Commons Sense

House of Commons · General Debate

Personal Protective Equipment (Inclusive Standards)

24 March 2026 · 1 other contributor

Opened by Kirsteen Sullivan Labour (Co-op) Bathgate

Employment

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Kirsteen Sullivan raised concerns about personal protective equipment (inclusive standards) in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.

Key points

  • Proposes a Bill to mandate public sector PPE procurement to meet Standard BS 30417:2025 or an equivalent standard.
  • Highlights that current PPE is often inadequate and unsafe due to size inconsistencies.
  • Emphasises the need for fit-to-form PPE to ensure safety in healthcare, firefighting, and construction.

How the debate unfolded

MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.

Opened the debate

Kirsteen Sullivan Labour (Co-op) Bathgate

Proposes a Bill to require public sector procurement of personal protective equipment (PPE) to comply with Standard BS 30417:2025 or an equivalent standard, arguing that current PPE is often inadequate and unsafe for many employees due to size inconsistencies. Emphasises the need for fit-to-form PPE to ensure safety across various industries including healthcare, firefighting, and construction.

Other contributors (1)
  • Kirsteen Sullivan Lab Bathgate

    Highlights that current PPE is inadequate for many employees due to poor fit, particularly affecting women and those with disabilities. Mentions the development of BS 30417 by the British Standards Institution, which considers fit-to-form at every stage of procurement, supply, and use. Argues that enshrining this standard in public procurement will send a clear message to employers and manufacturers about inclusive PPE.

▸ Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy