The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has opened an eight-week consultation on whether schools should be allowed to buy and keep spare adrenaline nasal sprays for emergency use in children with severe allergies. The exercise opened on 19 October 2026, is being run UK-wide with the Department of Health in Northern Ireland, and closes on 14 December 2026. (gov.uk) The immediate policy point is that this is not a new clinical product launch but a legal and operational question: whether schools should be given another route to hold emergency adrenaline on site, alongside the auto-injectors they can already stock. (gov.uk)
According to the consultation document, the proposed change would be made by amending the Human Medicines Regulations 2012. It would extend the current exemption for spare adrenaline auto-injectors so that schools could also obtain and hold adrenaline nasal sprays without needing a prescription written for a named child. (gov.uk) That proposal follows the authorisation of adrenaline nasal spray in July 2025. The MHRA says the purpose is to keep medicines legislation aligned with clinical development and to remove avoidable barriers to approved emergency treatment in school settings. (gov.uk)
The consultation does not propose loosening the present safeguards around emergency adrenaline in schools. Spare school-held stock would remain restricted to pupils already identified as being at risk of anaphylaxis, and administration would still be limited to appropriately trained staff. Schools would be able to stock auto-injectors, nasal sprays or both. The consultation document also indicates that, in an emergency, a stocked spray or auto-injector could be used even if the pupil's own prescription is for the other format. (gov.uk) The proposal would not require schools to buy a specific product or brand, and it would not displace the expectation that children carry their own prescribed adrenaline medicine. In practical terms, school-held stock would remain a back-up measure rather than a substitute for individual prescriptions, care plans and day-to-day access arrangements. (gov.uk)
The policy case rests on a straightforward risk profile. GOV.UK states that around 8% of children and young people in the UK have a food allergy, while around 20% of serious food-related allergic reactions happen in a school setting. On that basis, the MHRA is testing whether a needle-free option should sit alongside existing emergency stock arrangements. (gov.uk) The timing is also relevant. In England, new allergy-safety requirements came into force in September 2026, with statutory guidance requiring schools to publish an allergy safety policy, train staff and stock spare adrenaline devices. Those duties sit within the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 framework, and campaigners have described the package as Benedict's Law. (gov.uk)
A second legislative question sits behind the main proposal. The MHRA is also asking whether the law should adopt broader terminology for self-administered adrenaline products, so that future authorised products can be brought into scope more quickly instead of requiring a fresh legislative amendment on each occasion. (gov.uk) That drafting issue could matter well beyond this consultation. If ministers adopt broader wording, the law would become easier to update as device formats change, although the operational rules on training, storage and emergency use would still need to remain clear enough to prevent confusion in schools. This is an inference based on the consultation text and the existing school guidance. (gov.uk)
Stakeholder responses cited by the MHRA suggest broad support in principle, but with clear conditions on implementation. Allergy UK points to the potential value of a needle-free option for confidence and prompt treatment, the NAHT says any change must be practical and properly supported, and the National Allergy Strategy Group has stressed the need to avoid unintended confusion as newer treatments enter school settings. (gov.uk) Taken together, those positions indicate where the consultation is likely to focus. The central questions are less about whether adrenaline should be available in schools, which current policy already accepts, and more about procurement, staff training, storage, incident response and how a second emergency format would fit into established allergy management processes. This is an inference drawn from the consultation material, stakeholder statements and current school guidance. (gov.uk)
There is also a jurisdictional point that schools and advisers will need to track carefully. The MHRA consultation is UK-wide and is being run with Northern Ireland's Department of Health, while the linked statutory school allergy guidance cited alongside it applies to England. In practice, that suggests a two-track policy position: medicines law can be adjusted on a UK basis, but day-to-day school implementation will still depend on the relevant education framework in each nation. This is an inference based on the published consultation and guidance pages. (gov.uk) For schools, trusts, parents and clinicians, the immediate task is consultation rather than compliance. Responses are open until 14 December 2026, and the government is seeking views not only on whether schools should hold spare adrenaline nasal sprays, but on how any new model would work safely in practice. (gov.uk)