Equality Act 2010 Guidance: Gynaecological Conditions

Debate between Tulip Siddiq and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tulip Siddiq]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. She makes a very important point about people not quite understanding what endometriosis is about. I have to say that when my constituent came to me and started talking to me about her situation and her case at work, I had to look up endometriosis; if someone has not personally suffered from it, it can be easy just to dismiss it as something that does not cripple a person’s life. However, it does cripple people’s lives. I will expand on a few of the hon. Member’s points later in my speech.

I am here in Westminster Hall today because of my constituent, who is in the Public Gallery today and who launched a petition, which has received over 110,000 signatures, calling for this situation to be changed. She is a formidable campaigner who I am proud to say lives in our constituency.

The statutory guidance on the definition of disability names Meniere’s disease, epilepsy, schizophrenia, bipolar affective disorder and certain types of depression as examples of conditions whose effects are fluctuating or recurring. However, it is silent on endometriosis, fibroids, polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome and premenstrual dysphoric disorder. These are conditions that affect millions of women, and their effects are, by their very nature, cyclical and recurring.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this matter forward. The merits of adding debilitating gynaecological conditions such as endometriosis to the Equality Act list are clear, because doing so would legally guarantee women with those conditions the reasonable workplace adjustments they need to remain in employment. However, does she agree that that will mean very little if the underlying health care system is failing?

I know that it is not the Minister’s direct responsibility, but for us back home we find ourselves in a situation where the care available is severely limited. Women in my constituency of Strangford are trapped on agonising waiting lists and are forced to pay thousands to travel across the water for surgery here simply because the care does not exist at home. Does the hon. Lady agree that protecting women at work is only half the battle? There is still a lot to do in the healthcare system.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I am pleased to see the hon. Member attend every debate in the Chamber; he has not stopped doing that and he is always fighting for the rights of women in any of the debates that we have. He is right to say that we do need to settle what is happening in the workplace, but we also have to look at the healthcare system as well and make sure that it does not become a postcode lottery where women have to travel in order to get treatments that should be available for everyone.

In response to my constituent’s petition, the Government acknowledged that such conditions can affect women’s performance at work, but said they had no plans to amend the guidance. That is why I am standing here today, urging my colleagues in the Government to reconsider that decision. When a woman’s condition is missing from the guidance, she starts every conversation with her employer and the human resources department, as well as every claim, on the back foot. That is because courts and tribunals must take the guidance into account. HR departments and managers will use it as their checklist. It opens the door to legal protection, fairer workplace adjustments and a fairer system for millions of women across the country.

Last month, hon. Members may have seen that the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis published its “Endometriosis (Not) in the Workplace” report. The results were sobering. Evidence was gathered from more than 6,000 employees with confirmed or suspected endometriosis, and from 250 employers. The inquiry provides one of the most detailed pictures yet of the condition’s impact on working life. These are some of the facts: 97% of employees worked with severe pain; 94% believed employers lacked understanding of the condition; 62% were worried about losing their job; 47% had lost income and 39% were experiencing financial hardship; 49% had difficulties progressing in their career after the condition; 28% had been forced to leave their job altogether; 49% had received no workplace adjustments at all; and 72% of employers said they had no training or guidance on women’s health conditions, such as endometriosis.

It is fair to say that women with endometriosis have been failed by the employment rights system. It is damaging their lives, their families and the economy. With only 11% of employers in the UK having a menstrual health policy, employers are not making the reasonable adjustments to accommodate people with endometriosis, who are forced to suffer in silence. That shocking statistic highlights why there is such widespread discrimination of women with endometriosis. That is why gynaecological conditions must be included as impairments with fluctuating or recurring effects in the Equality Act 2010 guidance on the definition of disability. By doing that, we will strengthen workplace protections for women with disabling gynaecological conditions, including endometriosis, fibroids, PMOS, PMDD, severe menopausal symptoms and other menstrual disorders.

One of the biggest challenges we have—I have learned a lot of this from my constituent who suffers from this issue—is the unpredictable nature of those conditions. Women can experience severe pelvic pain, debilitating fatigue, heavy bleeding that leads to anaemia, bowel and bladder symptoms, bloating, nausea, loss of appetite and other complications that can fluctuate in severity. For example, a woman with endometriosis may be able to function absolutely fine one day, but the next day cannot get up from her bed. Employers should take that into account. It is overwhelmingly evidenced in medical statistics, but my constituent tells me it is being ignored by employers because the conditions are not listed in the guidance, which is what we are fighting for.

I ask the Minister, who I know is passionate about this topic and has been in touch with me about it, to consider four practical steps. First, will she update the Equality Act 2010 guidance? It is issued by a Minister under section 6 of the Act, so no primary legislation is needed. Gynaecological conditions should be named among the examples of conditions that have recurring or fluctuating effects. The guidance should include worked examples of what a flare can look like in a working day, and it should discuss pain that stops a woman travelling, standing up or concentrating, heavy bleeding, fatigue, anaemia and recovery from surgery.

Secondly, will the Minister look at the Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance and set out in the employment code examples of reasonable adjustments for such conditions, such as flexible and hybrid working, adjusted hours on bad days, access to facilities and rest breaks, time off for medical conditions and a phased return from surgery? It is incredible that women have to fight for those things—of course they should have a phased return after surgery, but lots of women do not have that option in the workplace. A lot of those things would cost little or nothing, but they would make the lives of those who are suffering so much easier.

Thirdly, I ask the Minister to give employees something tangible to take back to their managers or to human resources. A simple standard workplace adjustments passport, backed by ACAS guidance, would record what has been agreed so that the woman does not have to explain her condition over and over again every time her manager changes, which is exhausting in itself, and the managers know exactly what is expected of them.

Fourthly, I would build on the Employment Rights Act 2025. Large employers will soon have to publish equality action plans that include support for employees who are going through the menopause. The plans should extend to menstrual and gynaecological health. The Government’s Keep Britain Working agenda and their workplace health system should expressly include women with long-term fluctuating conditions.

Those changes would help not only women with such conditions but everyone living with a non-visible chronic condition whose effects come and go. Those basic changes could save jobs and so much money, and relieve so much anxiety for countless women across the county who are disabled by endometriosis and are not given reasonable adjustments in the workplace. By doing that, we can be a Government who ensure women have workplace protections and the right to reasonable adjustments for their conditions.

As the Minister knows, I was a part of the Treasury, so the economy is always on my mind. This is not just a question of fairness; it is actually about a strong economy and sound business. Endometriosis alone is estimated to cost the UK economy £8.2 billion a year in treatment, lost work and healthcare costs. The Office for National Statistics found that women with endometriosis earned about £4,500 less over the five years after receiving a diagnosis. The Fawcett Society found that one in 10 women who worked during the menopause left their job because of their symptoms, and many others worked on reduced hours.

The PMDD Project found that nine in 10 reported that PMDD significantly or extremely affected their everyday lives—particularly employment. They can be perceived as unreliable, inconsistent or unable to manage their workload, when in reality they are living with a recognised and often severely disabling condition. I am sure the Minister agrees that women are a vital part of our workflows and our economy. It is right that the law and guidance explain that and reflect the reality of their everyday lives.

Employment lawyers acting in such cases describe the same pattern again and again. Very senior women, in whom businesses have invested year after year through training and client development, are managed out after surgery or a period of sickness absence, when a phased return, a flexible pattern of working or a modest change to their duties could have retained them and helped our economy at the same time. The business loses the woman’s skills, client relationships and everything that has been invested in them. It then pays to recruit and train a replacement, and it very often pays again to defend a claim. Claims can take years. At the end of June this year, there were 70,000 claims waiting in employment tribunals—the highest number on record.

The average claim takes well over a year to resolve, with some final hearings being listed for 2028 and 2029. With appeals, a case can run for three years or more. Think about the damage that does to the economy, the business and particularly the morale of all our women who we need back in our economy working for our country. It is three years of legal costs for both the employer and former employee. It is three years of uncertainty and anxiety for all the women, and three years in which neither the business nor the woman can move. That cripples the economy, the business and, often, the woman’s life.

The cases that do reach the courts show what is at stake. In South Gloucestershire council v. Hundal, which was decided by the employment appeal tribunal in 2024, a social worker with endometriosis—who the tribunal found was managing complex cases well despite her disability—had her placement ended because of the absences caused by her medical condition. Her manager had suggested adjustments such as working from home and spreading her four-day week over five days. Neither of those was tried and an occupational health referral was not even considered. The tribunal found that ending her engagement could not be justified and an appeal tribunal agreed.

In another case, a tribunal accepted that a woman with endometriosis could not walk, stand or drive when her systems flared. The condition left her anaemic, exhausted and unable to sleep. It found that she was disabled, observing that nothing in the Equality Act requires a disability to be constant. That is exactly why guidance should be made plain: so that women do not have to waste time, effort and mental energy going to a tribunal to establish it.

Reasonable adjustments are the most effective way to avoid all this. They keep women in work, protect the employer’s investment and stop claims arising in the first place. Prevention is far cheaper than cure. For as long as our employment rights ignore the gynaecological conditions of millions of women in Britain, the injustice will continue. Making reasonable adjustments is simply the fairest thing to do. It is also the most sensible thing to do economically. Naming these conditions in the guidance would give every woman something concrete to point to, and every employer a clear basis on which to act. It would save money and time, and most importantly it would spare women, their families and their employers so much avoidable pain.

The benefits of doing that spread beyond the workplace, to all of us in society. It will improve the mental health and wellbeing of women by enabling them to be seen, heard and protected, and to advocate for themselves. The guidance will also help Department for Work and Pensions assessors, who are rejecting claims from women with endometriosis and other gynaecological conditions. For me, that is a win-win because it will protect women in the economy, education, healthcare, the workplace and beyond. I urge colleagues in Government to recognise what women experience every single day. I believe it is time to end this discrimination once and for all.

Nurseries and Early Years Providers: CCTV

Debate between Tulip Siddiq and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the use of CCTV for safeguarding purposes in nurseries and early years providers.

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Stringer. I have now been a public servant for 15 years, initially as a local councillor and then as a local MP for nearly 11 years. A lot of people who see me doing my job will know about the bits relating to voting, legislation and making decisions on national policy, but most will not know about my casework. That casework is often on matters of life or death, whether helping women fleeing domestic violence, people fleeing persecution, or my constituent Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, who was imprisoned in Iran for a crime she did not commit.

Some of the most harrowing examples of my casework have been about children. Very early in my career, I dealt with a young boy who was abducted from his mother, and taken overseas by his estranged father. I then dealt with a man who was grooming his step-daughter, and had to step in to help get him away from her. Finally, I have dealt with parents whose children have been abused, either sexually or through neglect or cruelty, in nurseries. It is very difficult to put into words what those casework surgeries are like, because they are every parent’s worst nightmare. Parents have put their child in a nursery at a time when they are unable to speak, walk or talk and entrusted it to look after them, only to find that that very place, rather than being a safe haven, has abused that trust, and that their children have been subjected to violent acts or sexual cruelty.

For six years, I was a shadow Minister for early years and early education, and I am an absolute champion for the sector. I want to emphasise that every time I spoke to early years educators and practitioners, safeguarding was the focus of all their work and they wanted to make sure children were protected. Many of the conversations I had were about strengthening security so that nurseries could do their job properly, whether that was through the mandatory two person per child rule, ensuring that Ofsted can examine digital devices or having a proper whistleblowing system in case anything problematic was happening. In particular, those conversations were about whether mandatory CCTV should be a safeguarding tool for nurseries across the country.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for all she has done over the years. In the short time I have been here, I have found her to be assiduous, committed and dedicated on all these issues. As she knows, I have tried to support her in all her campaigns. Today, she is talking about another massive campaign, and I commend her for it. Child safety is core and imperative, and every one of us—including me, as a father and grandfather—worries about our children and grandchildren. CCTV could be the norm in affluent areas, but does hon. Lady agree that all those who provide care, in all areas, should be able to access affordable systems to meet this need? There is a cost—a financial factor—but it is really important that the No. 1 priority is safety.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for all my campaigns throughout the years. He has hit on a point I will definitely comment on. However, as he said, we cannot put a price on a child’s safety.

I said that I have been a public servant for 15 years, but I have been involved in the world of politics for 25 years, and I know that campaigns and legislation cannot be done on a whim. We have to look at all sides of the argument, which is why I spoke to a lot of the nursery managers and early years practitioners in my constituency before the debate to ask what they thought about a mandatory policy of installing CCTV in nurseries.

Legitimate concerns were raised, and I want to discuss them because we need to be aware of the obstacles we will face if we want to implement this policy. One of those legitimate arguments concerned price and diverting resources. Another question was whether someone would end up exploiting what we were trying to do to safeguard children. For example, would the CCTV be hacked? Would someone use artificial intelligence on that material in a manner we would not want and distribute it illegally? Those are legitimate concerns, which I will address, because if we want to change the landscape, we have to tackle the obstacles head-on, including the one the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Financial Services: Mansion House Speech

Debate between Tulip Siddiq and Jim Shannon

Monday 18th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Tulip Siddiq]

My hon. Friend will know that I can never resist an ice cream, so I probably will visit after all. Places such as JP Morgan, which employs 4,000 people in the financial services industry, are vital to us. One of the things that the Chancellor’s speech built on was the significant steps that the Government are already taking to enhance the competitiveness of our financial services sector. We want to look at the biggest changes to the UK’s listings regime in more than three decades and—my hon. Friend will be familiar with this—deliver the final stages of the post-crisis capital reforms to banks. With our financial services growth and competitiveness strategy, which I hope my hon. Friend will write to us on, we want to give the industry certainty and the confidence to invest. That is the main thing that the financial services sector wants right now, and people in Bournemouth will probably agree with that. I look forward to that ice cream.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her statement. We must welcome the news that London edges closer to New York as a financial hub. However, the Minister is aware that growth happens only if we attract investment. I believe that the decision to pool pension funds into larger investment vehicles is a bold one, yet the Chancellor must ensure that guarantees are in place, so that the mega-pool of pensions does not go down the drain, and that guardrails are in place to safeguard the nation’s pension pots.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that boosting return for savers is at the very heart of this agenda, which is why we are pursuing this pensions review. We want these reforms to increase security and boost people’s pension pots, and we want to unlock about £80 billion of productive investment. The Government’s reforms are already in the pension schemes Bill, and they could boost a typical defined contribution saver’s lifetime pension pot by £11,000. I do not want the hon. Gentleman to worry, because we have our eye on how to protect pensioners and savers.

Banking Services: Rural Northumberland

Debate between Tulip Siddiq and Jim Shannon

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Tulip Siddiq]

I absolutely hear what my hon. Friend says about protecting vulnerable people in our constituencies. That is why a lot of us stood for the Labour party: because we want to protect the most vulnerable. I will come on to LINK, which provides the banking hubs, but if he does not mind writing to me and laying out exactly what the issue is, I can write to him about the topic and about the criteria, because it sounds as if there is a very small matter that needs looking at and I am happy to do so. I will talk later about LINK, but I ask him to make representations as well.

[Jim Shannon]

I congratulate the Minister on attaining her office and wish her well in it. I think she referred to 350 banking hubs, which I presume means across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—I hope so. If not, I ask her to confirm that the same progression and the enthusiasm that she is showing will also happen in Northern Ireland. I ask her one other thing, about which I spoke to the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) beforehand. Setting up banking hubs seems to take forever. We all want them in place. Is that something that the Minister can help us with?

[Tulip Siddiq]

No Adjournment debate would be complete without an intervention from the hon. Member, so I am glad he intervened; I was waiting for him to do so. I share his frustration about the slowness of the roll-out—I pushed for it when I was in opposition and asked why it was taking so long. I will address this point in my speech, but I can reassure him that with as much influence as I have in our office, we have been asking for the banking hubs to be set up and ready. We are hoping to achieve 100 banking hubs by the end of this year, but I am conscious that they take a long time to set up. It is to do with the planning process, but that is not an excuse. I would like to speed up the roll-out, because I feel it has been dragging on for a long time. I absolutely share his frustration.

As the hon. Member might know, 60 banking hubs have already opened. As I said, we anticipate that 100 will be open at the end of this year, but I agree that it is frustrating to have to wait and watch. We want them to be up and running so that our constituents can make good use of them. We want to ensure that the hubs mean that people and businesses can withdraw and deposit cash, because we know that people still use it. They will deposit cheques, pay bills and make balance inquiries. They will also contain dedicated community bankers from the largest banks in the area on a rotating basis, to help people and businesses carry out wider banking services.

The decisions on the locations of future banking hubs will be made by LINK, which is the banking industry’s cash co-ordinating body. It will consider criteria such as population size, the number of retailers in the community and the availability of alternative bank branches. Communities can ask LINK to carry out an assessment of the local area; I urge my hon. Friends the Members for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) and for Hexham to make to LINK the case that has so convincingly been made to me. At the end of the day, we have asked it to make the decisions, but I can help in the process as well.

Looking forward, I expect the banks to consider carefully whether the needs of a local community are being adequately served when thought is given to where the banking hubs should be rolled out. However, I also want the industry to ensure that the range and quality of banking services provided in hubs are delivering for customers up and down the country. There is no point in having a banking hub if it does not meet the specific requirements of the town.