Natasha Irons MP: speeches

Speeches

• 25 Feb 2026 · Student Loan Repayment Plans · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I sincerely thank the hon. Lady for giving way. When we talk about the consultation, it is not necessarily about seeking consensus in this place; it is about seeking consensus with parents and children, and with people outside this place. Banning social media for children is a good approach, but this is not just about that, is it? It is also about the time that our kids are spending on screens. That is what this is about: it is about having a digital childhood that we can all get behind and support.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for the decisive action that he took over the recent Grok incident. Given the scope of the consultation and the fact that we are talking about online harms, I want to flag the issue we have around content on YouTube, which is a video-sharing platform, not necessarily a social media platform. The type of content that our children are consuming on there is a quick succession of images, which is not very good for a child’s development, rather than the slow-paced stuff we get when we watch a broadcaster. Will the consultation look at the quality of content on these platforms? Not all screentime is equal; some screentime can be quite dangerous for a child’s development in general.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I wanted to intervene on the point about principles, content and responsibility. I worked for Channel 4 before I came to this place, and we were regulated by Ofcom. Channel 4 did not create its own content, but was responsible for the editorialisation of that content. It was beholden to certain standards. Does she agree that we should be holding these media companies—they are not now “new media” companies, but legacy media companies—just as responsible for the content they put out on their platforms as any broadcaster?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I am new to this place and clearly still learning, but I am wondering why, in that case, measures on designing out at source the harms that the hon. Member is talking about were watered down in the Online Safety Bill. She is absolutely right: we are creating online worlds, and they should be designed to be safe. Just as we design clothes for children that do not have toxic materials in them, we would hope that the spaces they inhabit online also do not have toxic material in them, so why were those protections not strengthened in the Bill that the Conservative party passed when it was in power?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate the hon. Member’s concerns. My constituency is an outer-London borough that has long been deemed as having inner-London support through finance, and it has inner-London problems—it is not particularly leafy, and deprivation is tough and takes a massive toll on our councils. Does he understand that addressing deprivation, the cost of housing and things like temporary accommodation are crucial for places like mine?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  I want to add my voice on this point. In Croydon, we find ourselves in a similar situation, in that inner London boroughs put their children into our part of London because the housing is slightly cheaper. I also have constituents who have faced exactly the situation that my hon. Friend outlined: being threatened with homelessness, with the council discharging its duty, if they do not take a placement in Birmingham. In some cases, that means people losing their job, their children losing places at school, and losing all connections with their family. There needs to be a holistic look at how we support councils to keep families locally, but also at how we prevent councils having to pick up the tab for these terrible situations.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  I join colleagues in thanking the Secretary of State and the Minister for Local Government for their work on this matter. We talk about outdated data; places like my Croydon East constituency, in an outer-London borough, have been treated as though we have an endless pot of cash, or are endlessly wealthy. However, my constituency has pockets of some of the highest deprivation in the country—an issue that this funding formula seeks to address. Does my hon. Friend agree that this fresh approach, which brings an end to Tory austerity, is exactly what our councils need?

• 26 Jan 2026 · Youth Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  7. What steps he is taking through the roll-out of youth hubs to help support young people into education, training and employment.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Youth Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  The expansion of Department for Work and Pensions youth hubs and the roll-out of Young Futures hubs are a testament to the Government’s commitment to stand alongside young people and support them to succeed. The Centre for Young Lives has called for Government Departments to work jointly to ensure clear alignment across those hubs to prevent duplication and to stop young people falling through the gaps. What steps will the Government take to ensure that Young Futures hubs and DWP services share information effectively, align their programmes and provide seamless pathways to improve outcomes for young people?

• 20 Jan 2026 · Mobile Phones and Social Media: Use by Children · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Government’s launching of a national conversation about the impact of screens and tech on our children. As part of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s inquiry into children’s TV and video content, we have heard evidence that not all screen time is equal. Content that is meant for engagement can be beneficial for a child’s development, but content that is designed for attention, such as fast-paced images bombarding children, can be harmful. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the consultation looks at the quality and purpose of the content that our children are consuming on video-sharing platforms such as YouTube and at what more can be done to ensure that platforms support the right type of content for our kids?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Government’s taking into account deprivation in the multi-year funding settlement. If there was ever a demonstration of what a difference a Labour Government can make, it is this: investment in our poorest communities, not crippling Tory austerity. It looks like in Croydon we are set to get an extra £158 million over this Parliament, which is a game changer for us. Will the Minister outline the timetable for our getting this extra investment? I thank her again for her work.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Youth Services · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the delivery of youth services by local authorities, including services under section 507B of the Education Act 1996; to require local authorities to specify groups of young people to receive particular services for the purposes of personal and social development of people in those groups; to make provision about the inclusion of youth services in arrangements for the inspection of children’s services and social care services; to make provision about targets for the delivery of youth work and measurement of delivery against those targets; to require local authorities to consult users and prospective users of youth services about the provision of those services; and for connected purposes. As outlined in the Government’s national youth strategy, every young person deserves a safe place to go, a trusted adult to turn to, and the opportunity to develop skills, confidence and a sense of belonging. For generations, youth services have provided exactly that; they have offered support beyond the school gates, stability when home life is difficult, and early help long before problems escalate to crisis. Today, though, too many young people are growing up without access to those services. The duty on councils to provide youth services already exists in law. Section 507B of the Education Act 1996 requires local authorities to secure sufficient leisure-time activities for young people. However, the law does not define what “sufficient” means. There are no clear expectations, no common standards, and no effective way to assess whether the duty is being met in practice. This lack of clarity has left youth services vulnerable when councils are forced to balance competing statutory pressures. As a result, funding for youth services has been cut by £1.2 billion since 2010. Over the same period, the number of council-run youth centres has fallen by more than half. What remains is not only smaller in scale, but increasingly uneven in reach, with spending on youth services ranging from around £1 per young person in some areas to over £130 in others. That inconsistency is the predictable outcome of a statutory framework that is vague, weakly enforced and too easily sidelined. That matters because youth services do not exist in isolation. When they are absent, pressures do not disappear, but simply resurface elsewhere. In England today, one in five children and young people have a probable mental health disorder. Incidents of youth violence remain at high levels, with 3,000 knife crime offences last year involving children. The Office for National Statistics reports that 16 to 24-year-olds are now the loneliest group in our society. Last year’s “Good Childhood Report” states that the UK’s children and young people are the unhappiest in Europe. I have seen at first hand the impact that a lack of statutory protection and the defunding of youth services can have on a community. In Croydon, London’s youngest borough, we have lost our council-run youth engagement team. That team of youth workers provided a critical link between the council, the voluntary sector and vulnerable young people across the borough. The lack of statutory protection meant that this vital service was cut without proper consultation with key partners like the local police and the NHS, and without consulting widely with Croydon’s young people. Although Croydon’s voluntary sector is doing all it can to step up and step in where the council has stepped back, without sufficiency benchmarks there is little that our community can do to ensure that Croydon’s youth services are delivered consistently across the borough and in a way that reflects local need. The purpose of the Bill is to address that structural weakness. It starts with a simple premise: if Parliament places a duty on local authorities, that duty should be meaningful and clear, and should hold local authorities to account. Youth services should not be left to chance and young people should not be left waiting for support that never comes. At present, statutory guidance sets out broad principles but avoids firm expectations. It does not define minimum levels of provision, workforce capacity or accessibility. Over time, this lack of clarity has hollowed out provision and widened regional disparities. The Bill proposes benchmarks around three core areas. First, on workforce capacity, youth work is a skilled profession, built on relationships, trust and safeguarding, so the Bill sets expectations around access to qualified youth workers, recognising the importance of professional expertise alongside volunteers and community organisations. The expectations are not about imposing a one-size-fits-all model or micromanaging local delivery. They are about setting a clear national floor below which provision should not fall, while leaving local authorities free to design services that reflect local need. Secondly, the Bill proposes targets and benchmarks for delivery, which could include a per head funding model, the distance that young people must travel to access services, or ensuring that there are enough safe spaces for young people in each area. The benchmarks would bring transparency and comparability to spending decisions, and make it easier for councillors, inspectors and local residents to see whether youth services are being properly resourced. Without a clear sense of what adequate investment looks like, youth services will always struggle to compete with other statutory responsibilities. Thirdly, the Bill proposes ensuring that young people are consulted, so that services reflect local need and young people’s priorities. Youth services work best when young people help to shape them, and the Bill seeks to embed consultation, participation and the democratic involvement of young people in the design of their services. The good news is that this has been done before. In the early 2000s, national guidance set out clear expectations on leadership, workforce and inspection. Those arrangements have since fallen away, but they demonstrate that it is possible and appropriate for the Government to define what sufficiency looks like. The Bill also recognises the reality of modern delivery. Local authorities increasingly work in partnership with voluntary and community organisations. That partnership working will be made stronger if it is underpinned by co-ordination, data and accountability. By strengthening reporting requirements and linking youth services into existing inspection and outcome frameworks, the Bill aims to support improvement rather than impose punishment. The aim of the Bill is to make youth services a core part of the local safety net, not an optional extra that disappears when finances are tight. That is important because youth services sit at the point where opportunity meets prevention. About 85% of a young person’s waking hours are spent outside the classroom. What happens during that time shapes their wellbeing, their confidence and their future. The evidence is clear: investment in youth services pays off. Research by UK Youth and Frontier Economics shows that every £1 invested in youth work delivers between £3.20 and £6.40 in social value, through improved wellbeing, reduced crime and better long-term outcomes. This is not just a moral investment in our nation’s future; it is a practical one too. In that context, we must wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s national youth strategy, the political focus that it gives our young people and the extra £500 million of investment that comes with it. The strategy rightly recognises the importance of youth work, and the need to look again at the statutory framework that underpins it. However, a commitment to explore and review, although important, does not in itself restore provision on the ground. Young people who are growing up today cannot wait years for clarity to emerge. This Bill takes the Government’s stated ambitions and gives them the practical effect that is needed. It replaces ambiguity with clarity, aspiration with benchmarks, and guidance with accountability. It strengthens an existing duty rather than creating a new one, and it builds on mechanisms that are already in place. This is not about dictating a single model of provision; it is about setting a fair and transparent baseline so that no young person is left without support simply because of where they live; it is about giving local authorities the framework they need to prioritise youth services and to work effectively with voluntary and community partners; and it is about ending the often patchwork postcode lottery of provision that young people currently face. The Youth Services Bill offers a practical and proportionate way to achieve that. It strengthens the statutory duty, provides clarity where there is currently confusion, and helps to ensure that youth services are treated as a core part of our commitment to the next generation. For those reasons, I commend it to the House. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Natasha Irons, Dr Lauren Sullivan, Josh Dean, Jim Dickson, Shockat Adam, Vikki Slade, Mrs Sharon Hodgson, Abtisam Mohamed, Gareth Snell, Afzal Khan, Rachael Maskell and Kim Johnson present the Bill. Natasha Irons accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 January 2026, and to be printed (Bill 353).

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thank you so much for your testimony and your courage and for fighting for so long. It is a privilege to be on this Committee and to hear from you—and I apologise for our train system. I understand it has been a long journey and it has taken a long time to get here, but my question is: what will success look like in the future? What will it look like if the Bill is a success and does the thing we wanted it to do? Jenni Hicks: What would be successful to me is getting to the truth more quickly and having a system that does not think it has the right to cover up the people in power, that tells the truth in the first instance, and has a good public advocacy team—I nearly called them the HIP—who help people not only by pointing them in the right direction, but help them get the information that they need and the documentation of that information, just as HIP did. That is imperative. There are other good things, but you are totally depending on a culture change for the duty of candour, because this culture has been going on for a long time. That is why it has to be duty of candour with really stiff penalties if you are found out to be lying, not just excuses made or clever lawyers being able to interpret it in a different way. There are many versions of the truth out there, and the documentation is the truth, if you like. For me, that is what would be successful. It would be successful if nobody else in this country had to wait 26 years to get a correct inquest verdict or 24 years to get the truth about how their loved one died, and nobody else had to go through being lied to for all those years about how their loved one died. The mud that the media put out there about what had happened still sticks in some places in this country. That will not help me, Hilda or any of the Hillsborough families, but it certainly will prevent anybody else going through what we have had to go through. That process is cruel; it is not right, and this country should be ashamed of putting bereaved people through it when the truth is as plain as the nose on your face.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q This question is for Mr Guest. What legitimate reasons might a body have for not complying with the duty of candour? Can you think of any examples? Tom Guest: That is one of the tests that we have tried to look at when we have been looking at the draft provisions. First of all, there is not a freestanding defence to the duty of candour—there is no reasonable excuse or anything like that—so the Bill is tightly drawn in that respect. There are also no viable defences elsewhere in criminal law that we can see, so the duty of candour is very tightly drawn to be complied with. The one point that is important to draw attention to, in the interests of transparency and frankness, is clause 3(7), which makes it clear that “The duty of candour…does not require a public authority…to breach any prohibition or restriction imposed by” an Act of Parliament “or a rule of law”. When I say it is tightly drawn, it is not open ended. The public authority has to point to an actual Act of Parliament or a rule of law where the duty of candour does not require it to breach a prohibition or restriction. That is the one thing we wanted to draw to your attention, but otherwise there are no freestanding, wider reasons why public authorities cannot comply.

• 11 Nov 2025 · BBC Leadership · Hansard source

  More

  Now, more than ever, the role of the BBC in our national story and our democracy and the trust we put in it are vital. Trust is not given; it is earned, and we cannot shy away when things go wrong. Does the Culture Secretary agree with me that the charter should focus on transparency, accountability and measurable commitments to impartiality as the surest way to ensure that trust in the BBC is retained?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Waiting Times: Online Services · Hansard source

  More

  7. What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of NHS online on waiting times.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Waiting Times: Online Services · Hansard source

  More

  The wellbeing of our nation’s young people remains in crisis, with one in five having a probable mental health condition and the number being referred to emergency mental health care continuing to rise. In communities like mine in Croydon East, where young people are waiting months and sometimes even years for help, families are desperate for support. How will NHS online help young people access the mental health support they need, and what impact will it have on reducing the waiting times for children and adolescent mental health services?

• 15 Oct 2025 · Pride in Place · Hansard source

  More

  After 14 years of neglect under the previous Government, it is refreshing to see that under this Labour Government, communities such as New Addington in my constituency come first. I welcome the £20 million long-term investment that this Government are making in New Addington, its people and its future. Does the Minister agree that it is vital that local people get to decide how this money is spent, and can she outline what new powers will be given to local people in New Addington, so that this money is spent on their priorities?

• 11 Sept 2025 · Transport: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  4. What steps she is taking to ensure that the transport system supports economic growth.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Transport: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I am a member of a parliamentary group on the Gatwick diamond growth area, and it is clear that expanding Gatwick airport gives huge potential for economic growth across the south-east and Croydon. Plans to upgrade Norwood Junction station, in my constituency, with a lift were shelved when plans to make wider improvements to capacity on the Brighton main line were scrapped by the previous Government. What consideration has the Secretary of State given to ensuring that there is enough capacity on our railways to support the projected growth of Gatwick, and how will she ensure that stations like Norwood Junction receive the investment that they need, so that communities like mine can feel the tangible benefits of growth?

• 4 Sept 2025 · Early Education and Childcare · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome this Government’s commitment to breaking down barriers to opportunity, as well as their investment in Fairchildes and Monks Orchard primary schools in my constituency so that they can expand their nursery provision. Can the Minister outline the role that school-based nurseries play in Labour’s Best Start strategy, and will he join me in urging parents in Croydon East to visit beststartinlife.gov.uk to see the support that is available to them thanks to this Labour Government?

• 1 Sept 2025 · NEETs: Croydon East · Hansard source

  More

  6. What steps she is taking to support young people into employment, education or training in Croydon East constituency.

• 1 Sept 2025 · NEETs: Croydon East · Hansard source

  More

  Croydon is London’s youngest borough. Given that 6.6% of people aged 16 to 24 in my Croydon East constituency claim out-of-work benefits, supporting young people into work, and breaking down barriers to opportunity, is vital. Will the Minister give a little more detail about the additional funding for the London youth guarantee trailblazers, and will she outline how that will help Croydon’s young people into work? I look forward to having the DWP with us in New Addington.