Tulip Siddiq MP: speeches

Speeches

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Member has mentioned Boris Johnson a few times, so I just wanted to remind the House that Boris Johnson misled the Foreign Affairs Committee. His words about my constituent, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, meant that she spent six extra years in jail for a crime she did not commit. He had multiple opportunities to apologise, including when he saw Nazanin face to face. Does the right hon. Member think that when someone has made a mistake, especially someone in a position of power, they should apologise?

• 20 Apr 2026 · Antisemitic Attacks · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister will be aware that I have a thriving Jewish community in my constituency—a community that I grew up in and which I feel very protective of. I want to share with the Minister an email from my constituent Richard, who said that “many in the community are fearful”. He said that some are not attending synagogue and communal events, and that Sunday schools for children are taking place behind thick security cordons. Richard’s niece attends a Jewish primary school, which had two police officers at the gate this morning. He went on to say: “Instead of action, we are receiving platitudes from those in power. Why hasn’t your government proscribed the IRGC, who are directly involved in terror against Britain’s Jewish community and against British interests.” I ask the Minister, who recently visited my constituency and had a conversation with community leaders, what shall I reply to my constituent Richard—why have the Government not proscribed the IRGC?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Endometriosis Services · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott), who shows that it is not necessary to be suffering from endometriosis to be an endo warrior. We champion it because it affects everyone—people in the workplace, our mothers, our sisters and our friends—so I am very grateful that he has brought this debate to the House. I know he has had to try a few times to secure it. I have not suffered from endometriosis myself, but I have come here to speak about my brave constituent Sanju Pal, who is in the Public Gallery. After six years of fighting a legal battle, she won a landmark case against her former employer for unfair dismissal at the employment appeal tribunal in London. I am proud to say that her case sets a legal precedent for endometriosis to be considered a disability under the Equality Act 2010. I hope Members will bear with me as I tell her remarkable story. The truth is that not everyone should have to fight a legal battle for six years to get their just desserts, but Sanju—a Camden girl—managed that. In 2018, Sanju was diagnosed with severe endometriosis. She had large fluid-filled cysts on both ovaries, which required an immediate operation. She returned to work a month later in severe pain. She could barely walk and had heavy bleeding because she had pushed herself too much to make promotion to senior manager. She took evidence to HR and told them how much pain she was in, and she was ignored. After three months of a phased return to work, she was sacked without warning. She was told to leave the building and not to contact anyone else. She had worked there for 10 years, and she was told to just walk out the door without telling anyone where she was going and why she had been sacked. Sanju was sacked on a technicality: she was not ready for promotion within a required timeframe. It is known as an “up or out” policy, and it is used by many corporates. Employees can be dismissed if managers feel that they cannot be promoted within a certain timeframe. The termination letter Sanju received within minutes of the meeting she had did not actually state any reasons for her dismissal. It did not inform her about the right to appeal or refer to the policy that was being followed. She took it to an internal tribunal, where the High Court later found that the panel had completely disregarded the impact statement she had written for the meeting. The internal tribunal ruled that Sanju had not proved that her illness had an ongoing substantial effect on her daily life and stated that many women with endometriosis had no symptoms or mild symptoms, so it could not be taken seriously. The tribunal initially rejected Sanju’s claim of disability discrimination and lacked any understanding of the physical impact of endometriosis on a woman’s body. She appealed that decision, and the High Court eventually ruled that she was unfairly dismissed from her job without her employer following a fair capability procedure or providing reasonable adjustments for her in her workplace after she was disabled by a condition over which she had no choice. Since her unfair dismissal in 2019, employers must follow the judgment on considering endometriosis as a disability and have to provide reasonable adjustments in the workplace. I am very proud of my constituent’s tireless campaigning, but I go back to what I said: not everyone should have to go through the mental trauma that Sanju endured for six whole years while she fought this battle, and I do not expect them to. Workplaces should provide reasonable adjustments. It is shocking to me that not a single gynaecological condition is included in the disability guidance for the Equality Act and that although endometriosis can be classified as a disability, it is not automatically recognised as such. That basic change could have saved my constituent time, effort, mental anguish and the anxiety that she told me crippled her life for so long. Countless other women across the country who are disabled by endometriosis are not given reasonable adjustments in the workplace. For example, in 2024, a Barclays banking analyst was required to work up to 48 hours a week while suffering from endometriosis because her line manager refused to allow any reasonable adjustments at her workplace. She told me that she now lives in Romania with her parents because she cannot afford the medical treatment and is unable to work because of that ordeal. One in 10 women suffer from endometriosis and 69% of sufferers say that they face discrimination at work. Cases like that are too common. Women should not be forced to go to tribunal just to get the rights they deserve. That is why I want to push the Minister, who has been championing women’s rights for as long as I have known her, which is a very long time. Women should be given specific workplace conditions and the right to reasonable adjustments in their workplace. Endometriosis should be listed under the recurring and fluctuating impairments in the guidance for the Equality Act so that employers actually understand their legal duty to provide reasonable adjustments for women. Beyond those important changes to the workplace, there is more for the Government to do to ensure that women suffering from this terrible condition get the rights they deserve. For a start, we urgently need better data on the women diagnosed with endometriosis in the UK. The statistic I quoted of one in 10 women having endometriosis, which many people will have read, is from studies in 2009. Indulge me for a second, Mr Dowd, while I talk about what happened 17 years ago. That was before we knew what coronavirus was. It was before Brexit, when we were still in the European Union. It was before my children started saying “six-seven” at every opportunity. It was before I had to go to the hairdresser every week to dye my hair. Surely we need an update to the data to find out what is happening to women now. We cannot rely on statistics for women’s health from 2009. We are better than that as a Parliament. Only when we truly understand the scale of the issue can we adequately tackle it. If we do not have the right data, we will not be able to tackle it. The provision of services for endometriosis needs to be strategically planned, and it has to have location data. As a London MP, I know the advantages that exist in London. We have to look outside London so that this does not become a postcode lottery for women. [ Interruption. ] There was a cheer there because most London MPs do not say that, but I thought I would say it. We need to have a greater understanding of the parts of the country that have greater need.

• 12 Mar 2026 · International Women’s Day · Hansard source

  More

  I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, who is a staunch feminist—one of the reasons why he will speak in this debate. I will finish by saying that the justice served to Sanju is a victory not just for her, but for the countless women across the country who have fought so hard to get reasonable adjustments in the workplace. I hope that the Minister will consider this case and that legislation will follow from the Labour Government to ensure that women never again have to face discrimination in the workplace.

• 12 Mar 2026 · International Women’s Day · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the inspirational speakers we have heard so far. International Women’s Day feels particularly poignant to me this year, and there are two reasons for that. The first is watching the women in Iran. The reason why this has particularly affected me is because of the six-year fight to bring back my constituent Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, which many Members, including you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will remember. During that time, I encountered the brutality of the Iranian regime whenever we tried to negotiate her return to our country. The way that they treated her was like she was nothing, in all honesty—they attached a worthlessness to her identity. Now we are watching women fighting just for education and the right to dress the way they want—just for the right to live. Bombing primary schools full of little girls is something that is really hard to fathom. Every morning, no matter what happens, we can wake up feeling very lucky because we know that we can walk to work or get on the tube and we will be safe. Our thoughts today are with the people in Iran who are fighting for justice, especially the women. The second reason that International Women’s Day feels particularly poignant to me is because of the case I am dealing with of Bright Horizons nursery in my constituency, which some Members will have heard me speak about. Vincent Chan operated for seven years undetected, preying on little girls, toddlers and babies, inflicting pain on them and conducting sexual abuse— something that he had already done in previous workplace. He went undetected and was given a job in a place where parents entrusted staff to look after their children while they were at work. Parents only found out about the abuse because he had been reported by a brave whistleblower for acts of cruelty towards children—for bullying, not for sexual abuse. It was only when police decided to seize his devices, including nursery iPads, that he was discovered. He had filmed himself committing acts of sexual violence against little girls in the nursery itself, and he had used the iPads to airdrop the images to his own devices. This makes us realise that the fight is not over and that there is so much more work we have to do to combat violence against women and girls. I am pleased to be here today, surrounded by women who have been fighting that fight, and I hope that people like Vincent Chan get justice and end up behind bars. I want to pay tribute to all the mothers of the children who were affected in the nursery. They have made sure that this will never happen again. They are the ones who are fighting for mandatory CCTV. They are the ones who are fighting to make sure that there is a “two person per child” rule in every room in every nursery. They are the ones who are now fighting for a flare system so that whistleblowing can be done properly and without fear and nurseries are not able to mark their own homework. However, every time I speak about this case, I make sure that I say that for all the cases of sexual abuse in nurseries and early years settings that have happened, there are hundreds of thousands of other babysitters and nursery staff who look after children day in, day out and make sure that they are loved and protected. We must not tar everyone with the same brush, but we do need to take this seriously, and something does need to be done. Today I want to talk mainly about my brave constituent Sanju Pal, who is in the Gallery. The focus of the UN for this International Women’s Day is, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) said, rights, justice and action. Across the world, women and girls have just 64% of the rights that men have. That is why I want to concentrate on Sanju’s case. Some Members will have heard me mention Sanju before. After six years of fighting a legal battle against her former employer—a management consultancy firm— for unfair dismissal, she won a landmark case at the Employment Appeal Tribunal in London. Her case sets a legal precedent for endometriosis to be considered a disability under the Equality Act 2010. Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope you will indulge me while I talk about Sanju Pal’s case, because I feel that everyone in this Chamber, and everyone in the world, should listen to what she had to go through. In 2018 Sanju was diagnosed with severe endometriosis, and had large fluid-filled cysts on both her ovaries, requiring an immediate operation. She returned to work a month later in severe pain. She was bleeding and could hardly walk, because she had been pushing herself too much for a promotion to senior manager. She told HR in explicit detail how much pain she was in. Three months after her phased return to work ended, and without any warning, Sanju was sacked. She was told to leave the building immediately and not to contact anyone. She was told, “Do not contact any of the colleagues you have been working with for 10 years now; just get out and leave the building quietly.” She had worked there for 10 years, and she told me that her entire life was based around her work and making sure that she looked after people she was serving at Accenture. Sanju was sacked for not being ready for promotion within a required timeframe. This is known as the “up or out” policy, used by many corporates, where employees can be dismissed if their manager believes that they cannot be promoted. The termination letter—which, by the way, she received minutes after that meeting—did not state any actual reason for her dismissal. It also did not inform her of her right to appeal, and nor did it refer to the policy that was being followed. As a Camden girl through and through, who went to Camden School for Girls, Sanju decided not to take this lying down. She took it to an internal tribunal, and the High Court later found that this panel had completely disregarded what she had written in her impact statement. When she then took it to tribunal, the panel ruled that she had not proved that her illness had an ongoing substantial effect on her daily life, and stated that many women with endometriosis had mild symptoms or none at all. The tribunal rejected her claim for disability discrimination and lacked any understanding of the physical impact of her health condition on her own body. She appealed that decision, and the High Court eventually ruled that she was unfairly dismissed from her job without her employer following a fair capability procedure or providing any reasonable adjustments after she was disabled because of her health condition. I am so proud of Sanju for her tireless campaigning since her unfair dismissal in 2019. Employers must now follow this judgment on considering endometriosis as a disability and providing reasonable adjustments. More needs to be done to ensure that this does not happen to other women who are left physically disabled by endometriosis and other gynaecological conditions. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare) has done some brilliant work in this area for years now, but we need a collective voice. We need everyone in the Chamber to stand up and speak about this, because it has been a taboo for too long now. It is shocking, if the Minister is listening, that not a single gynaecological condition was introduced into the disability guidance of the Equality Act. That basic change could have saved Sanju her job, as well as so much time, money and anxiety, as she spent six years fighting for this unfair dismissal. It could also have made a huge difference for countless other women whom we have not heard about and who are facing the same discrimination in the workplace across the country. One in 10 women suffer from endometriosis, and 69% of sufferers say that they face discrimination at work. Such cases are far too common, leaving one in six women with endometriosis unemployed because of their condition. Women should not be forced to go to a tribunal just to get the rights that they deserve. That is why I believe that women with endometriosis should be given specific workplace adjustments and the right to reasonable adjustments for their condition. Alongside that, endometriosis should be listed under reoccurring and fluctuating impairments in the guidance for the Equality Act, so that employers actually understand their legal duty to provide reasonable adjustments to women who are suffering because of the condition.

• 5 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent, Sanju Pal, who is watching from the Gallery today, fought and won a landmark case against her employer after she was unfairly dismissed when she was diagnosed with endometriosis. I wanted to mention Sanju’s case today, as we approach International Women’s Day, because I do not see her fight for justice as a victory just for herself—it is for the countless women across the country who talk about their medical health conditions in the workplace but are ignored. Not a single gynaecological condition is mentioned in the guidance on the Equality Act 2010. That is shameful. I ask the Leader of the House, who I know is a champion of women: can we have a debate in Government time to talk about the impact of endometriosis in the workplace and try to end this discrimination once and for all?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Nurseries and Early Years Providers: CCTV · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Nurseries and Early Years Providers: CCTV · Hansard source

  More

  I am very sorry to hear about that case. I fully agree that if we are to have CCTV as a safeguarding tool, we must be able to access it in incidents like the one my hon. Friend described. Another case I want to mention is that of Riverside nursery in Twickenham, where the local MP has been doing a huge amount of work. Roksana Lecka was convicted of abusing 21 babies at that nursery after footage showed the worker pinching and scratching children, and kicking one boy in the face. As in the case of Genevieve, which I just mentioned, CCTV was essential to the prosecution in the case. The Metropolitan police went through CCTV from the nursery, which showed Lecka pinching and scratching children, all aged 18 months to two years, under their clothes and on their arms, legs and stomachs. The Crown Prosecution Service put forward compelling evidence that clearly showed her targeting children when colleagues were either out of the room or had their backs turned. It also called on experts to prove that the injuries the victims sustained were consistent with pinch marks. Another horrific case happened in Bristol, where a nursery worker sexually abused five toddlers in his care. The prosecutor told the jury that some of the evidence against the perpetrator came from CCTV from inside the nursery, and she used CCTV showing the nursery worker’s predatory behaviour towards young children. That nursery worker was initially caught because the nursery manager witnessed him on CCTV putting his hands down the trousers of a child. She immediately sent him home and got in touch with human resources, but he would not have been sacked, and then ultimately convicted, had the CCTV not been there. The final example is from Australia. Some hon. Members will be aware that last August Australian federal and state education leaders signed off on plans to begin a trial of CCTV for childcare centres, in which 300 childcare centres across the country will install purpose-built daycare CCTV systems. The trial is part of a larger $189 million Government-funded initiative to enhance safety, security and reporting in the childcare sector. Funds will be released over four years to help small and medium-sized operators purchase and install CCTV cameras for childcare centres. The Australian childcare CCTV trial is taking place as part of federal reforms to enhance safety in the childcare sector, particularly in response to a high-profile allegation of misconduct in which a childcare worker was charged with more than 70 child sex offences, including rape, after working for eight years at several nurseries, many of which did not have CCTV. During the announcement, the Australian Education Minister stressed the importance of CCTV as a safeguarding measure, referring to daytime security cameras as “an essential component in what we need to do if we want to keep our children safe”. He went on to say that police suggest that CCTV cameras “can be an important aspect in deterring bad behaviour” as well as in helping police with their investigations. Some nursery chains in our country do use CCTV, but there is no consistent national standard. That raises questions about whether current safeguarding arrangements are sufficient. If we consider implementing this proposal, we need to consider a number of issues. One is the security of CCTV systems: whether footage is monitored, whether it is stored locally, how secure the footage is and whether there are controls around remote access. We also need to think about whether and in what circumstances we can view the footage in the case of an incident, and how that access is recorded. We could consider role-based auditable access, and also whether there is a case for authorised access for Ofsted inspectors as part of routine inspections. Another area is data retention. How long should footage be kept? When should it be deleted? How should it be preserved automatically if a safeguarding concern is raised? Clear guidance would need to ensure compliance with data protection law and prevent inappropriate access. We need to look carefully at wider digital safeguards in early years settings and the potential benefits of introducing technical controls, such as restricting devices in early years settings to approved apps and systems, or even limiting camera or gallery functions where they are not required. Routine audits, spot checks and clear escalation processes would need to form part of that picture, alongside appropriate staff training on digital governance and responsible use. We should also be open to emerging technologies that could help to strengthen safeguarding processes further. That might include harnessing specialist tools designed to detect illegal content quickly and automatically —for example, Project Arachnid, developed by the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, which is used to identify known sexual abuse material online. I do not claim to have answers to all the questions, but if we work collectively with the Government, we could implement this measure to safeguard the future of children in nurseries.

• 2 Feb 2026 · US Department of Justice Release of Files · Hansard source

  More

  Like the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, I am a parent of young children, and I know that he will have found it very difficult to stomach some of the details that came out over the weekend. The conversation here has so far rightly been dominated by the actions of the men. I ask the Chief Secretary seriously what he is doing to ensure that the victims—mostly children—of sexual violence and sexual assault will be heard by those in power, including the Prime Minister.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Camden Nursery Sexual Abuse Case · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for Education for her statement and for reassuring us that the case is being given the importance and treated with the urgency it deserves. This is every parent’s worst nightmare. I pay tribute to my constituents and to the brave parents, who are here today to watch proceedings. They not only want justice for their own children, but want to ensure that never again are children put in this situation. The parents in my constituency have a number of requests. I recognise that the Secretary of State will not be able to answer all of them, but I would be grateful if she could write to me. Has she considered enhanced background checks for everyone working with children, enabling the use of safeguarding CCTV in nurseries and early years providers, and a mandatory two-adult supervision rule for all nurseries and childcare practices? Is she looking into expanding Ofsted ratings to include a clear assessment of nurseries’ digital device policies and controls? Is she looking into establishing an independent, state-run safeguarding reporting body that parents can approach directly when concerns are raised, as they were in the case of this nursery? Such a body must be fully resourced to investigate childcare providers without reliance on internal nursery procedures. Finally, will the Secretary of State ask the Prime Minister if he will meet me and affected parents to discuss not just this particular case, but how we strengthen the safeguarding process and the accountability of large childcare providers in our country?

• 17 Nov 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent contacted me because she had been drugged and violently raped by a man she knew; she had worked for him, as a nanny to his children. She described this man as a high net-worth individual. Despite providing detailed evidence to the police, she said that ultimately it came down to her word against his, and she feels that his financial standing and influence meant that her case never went to the Crown Prosecution Service. The Minister will know very well that less than 4% of rape allegations result in summons or charge. At what point are we going to stop talking about how unfair the system is and actually do something that means that poor constituents like mine get the justice they deserve?