Statutory Menstrual Leave

Kirsteen Sullivan Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for speaking with such compassion and insight, and for sharing Leah’s journey—one I am afraid many will recognise. I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis, which is launching an inquiry into endometriosis in the workplace on 21 April, and I invite colleagues from across the House to attend the event that will be held. We want to hear directly from women and employers about their experiences, including what is or is not working, and about what has to change if we are to better support women to remain in the workplace.

As we have heard, Endometriosis UK operates an endo-friendly employer scheme with certification. Last November, my office signed up to that scheme, which offers guidance and support to run an endo-friendly workplace. I also wrote to my local councils and chamber of commerce to invite them to do the same. I ask all Members to consider signing up and leading by example in their own communities.

Too many women have had their pain dismissed as normal, struggled silently at work or had their careers derailed because a workplace simply was not designed with their health in mind. As a result, one in six women with endometriosis has ended up leaving the workplace—an entirely unacceptable and largely avoidable situation.

It was being elected to this place that made me persist in seeking support for my symptoms, which limited my ability to fully participate in my responsibilities as a parliamentarian—the fatigue and the menstrual flooding, and the constant worrying and planning about what I was wearing and where I would be at any given time. As it turned out, I have adenomyosis, which was discovered only at the ripe old age of 49, as I come to the end of my reproductive life. So I understand the stress, pain and worry that affect millions of women in this country today.

Menstrual leave has gathered support at just the right time, as many of the provisions of the Employment Rights Act 2025 have just come into force. We recognise that the workplace needs to change and that women should not be disadvantaged due to health conditions. The women’s health strategy refresh in England and phase 2 of the Scottish women’s health plan present opportunities to correct the trend that has led to endometriosis and menstrual health being under-researched, undertreated and under-recognised, and diagnosis wait times increasing to a decade or more for some women. I would be grateful if the Minister could assure us that endometriosis waiting times will be the utmost priority in the women’s health strategy refresh.

Although endometriosis affects around one in 10 women, it does not affect everyone in the same way. Some need intermittent time off during flare-ups; others, especially when properly supported, can work consistently, but need flexibility, reasonable adjustments and job security if their symptoms worsen. Prior to this debate, I looked into other countries that have menstrual leave. What that means in practice varies considerably. Vietnam offers a half-hour paid break every day during menstruation; Spain gives up to five days of paid leave for severe menstrual pain, subject to a doctor’s approval; and Portugal allows workers suffering severe and disabling menstrual pain to take up to three consecutive days of paid leave, dependent on the employee providing a medical note confirming incapacitating pain due to endometriosis or adenomyosis.

Legislation that provides for menstrual health is not necessarily a silver bullet, particularly when it relies upon a diagnosis. That would be the opposite of progress. Women with endometriosis do not need a one-size-fits-all policy; they need flexibility, fairness and protection. Too many workplaces automatically trigger action once someone hits an arbitrary number of absences, which is deeply discriminatory. Absence management systems need to change to recognise the chronic and episodic nature of conditions such as endometriosis and adenomyosis, and the accompanying mental physical fatigue from living with persistent pain.

Critically, employees need endometriosis to be treated for what it is: a long-term, whole-body health condition, not a series of isolated sick days. Menstrual leave can be an essential part of the support package, but building stronger rights to flexible work, reasonable adjustments and protection from workplace penalisation is central to any solution. To improve outcomes for women with endometriosis, we need answers that recognise the reality of the condition and help women to stay in work, progress in work and be treated with dignity at work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for his opening remarks, and for his compassion and solidarity. He is absolutely right that every man should have a say in these issues and challenge them. As well as the fact that nearly half the global population will menstruate at some point in their lifetime, and on any given day 850 million people across the world are menstruating, we are all here because a woman somewhere had a menstrual cycle, so it is a concern for absolutely everybody.

For something so universal, menstruation remains shrouded in coded language, embarrassment and unnecessary shame. We call it “the time of month”, “the painters are in”, “my cousin has come to stay”—anything but what it actually is. We pass around tampons and pads as if they are some sort of contraband that no one should see. That evasion is not accidental: it is the product of centuries of conditioning that told women their bodies were problems to be managed in silence and shame.

Listening to my fellow hon. Friends speaking about their own experience, all I keep thinking is that, if young women had been flagged when they had painful periods, things would have been different for a lot of the conditions we are talking about, certainly in terms of the length of time to diagnosis. I am really pleased to contribute to this debate and support statutory menstrual leave, not as a radical policy but as a practical, compassionate and long-overdue step towards a fairer and healthier working society.

We already see where progress has been made and where things have been championed in this House. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare) on the ten-minute rule Bill she introduced recently and her consistent campaigning for improved endometriosis care. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) on her work as the chair of the APPG on endometriosis. All that work matters and it is making a difference.

Scotland became the first country in the world to legislate for free menstrual products, and across the UK we rightly abolished VAT on sanitary products in 2021, finally ending the so-called tampon tax. Steps like those matter, but they are not the end of the journey—not by a long way. Here is the truth: we have made it cheaper to menstruate, but we have not made it safe to admit that someone is struggling because of it.

Menstrual stigma continues to socially condition people to conceal their pain, push through it and stay silent at work. The cost of that silence is not abstract; for those living with endometriosis, dysmenorrhoea, adenomyosis or premenstrual dysphoric disorder, that silence means working through debilitating pain or losing earnings when they cannot, and in some cases losing jobs altogether. Those are real conditions. They are painful and often severe, and they exist within a system where female reproductive health has been chronically under-researched, underfunded and far too often dismissed.

[Kirsteen Sullivan]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful point. Does she agree that the impact on women’s mental health is rarely spoken about? Women feel ignored and dismissed, but they are living in constant pain and the anticipation of it, which just wears them down. The mental health point is rarely acknowledged but must be addressed.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I say that as someone who lives with endometriosis and constantly experiences that pain, thinking about what I can and cannot do, and what I will be able to manage this week or that week. I know what it is to sit in a meeting, stand through our many votes and carry on a role that demands my full presence when my body is screaming otherwise. I know from listening to other Members and so many different women speaking about it that I am far from alone.

It is not a competition of who receives more health funding, but we have to say that men have won consistently. When my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) was speaking, I looked up some figures for the amount of investment into things such as Viagra. Everyone should look at them when they can; they are shocking in comparison with what is spent on certain things in men’s and women’s health. Let us be honest about what that under-investment has cost us: endometriosis alone affects around 1.5 million people in the UK, taking an average of nearly nine years to diagnose, as we have heard. That is not a gap in the system, but a failure of the system; it is a failure rooted in a long-standing tendency to deprioritise women’s pain.

Statutory menstrual leave would allow someone to take time off when they were genuinely unable to work due to menstruation, without fear of judgment, without risking their job security and without having to lie about why they are absent. Crucially, it would also begin to normalise the conversation and to challenge the stigma rather than reinforce it, because the answer to workplace discrimination is never to remain invisible.

As we have heard, menstrual leave policies already exist across the globe: in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, China, Indonesia, Zambia, Mexico and, most recently, Portugal. They are not fringe experiments, but functioning workplace policies in countries with vastly different cultures and economies. The evidence that this is workable is already there. Here at home, our Employment Rights Act has introduced major reforms, including a day one right to sick pay. Menstrual leave would sit naturally alongside those changes if we were to implement it; it is consistent with the direction of travel and is the next logical step.

The policy also offers vital protection for those who are too often overlooked, including transgender men and non-binary and gender-diverse people who menstruate. For many, disclosure of menstrual status can expose them to discrimination or worse. A clear statutory framework would provide safety, privacy and the reassurance that their needs were seen and protected by law.

There are those who argue that menstrual leave would undermine women in the workplace, and that employers would discriminate against people who menstruate when hiring. I take that concern seriously, but that argument has been made against every single piece of workplace equality legislation in history: it was made against maternity leave, it was made against equal pay, and it was made against flexible working. In every case, the answer was not to abandon the protection, but to make the legal framework strong enough to prevent the discrimination. That is what we have to do here too.

The ultimate goal is job security, wellbeing and genuine equality. Menstrual leave alone will not get us all the way there, but it is a serious, evidence-backed and compassionate step in the right direction. I urge this House to take it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for opening today’s debate and for bravely sharing his wife Leah’s experience of living with endometriosis. I also thank Michelle, who joins us in the Gallery, for creating the petition, sharing her story and experiences and bringing her daughter and so many other people here today to watch this debate. Finally, I thank my colleagues here who have reflected deeply on this matter, sharing their personal experiences and the experiences of their constituents and the many campaigners they have met across the country. The drive of all Members here today, and outside this Hall, makes it clear why the issue is so important for women and girls across the country and in our workplaces; clearly, we all know somebody impacted and living with various conditions that have led to a different experience at work. We want to see change and make sure that they can thrive in the workplace. That is why this debate is welcome and important.

I want to start by recognising the enormous, admirable strength of so many woman and girls living with endometriosis, adenomyosis and other menstrual conditions today, as well as the thousands of women who have come before us outside of this room. They have lived with the conditions for so long; they have not been diagnosed for many years, and it is harrowing to hear their reflections and stories from many colleagues today. I completely understand and share the determination to turn things around. I will touch on various actions that the Government have taken in the Department for Business and Trade—looking at specific workplace policies and our work with employers—and, of course, the strategic work that my colleagues in the Department for Health and Social Care are prioritising.

Recently, with the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, I was honoured to meet with Endometriosis UK to hear the lived experiences of women and their campaigns, including with Jasmina, the director of “Dear Doctor”. For those who have not watched it, it is an incredibly powerful film that describes living with the conditions and having to navigate working through the debilitating, but invisible, pain. It was incredibly moving to watch, and I thank them for it and for their time.

Of course, the conditions did not begin this year or this century. We are listening and taking action so that we can support women and girls across the country who live with those conditions. As Members, our constituents and the petition signatories know, they can be debilitating for patients. We have heard today about the pain, fatigue and psychological impacts, which are real, significant, and often have far-reaching consequences for women’s welfare and ability to fully participate in the workplace and education. It is unacceptable that health-related issues are the leading cause of women being excluded in the workplace. Over the past six years, the number of women who are economically inactive due to long-term sickness has risen by 425,000, reaching 1.48 million—close to a record high.

It is right that the Government are taking action on this issue from all sides, with our landmark Employment Rights Act making statutory sick pay more accessible and introducing equality action plans; access to work reforms in the Department for Work and Pensions through the “Keep Britain Working” programme; and our record investment in our NHS, which has seen gynaecology waiting lists fall by almost 20,000 and made transformative endometriosis medication available.

I will turn to the points that colleagues have made in this debate, and I thank them for raising them. We remain fully committed to learning from others and continue to look carefully at international best practice, which lots of colleagues have touched on today. That includes Portugal’s approach and other international examples that offer valuable insights into how to best support employees experiencing difficulties with menstrual health conditions.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) for mentioning the endometriosis-friendly employer scheme. We expect employers to treat staff fairly and accommodate reasonable requests for employees suffering from menstrual health conditions. Many employers, as has been mentioned, choose to provide that voluntary support to staff, and the Government continue to encourage best practice. I thank colleagues for raising the scheme with me; two Departments—the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Transport—have already signed up, and I will take this away for the Department for Business and Trade to consider. I thank colleagues for raising that scheme.

Turning to statutory sick pay, one of the key issues raised in the debate is ensuring that women and girls experiencing debilitating symptoms from menstrual conditions are supported and not financially punished for a condition beyond their control. Our Government’s landmark Employment Rights Act delivers that, extending statutory sick pay to employees on day one—their first day of sickness—regardless of how much they earn. No more waiting a few days and no more not being entitled to statutory sick pay if they earn a certain amount.

While it is regretful that the Opposition voted against the Employment Rights Act at every stage in Parliament, I think the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), welcomed our statutory sick pay introductions this month. Those will change the lives of so many people across this country—as she and colleagues in this Chamber have pointed out—because they mean that, for the first time, those with fluctuating conditions such as endometriosis and adenomyosis are eligible for statutory sick pay from the first day that their sickness prevents them from working. Before the 2025 Act, they were excluded from statutory sick pay unless absence lasted for four days. That was a draconian system that harmed the least well off, ignored the lived experience of thousands of women, and desperately needed reform. It is absolutely right that we have dragged that system into the 21st century.

The Act also ensured that the UK leads the way in supporting employees to work flexibly. Flexible and hybrid working arrangements are vital in ensuring that employees who require reasonable adjustments, such as those with health conditions, are supported at work and are able to contribute to our workforce. That is particularly valuable for those with fluctuating or unpredictable conditions, including endometriosis and other menstrual health conditions, making it easier to manage symptoms and attend medical appointments, and reducing sickness absences.

The Act improves employees’ ability to work flexibly by requiring employers to accept flexible working requests, provided they are reasonable. Where they cannot accept those requests, employers will be required to discuss the challenges in accommodating them with employees and to consider alternative options, and, if they cannot agree an arrangement, to explain their reasoning. A public consultation on these reforms is currently under way until 30 April, and I encourage members of the public and advocacy organisations to please make submissions and ensure that their views are taken into account.

Alongside the right to request flexible working, protections continue to be available under the Equality Act, where symptoms have a substantial and long-term adverse effect on day-to-day activities. Conditions such as endometriosis, adenomyosis and premenstrual disorders can meet the definition of disability under the Equality Act. Employers absolutely have a duty to make reasonable adjustments, such as flexible hours, modified duties, part-time arrangements or phased returns. Those reasonable adjustments are well established, enforceable and designed to prevent discrimination and disadvantage.

[Kirsteen Sullivan]

Menstrual health conditions, including endometriosis, result in an estimated cost of £11 billion a year to the UK economy. Does my hon. Friend agree that having more supportive workplaces—workplaces without stigma, where there is an understanding of the chronic nature of some of those conditions—will have a positive effect not only for the women living with those conditions but overall, for our economy?

[Kate Dearden]

I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution and for her powerful speech during this debate. She is a tireless campaigner on this; I really look forward to working with her and the APPG on lots of these issues, and particularly on that stigma. She raises an excellent point about the role of employers in ensuring that there are supportive workplaces that can talk about health conditions that women experience, to make sure that they thrive at work. She mentioned the cost to our wider economy, and I thank her for doing that; it really recognises the significance of this issue and why we need to absolutely support those women across workplaces, and to work with employers to do that.

Turning to equality action plans, we are also working with employers to help women to thrive at work, and on how they can support women’s health much more proactively. Ahead of International Women’s Day, we were pleased to launch voluntary action plans to help those large employers address their gender pay gaps and improve support for employees experiencing menopause. As part of that announcement, we published a list of evidence-informed actions that employers can take—ones that are proven to work—and I thank my hon. Friend for raising that throughout her contribution.

Within the action plan, we are asking employers to commit to a minimum of two actions: one to address their gender pay gaps and one focused on supporting employees experiencing menopause, including those in both the perimenopausal and postmenopausal stages. Many of the recommended actions are also likely to benefit employees managing other menstrual health-related conditions, such as endometriosis, fibroids and polycystic ovary syndrome, which can significantly affect wellbeing and contribute to workplace disadvantage. It is a real opportunity for Government and business to work together to drive forward that meaningful change to improve workplace equality, and a huge step forward in supporting women’s health in the workplace.

We are also taking further action to address the barriers that menstrual health can raise in the workplace through Mariella Frostrup’s recent appointment as the Government’s women’s employment ambassador, building on her significant achievements in the past 18 months as the menopause employment ambassador. In this expanded role, she will champion women’s health across the life course, working with employers nationwide to strengthen workplace support, raise awareness of key health conditions and highlight the vital economic contribution that women make.

Prior to my appointment as a Minister, I worked with the founder of Endometriosis UK’s Calderdale and Kirklees branch, a formidable woman named Natalie Greenwood, to connect her organisation with trade union members locally and employers and officials across the UK, to ensure that workplace policies are inclusive of women with menstrual conditions. I encourage all hon. Friends and petition signatories to take action in their constituencies so that we can all, together, work with our employers to support women in the workplace. With the right workplace support, we can unleash the full talent, creativity and potential for women across the country. That is good for women, business, our economy and our country. 

Following Sir Charlie Mayfield’s independent review, we are taking broader action through the keep women working programme, which hon. Members have mentioned today, to help more women to stay in work. In response to that review, the Government have launched the vanguard phase, working with employers of different sectors, sizes and regions all across the country to test the practical ways of improving workplace health support. That vanguard phase will consider a range of insights through different lenses, including women’s health. We are also establishing a new workplace health intelligence unit to build that evidence base and support benchmarking. That sits alongside our £1 billion a year pathway to work programme. 

Throughout this debate, colleagues have rightly touched on the problems with diagnosis and asked for an update on the women’s health strategy, which I will turn to, but I can reassure everyone across the House that their powerful contributions and the points they raised for colleagues across Government will be raised with my health colleagues. This is not an area that just sits in my Department and with employers; we are committed to it across Government.

I have heard personal stories, including from colleagues here today about women outside this room who have spent too many years seeking answers, being misdiagnosed, having symptoms minimised or being passed from service to service. The experiences highlighted in Endometriosis UK’s recent report underlines why that early-year diagnosis and consistent, compassionate care must be central to our approach. From our introduction of Jess’s rule, requiring GPs to reconsider diagnosis where symptoms persist, to the roll-out of Martha’s rule, which colleagues will be aware of, we want to ensure that women’s concerns are not dismissed.

The shadow Minister mentioned the impact that community diagnostic services can have, which is why we are expanding access to diagnostic services and rolling them out country wide for women. Last month, there were 106 centres offering out-of-hours appointments for women to get those vital tests around work and caring responsibilities, and I really welcome the work of my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care.

We are also modernising how specialist care is delivered. In September, we announced our new online hospital, NHS Online, which will be unconstrained by geographical boundaries, better aligning clinical capacity with patient demand. Earlier this year, we confirmed that menstrual problems, often a sign of conditions such as endometriosis, will be the among the first nine conditions available for referral from 2027. Those details are being worked out ahead of next year’s launch.

However, we completely understand that better care also depends on better understanding and improving public and healthcare profession awareness of menstrual health conditions, to reduce stigma and ensure that symptoms are recognised rather than normalised or dismissed. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) made such a powerful point around how period pains are considered to simply be painful and women and girls across the country should expect that; improving awareness is key to dealing with that. The General Medical Council has strengthened women’s health representation in training, and since last year has required UK medical graduates to pass that medical licensing assessment, to encourage better understanding of women’s health problems. That assessment includes topics on women’s health and endometriosis.

Before I conclude, I must touch on the women’s health strategy, which is really welcome. We have made strong progress turning the commitments in the last Government’s women’s health strategy into tangible action. Our renewed strategy will set out how this Government will take further steps to improve women’s health as we deliver the 10-year health plan. It will also address the gaps in the 2022 strategy, and go further to create a system that listens to women, tackles health inequalities and makes progress on conditions such as endometriosis. Renewing that strategy will help identify and remove enduring barriers to high-quality care, such as those extremely long wait lists for diagnosis, and ensure that professionals listen and respond to women’s needs. I am sure colleagues will be—and already are—engaging with my colleagues in the Health Department on that.

To conclude, I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley for leading the debate, the hon. Members in the Chamber for their powerful contributions and Michelle for her brave action that made this deeply important debate happen. I assure Members and petition signatories that I recognise the significant impact of menstrual health conditions, and I will consider all the points raised today as I continue to engage with stakeholders, with the APPG and with excellent Members across the House who are formidable in running their campaigns and raising this issue at every single opportunity—I thank them for that. We must ensure that lived experience continues to shape policy.

Social Enterprises and Community Ownership

Kirsteen Sullivan Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. Many of our communities have felt left behind, with their concerns about the places where they live often going unheard, so I welcome the steps that this Government have taken since July 2024 to address that imbalance. They are giving power back to local people through programmes such as Pride in Place, which is investing £20 million in the communities of Whitburn and Blackburn in my constituency.

The Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 has been in place for more than a decade, but it has not quite delivered what was hoped. Although the word “empowerment” is enshrined in the name, that has all too often stayed on paper. Ultimately, when austerity is the driver of local community ownership, that undermines the chances of success, but when it is driven by community aspiration and ambition, proactive uptake can make a real difference to a community’s renewal and can breathe new life into our high streets and town centres.

One such example is the Low Port Centre in Linlithgow. The building was declared surplus to council requirements in 2023, but by early 2024, what had started out as a project for a group from St John’s church in Linlithgow had quickly evolved into an endeavour that attracted businesses, community groups and volunteers from across the town. They secured the building and converted it into a centre for small businesses, innovators, charities, the church itself and the Linlithgow reed band. There is even accommodation there. They identified what the residents and the town needed and how their collective endeavour could deliver for everyone. That needs to change from the exception to the rule. The UK’s Government’s commitment to enshrine co-operative values in their effort to increase community ownership will support exactly that.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

That was excellent timekeeping.

Sale of Fireworks

Kirsteen Sullivan Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Arthur]

A change in this domain is inevitable. The Government can choose to be proactive, or they will end up reacting to events—perhaps when someone is killed. It is really important to remember that.

When we had this debate last year, I spoke about the lawlessness we saw in my constituency and in Edinburgh more widely in 2024. Across the city, police officers and firefighters were attacked with fireworks, bricks and bottles, our public transport system was heavily targeted, and a red panda in Edinburgh zoo died. In my constituency, disorder in areas that included Sighthill, Oxgangs, Calder Road and Broomhouse left my constituents terrified and afraid to leave their houses, and a care home, petrol station and care dealership were attacked. It is shameful that disorder of that level took place, and that it was in large part fuelled by easy access to large stocks of fireworks.

In 2024, after that disorder, I visited the police. They issued me with photographs of fireworks they had confiscated from a gentleman who had them in the back of his van, and who was selling them to young people for a profit. In 2025, an individual was caught with £42,000-worth of fireworks that he intended to sell to people on the street. Since then, firework exclusion zones have been set up in Scotland, and those are important, but they are ultimately difficult to enforce.

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making an important point on firework control zones. They were sold as a bit of a silver bullet, but unfortunately I heard from fire chiefs and police officers during my time as a councillor that they had been given no additional resources or funding to enforce them. That is surely a must.

[Dr Arthur]

Absolutely. The planning and resourcing that goes into enforcing these zones in Edinburgh is absolutely incredible, and I thank the police for the work they do—they often face real risks.

We have to tackle the import and sale of fireworks. Last year, in response to the events of 2024, my office undertook a local campaign where we wrote to all the supermarkets asking them to end their sale of fireworks. I thank Hannah from my office for doing that. I am proud that all the major supermarkets in Edinburgh South West have stopped selling fireworks—that is a fantastic achievement. The same is true across much of the city, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) were able to copy what we did and achieve the same in their constituencies.

Around that time, I was copied into an email from the British Fireworks Association to the chief executive of Asda, which had just agreed to stop selling fireworks in my constituency. The email said that the people behind the campaign in Edinburgh South West—my constituents—were from very small, ill-informed and vocal self-interest groups. These are pet lovers, veterans—we have a lot of veterans in my constituency—people who may be neurodiverse and people who have simply had enough. The email said that regulations ensure that customers are purchasing fireworks from a trusted source, often with clear instructions and safety warnings. “Often with instructions”—it is absolutely incredible.

Thankfully, with the supermarkets’ help, the situation across Edinburgh South West really improved in 2025, and I thank them. While the police were called to some antisocial behaviour incidents, those involved dispersed when officers arrived and no serious offences were committed. That may be because the police were able to prosecute quite a number of people who had been caught. I cannot commend strongly enough the work of community groups and the police in the build-up to 5 November last year. Many months of work paid off, and I am proud of the small contribution that my office made. The level of violence in Edinburgh South West was much lower, at least in part because it was harder to buy fireworks.

The Government have to look at that and think about the role of organised displays, such as Edinburgh’s Diwali and Hogmanay displays, as well as those organised by groups such as the Currie, Balerno and District Round Table. The Government must think about whether anybody else really needs to be able to buy fireworks. Do we want to be proactive as a Government and keep people safe, or wait until more people are injured? It is incumbent on the Government to act. The Netherlands started 2026 with a fireworks ban. Would it not be great if this country did the same to start 2027?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure, Ms Jardine, to serve under your chairship today, and I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for presenting these petitions on behalf of the Petitions Committee. It is clear that there is a strength of feeling about fireworks, not only in this place but up and down the country—not least with the 345 of my constituents who have signed the petitions.

As we have heard, fireworks can have absolutely devastating impacts on our neighbourhoods, leaving families afraid to go out, homes and drivers under attack, and animals in terror. For years Blackburn, in my constituency of Bathgate and Linlithgow, was known to be a hotspot for dangerous bonfire night disorder. Emergency services came under attack, fireworks were routinely used as weapons, and residents were frightened in their own streets and their own homes. When I first became a councillor in 2017, I learned very quickly the depth of fear, frustration and anger within the community. At one memorable public meeting, anger at perceived inaction threatened to boil over into hostility. However, despite the fact that illegal firework sales were talked about widely and there were numerous incidents involving them, police and fire officers had not received any reports. There was a bit of a light-bulb moment as everybody realised that they had a part to play in making Blackburn a safer place around bonfire night.

Instead of allowing frustration to fester, everyone came together. Police and fire services co-ordinated their response with other services, including various council departments and members of the Blackburn community. That led to the establishment in 2019 of the Blackburn bonfire night action group. It worked throughout the year to provide diversionary activities for young people, and to co-ordinate police and fire planning and response alongside that of other services. Crucially, proactive community engagement increased reporting of criminal activity such as illegal sales of fireworks, the creation of dangerous bonfires, and incidents including fireworks being thrown at drivers, pets and so on. In subsequent years, Crimestoppers saw a major increase in reports from worried residents. The group worked because it was a genuine partnership, shaped and driven by the people who lived in the village—people who for years had felt terrorised by a small minority that was hell-bent on causing chaos and fear in the lead-up to 5 November.

Although the problems have not been completely eradicated, there has been a vast improvement on the scenes of 2017 and 2018. The Blackburn bonfire night action group has received national recognition for its work, being praised in the Scottish Parliament for reducing antisocial behaviour during bonfire season. I commend everyone who has played a part in the initiative for their commitment and effort in addressing what has been a very complex issue.

Ultimately, people in our communities and our neighbourhoods know exactly what is going on, and they are the ones who have to live with the consequences. Fireworks policies must be made with communities and not imposed on them, and councils in Scotland and other vital public services, such as Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, must be resourced and funded to deliver those policies. Communities such as Blackburn deserve nothing less.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Dearden]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and that work in Luton to enable people to better report issues outside of those hours is appreciated and valued. Where we can, we should share and promote best practice. She made a valid point about the frustrations and difficulties in doing that on the enforcement side of things, and we would be keen to take that further. Tackling antisocial behaviour is a top priority for this Government. It is a key part of our safer streets mission, which is why we want to take action against those who seek chaos and terror on our streets.

[Kirsteen Sullivan]

In my contribution, I spoke about the contribution of people from Blackburn to changing what was going on in their community. Will the Minister reassure me that the Government will engage directly with communities, to hear from the very people whose lives are blighted by this antisocial behaviour?

[Kate Dearden]

I can absolutely provide that reassurance today. I want to hear from as many people and communities that have been impacted as possible, and ensure that they have the opportunity to share their stories directly with me. I thank her for raising that today, and can give her that reassurance.

North Sea Oil and Gas Industry

Kirsteen Sullivan Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

I have enormous respect for the hon. Lady, but I have to say that this is not the day to be talking down this particular company. She can make the wider points about this Government’s policy—I totally recognise that—but this is a hugely important moment in which not to undermine a successful and growing company. We need to ensure that the suppliers, related companies and customers of Petrofac continue to support that business, because as of today it is operating as normal. It is incumbent on us all to ensure that that continues to be the case. We are working closely with the company to ensure that that outcome is delivered—the hon. Lady is right to mention the wider impact—but those 2,000 jobs and the supply chain jobs that rely on them have continued as normal today, and any suggestion to the contrary is just not correct.

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to speak responsibly, with care and accuracy, about the successful UK arm of Petrofac? To do otherwise will only serve to undermine the business and job security that we all want to see across the House. What steps is he taking to ensure that it has a long-term future in the UK?

[Michael Shanks]

I rightly expect to be challenged in the House on the Government’s policies. A strong back-and-forth exchange is important. In this one instance, however, and separate from any view that Members might have on the wider policies of this Government, it is important that we come together where we can and say that this is a strong, successful, growing company. It is in all our interests across the House to talk up the importance of that company’s continuing to be successful so that a buyer or another commercial resolution is found and those jobs can be maintained. That is surely in all our interests.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kirsteen Sullivan Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

1. What recent steps his Department has taken to encourage small businesses to export.

[Jade Botterill (Ossett and Denby Dale) (Lab)]

10. What recent steps his Department has taken to encourage small businesses to export.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)]

We have begun a series of roadshows, which bring overseas buyers to the UK to meet small businesses here in, for example, clean energy, advanced manufacturing, life sciences, technology, and digital, creative, financial and professional services. In addition, we are offering new online support to help small and medium-sized enterprises win new export orders to EU markets.

[Kirsteen Sullivan]

I know from a recent business roundtable I hosted in my constituency of Bathgate and Linlithgow, and from many meetings with industry, that a common barrier to small business exports is supply chain instability. In the past few years, we have seen massive instability, including from the impact of the pandemic and now from the announcement of tariffs. Disrupted demand forecasting, increased costs of raw materials and uncertainty are damaging fledgling businesses in growing their exports. What specific measures is the Department implementing to help small businesses navigate these challenges, and to ensure they can maintain reliable supply chains as we enter another turbulent time for international trade?

[Gareth Thomas]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I commend her for the business roundtable that she hosted. She is absolutely right, and we recognise that supply chain instability is a critical issue for businesses. We are therefore working hard to minimise the uncertainty that businesses face, both in exporting and in purchasing from key markets. Whether through the economic deal with the US that we are seeking to negotiate, the reset of our relationship with the EU, or new opportunities with India and the Indo-Pacific, we are keen to take down barriers to business. I have to say that the evidence continues to demonstrate that free and fair trade drives down prices, offers better choices for consumers and, crucially, leads to more stable supply chains.

UK-US Trade and Tariffs

Kirsteen Sullivan Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I thank the hon. Member for his words on the automotive sector. On the ZEV mandate that he references, it was a policy of the previous Government to be clear. We inherited that policy. The consultation we have opened with our colleagues in Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Department for Transport will look at that in the context of a fall across all European markets in automotive production and demand, and this incredible entry on to the world economy of increased Chinese production, which is a challenge for all of us. He will also know that the automotive sector is very much an export-led sector—we export 80% of what we make—and all our key markets have the transition policies in place towards electric vehicles, so if we did not make that transition, we would not have a product to sell in those key markets. We have to work with industry to do it, but we also have to recognise that what we inherited from the Conservative party was not working. That is why we opened the consultation, and we will publish the response very soon.

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for his efforts and those of his team thus far. I also welcome the fact that there will be engagement with businesses on the potential for retaliatory action—that input is vital. While the UK has the lowest rate of reciprocal tariffs, that will be cold comfort to the many businesses in my constituency of Bathgate and Linlithgow and, indeed, for those in the whisky and salmon industries, which employ thousands of people across Scotland. Will the Secretary of State assure the business community that he will work at pace with his team to secure a sustainable trade deal with lower tariffs and to bring much-needed certainty to businesses and households across this country?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I thank my hon. Friend for her support. We are taking steps to ensure that all options are on the table for the action we may need to take in future—that is important. It is inevitable when an announcement of this magnitude has occurred that businesses will be concerned, and I understand that will be what her constituents are telling her this morning. I absolutely assure her that the approach I have laid out today will be something that we continue to work towards at pace. Our tone, the assurances we can give and the fact we are approaching this with calm-headed pragmatism is vital, and that will be part of how we can reassure businesses. We will work to get to the position she articulates—a better set of trade terms with the US—and that is the objective of the Government.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Kirsteen Sullivan Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

My constituents would be forgiven for thinking that the clock had turned back, so I will focus on the issues that they have asked me to raise, which are not political in the slightest, but relate to safety. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that while this is a small Bill, it is very important. It is of great interest to my constituents, especially the members of Torphichen community council in my constituency who asked me to speak in this debate. They back the Electrical Safety First campaign, and they spoke to me about the danger of fires caused by lithium-ion batteries in e-scooters and e-bikes and in everyday products. The lithium-ion battery safety campaign is calling for stronger measures, including improved enforcement efforts, particularly online; disposal guidance at the point of sale; and measures to ensure safer charging. I hope that the Ministers who are present will give strong consideration to those suggestions in due course.

Lithium-ion batteries are integral to many modern devices that most of us have in our homes, from e-scooters to laptops, but widespread use has exposed significant safety concerns, largely owing to the lack of oversight. Batteries have been linked to numerous fire incidents and pose serious risks of injury or worse. Thermal runaway is a dangerous phenomenon: battery cells overheat and catch fire, releasing toxic gases and often causing extensive damage. By their very nature, e-scooters are often left in town centres, walkways and communal areas in flats and hallways, putting other members of the public at risk in the event of thermal runaway. As we have heard, in London e-bike and e-scooter fires occur as often as once every two days. Worse still, I am aware of domestic incidents in my constituency, including one in which, sadly, a family lost their home and all their belongings as a result of an e-scooter fire.

The Bill introduces welcome steps to deal with those risks, creating a landscape to address the dangers associated with products that are so widely used. The mandates on safety standards for the storage, use and disposal of lithium-ion batteries will help to mitigate the dangers associated with thermal runaway. I also welcome the new powers to monitor compliance and enforce regulations effectively. It is critical that only safe and reliable products reach the market, and reach our homes. Such measures are essential to prevent incidents and protect people from serious harm, such as that which affected my constituents.

There is much in the Bill that has been long awaited at a local level, and I am glad that the Government are responding to people’s concerns in a timely and stringent manner. The danger posed by poorly maintained or unsafely stored lithium-ion batteries is too great to be ignored.

[Graham Stuart]

Is it the hon. Lady’s understanding that the existing regulations on lithium-ion batteries are insufficient? There is a British standard, and there are environmental and disposal regulations. There is a swathe of regulations relating to lithium-ion batteries, but if there is a failure to enforce them, that should not give Ministers carte blanche to decide on a whim what products, in this area or any other, should be available for sale in the UK without any recourse to Parliament.

[Kirsteen Sullivan]

I do not think that we want to rerun the arguments relating to Brexit, which is what this debate has largely been about so far. The Bill has clearly been introduced to address gaps that have left consumers exposed to great harms.

The prominence of online marketplaces is an established trend in our society. We all know from the pandemic how important essential—and sometimes non-essential—online purchases can be to our daily lives. They have become commonplace, and that trend is only set to continue. By the end of the decade, online purchases will be worth £156 billion. Nevertheless, many products are poorly regulated, faulty and—too often—dangerous. Whether it is the carbon monoxide alarms that do not work that have been used to kit out a cheaply renovated student flat, the faulty chainsaw attachments used by a neighbour or the faulty e-scooter sitting in a back garden, these faulty products have come about because the pace of change online has been poorly matched by regulations. We are now in a situation where regulations in the online world do not match the protections in the real world. Quite simply, if a product is too dangerous or fails the standards for those sold in shops, it should not be available in online marketplaces. As a society, we need to be protected in our increasing reliance on and use of the digital world; otherwise, the lack of online protections will have yet more devastating real-life impacts.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kirsteen Sullivan]

I am about to conclude.

This Bill is a welcome step to alter the regulatory landscape. More importantly, it will ensure basic product safety and better oversight of products such as lithium batteries. The Bill will reduce the risks associated with thermal runaway and protect our communities from potential harm. As online marketplaces continue to expand, it is essential to extend these regulations to the digital realm to respond to the evolving challenges of modern technology and safeguard public safety.

Budget Resolutions

Kirsteen Sullivan Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate all hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches today and who have spoken so powerfully.

I am very honoured to speak in this debate, as it is a Budget that breaks the mould. It breaks the mould with its delivery by Britain’s first female Chancellor of the Exchequer. It breaks the mould with its ambitious investment in industry and public services, which speaks to every part of the United Kingdom. And it breaks the mould of Tory Budgets and mini-Budgets, which lumbered the country with declining living standards, a painful lack of investment, public services at breaking point, and no economic growth to show for it.

The imperative for investment in services and industry has never been greater. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has responded to that challenge, delivering a Budget that has ambition, aspiration and fairness at its heart. We are fixing the foundations so that we can rebuild this country.

The priority of this Labour Government is growth—growth for our economy, for wages, for living standards and for our public services. This means an uplift in the national living wage and the national minimum wage, giving a wage boost to those on the lowest incomes. There is a record £22.6 billion investment in the NHS, which covers 40,000 new elective appointments a week and a programme to modernise services and slash waiting times. Let me be clear: this additional funding has to make its way to frontline services in Scotland, where one in six Scots is languishing on a waiting list.

We have also had a massive increase in education funding but, again, the Scottish Government must make sure that this money makes its way to our council budgets. We must also get the money into those schools impacted by the RAAC crisis, such as St Kentigern’s academy in Blackburn where West Lothian council has not received one penny in financial support for the £35 million partial rebuild of the school.

[Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Conservative Members have said that they would like to see tax cuts in the Budget, but does she agree that they have not spelled out how they would pay for those tax cuts and which public services and investments they would cut to pay for those cuts?

[Kirsteen Sullivan]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Investment must be paid for. I think that Members across the House are very much aware of the desperate need for investment in our public services and in industry. Investment is required in social and affordable homes across the UK, to offer security and stability to more than one million people who have nowhere to call home. Again, the Scottish Government must grasp the nettle here and deal with the housing emergency throughout Scotland. They have to deliver funding to the councils and the registered social landlords to bring down the shameful levels of homelessness that we see right across the country.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is delivering the largest budget settlement for Scotland in the history of devolution. As I have said, this money must reach frontline services, struggling families and local communities. No more excuses from the SNP Government. For too long, they have bungled Scotland’s finances and under-invested in public services, with many services, such as the NHS and council-run services, stretched to breaking point, all while crying, “It wisnae me,” and pointing to Westminster. No more. At the election, we said, “Don’t send a message to Westminster; send a Government,” and that is exactly what the people of Scotland did. The Budget makes good on Labour’s commitment to deliver the change that the Scottish people voted for—change that delivers for Scotland and every part of the UK.