damp squib. Reform of the Human Rights Act is a big deal that should be challenged. Thinking that there is little to see here concedes too much ground, and reinforces the political groupthink that underplays the radical character of this Government and their potential to isolate us, diminish our international standings, consolidate long-term economic weaknesses and enduring patterns of inequality, and hand over even greater powers to the Executive. There is plenty to see here. It deserves a radical alternative. The Human Rights Act, as it currently exists, protects all of us; we lose it at our peril. It is essential that we are allowed to challenge public authorities when they get it wrong. The Human Rights Act has changed many lives for the better. It must be protected and built on, and not subject to reforms that reduce its scope and limit what people can rely on it for. This debate will endure. That is why the petition before us retains its significance and should be warmly welcomed.