Natasha Irons MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 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.

• 10 Jul 2025 · London’s National Economic Contribution · Hansard source

  More

  I want to highlight the local impact of that £2.2 billion, which means that my community in Croydon will finally get new trams. Croydon is not the only place in London that has trams, but we have the oldest trams in the country, and the sustainable, multi-year funding settlement means that my outer London borough will get the transport it needs for the people in my community to access the opportunities of central London. Does my hon. Friend agree that a Labour Government and a Labour Mayor working together with long-term funding and a grown-up conversation leads to prosperity for everybody?

• 10 Jul 2025 · London’s National Economic Contribution · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is making excellent points. On deprivation and the cost of housing, does she agree with me that when we factor in London’s housing costs, London becomes the poverty capital of the country? Without vital funding for housing in London, London does not grow. If London does not get the funding it needs for housing, it holds the rest of the country back.

• 10 Jul 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  At a time when just 26% of the UK’s science, technology, engineering and mathematics workforce are women, I am incredibly proud that Croydon high school in my constituency is on course to become the first all-girls school in the world to design, build and launch a CubeSat into space, following a successful live flight test this month. This group of students are testament to what is possible when we encourage our girls to reach for the stars. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the Astrogazers team on their pioneering work, and will she allow time for a debate on how we can open up more opportunities to girls in science, technology and engineering across all our schools?

• 10 Jul 2025 · Educational Attainment of Boys · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for securing this very important debate. I rise to speak on an issue that cuts across every postcode, every classroom and every community: the persistent and growing gap in educational engagement and attainment among our boys. Although I declare an interest by admitting to the House that I am the proud mum of two boys, we must make it clear that this is not about pitting one group of students against another. It is about recognising that some of our boys—particularly those from working-class backgrounds and from the British Caribbean community, and boys with special educational needs—are being systematically left behind by a system that was never designed with them in mind. Over the past decade, nearly 1 million five-year-old boys have started primary school already behind. By the age of 11, girls consistently outperform boys in reading by around seven percentage points, and in writing by about six percentage points, while the maths gap sits at around five points. By GCSE level, 68% of girls achieve at least grade 4 in English and maths, compared with just 63% of boys. These are not trivial differences; they are measurable, systemic and enduring. Among pupils eligible for free school meals, the attainment gap falls across the same old fault lines, with just 34% of white boys and 36% of black Caribbean boys achieving at least grade 4 in English and maths. In Croydon East, I have heard from teachers, youth workers, parents and students that our young people, and those who support them, know that they do not lack talent, ambition or even motivation, but opportunity. We need a curriculum that speaks to them, mentoring that looks like them and teachers who truly believe in them. I welcome this Government’s commitment to breaking down barriers to opportunity, to raising standards and to giving all children the best start in life. Now is the time to consider how we invest in early intervention, before exclusion and the school-to-prison pipeline take hold, to look at how we expand male role models with male teachers, but also with mentoring and youth outreach in the community, and to change accountability systems in schools so that we are not punishing creativity, but have a more inclusive approach to how people learn. It is time for us to stop asking why boys are disengaged, and to start asking what we can do to change how we re-engage them, because every boy in Croydon and all across Britain deserves the right to learn, thrive and dream.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome this Government’s commitment to early years, because we all know that investment in early years has a profound impact not only on the lives of children but on communities such as mine in Croydon East. Does the Secretary of State agree that the fact that one in three low-income families currently do not have access to a local children’s centre or family hub should be a great source of shame for the Conservatives? Can she also outline how the measures announced today will help to fix the failure of the previous Government and give all of our children the best start in life?

• 2 Jul 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q2. Unlike the Conservatives, this Government have not dragged their feet in banning zombie knives and ninja-style swords in their effort to tackle knife crime. In Croydon, where youth violence has cast a devastating shadow across our communities, our local police are running a surrender scheme this month to take those dangerous weapons off our streets. Will the Prime Minister join me in commending the tireless work of Croydon’s police officers, and will he outline what his Government are doing to ensure that the Met police have the resources they need both to protect neighbourhood policing and to deal with the unique challenges they face?

• 25 Jun 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q13. Successive Conservative Governments stripped our councils of funding for youth services, pitting them against services that were under statutory protections. That has led to one in eight councils no longer having a youth centre. Croydon, which is London’s youngest borough, is about to lose its youth engagement team and its last crumb of council-run universal youth provision. Can the Deputy Prime Minister outline what this Labour Government are doing to support our young people? Does she agree that it is time to look again at statutory protections for youth services, so that all young people, no matter where they live, can get the services they deserve?

• 24 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is about transparency and providing answers for the families of patients when the very worst happens. Independence has allowed investigations into deaths in places of custody to improve significantly. As outlined by the independent advisory panel on deaths in custody, patients detained under the Mental Health Act now have the highest mortality rate across all places of custody. Indeed, the rate is three times higher than in prisons, when taking into account estimates of time in custody and the number of people in each setting. Behind each of these tragedies are families who have unanswered questions and who have had to fight to find out what happened to their loved ones, and vulnerable people who should have received better care. In my constituency, there is the story of Catherine Horton, who died in 2017 while in the care of the South London and Maudsley NHS trust. The inquest into her death found that the risk assessment was not properly updated, with no formal risk assessment conducted, and no care plan on her arrival or while at the facility. There is also the story of Tia Wilson, who died in 2021 in the care of the same trust. The inquest into her death found that there were multiple failures in managing her risk, which contributed to her death. Then there is the story of the brother of one of my constituents, who absconded from his care, went missing, and was later found dead in a wooded area a stone’s throw from her home. For each of those cases, we know that internal reviews will have taken place and assurances of improvements will have been made, and yet issues with risk assessments remain and families are left pushing for answers. This is not unique to south London; the internal review process is failing to deliver the necessary improvements across the country. Without embedding independence into the process, we risk undoing a lot of the good work that the Bill seeks to achieve. Adding independence into the investigation of these incidents where the very worst things happen gives trusts a genuine space to learn the lessons. It would improve patient safety and provide families with the transparency they need. Although we must all acknowledge the incredible work that trusts do across our country to provide care for people at their most vulnerable, we must also provide a proper framework for challenge and improvement. The new clause is an opportunity to treat the deaths of people detained under the Mental Health Act with the same seriousness and care as deaths in other custody settings, to embed transparency, and to make the meaningful improvements that all patients deserve.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his comments. The cluttered and chaotic way in which we investigate these things is part of the problem, so I am glad to hear that there is a wider review of how we streamline the process better for patients, because we are seeing mistakes repeated over and over again. I am content to withdraw the new clause, but I would be grateful if the Minister would meet me to discuss the wider plans in this area and how I can support that work and take it forward.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 26 Use of restraint and restrictive intervention “(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows. (2) In Part II (Compulsory Admission to Hospital and Guardianship), after section 7, insert— ‘ 7A Use of force in connection with admission for assessment or treatment (1) A relevant organisation that operates a hospital must appoint a responsible person for the purposes of this section. (2) The responsible person must— (a) be employed by the relevant health organisation, and (b) be of an appropriate level of seniority. (3) The responsible person must keep a record of any use of force by staff who work in that hospital against a person (“P”) who— (a) has been admitted for assessment or treatment under sections 2 to 5 of this Act; or (b) is on the hospital premises and is at risk of detention under this Act. (4) The Secretary of State must by regulations provide for the risk factors to be considered under subsection (3)(b). (5) A record kept under this section must include— (a) the reason for the use of force (b) the place, date and duration of the use of force (c) whether the type or types of force used on the patient formed part of the patient's care plan; (d) the name of the patient on whom force was used; (e) a description of how force was used; (f) the patient's consistent identifier; (g) the name and job title of any member of staff who used force on the patient; (h) the reason any person who was not a member of staff in the hospital was involved in the use of force on the patient; (i) the patient's mental disorder (if known); (j) the relevant characteristics of the patient (if known); (k) whether the patient has a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorders; (l) a description of the outcome of the use of force; (m) whether the patient died or suffered any serious injury as a result of the use of force; (n) any efforts made to avoid the need to use force on the patient; and (o) whether a notification regarding the use of force was sent to the person or persons (if any) to be notified under the patient's care plan. (6) The responsible person must keep the record for three years from the date on which it was made. (7) The Secretary of State must ensure that, at the end of each year, statistics are published regarding the use of force by staff who work in hospitals under the conditions set out in this section.’”— (Jen Craft.) This new clause would require hospitals to record information on all incidents in which force is used against patients with mental disorders, in line with the reporting currently required in mental health units, including force against those at risk of detention for assessment or treatment. It would also require the Government to publish annual figures on the same topic. Brought up, and read the First time.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause seeks to ensure that if a patient dies while in detention under the Mental Health Act, an independent inquiry into their death will be required. Unlike deaths in prison or police-related deaths, deaths while a person is detained under the Mental Health Act are not automatically investigated independently. Currently, if a person dies while detained under the Act, the trust responsible for their care should carry out an internal investigation into their death to find out what happened and whether lessons can be learned. Those investigations, known as serious incident investigations or root cause analysis, do not have any independent oversight and can vary a lot from trust to trust. Inquest, the only charity in England and Wales providing expertise on state-related deaths and their investigation, has found that the current system for investigating such deaths is not fit for purpose. In its statement to the Lampard inquiry, it outlined an anonymised case from 2010 in which there was a stark contrast between the findings of the NHS trust that investigated the death of a patient detained under its care and the inquest that took place two years later. The trust found very few failings in care, whereas the jury at the later inquest were critical of the patient’s treatment, which directly led to their death. The question we must ask ourselves is why we would allow deaths while in detention under the Mental Health Act to be investigated by those in charge of custody, when deaths in any other setting would not be. We do not allow the police to judge their own actions if a death occurs in custody, so why should it be any different for those detained under the Mental Health Act?

• 17 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister mentioned the complex network of ways in which patients can give their feedback; perhaps the aim of the clause is to try to simplify that and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock mentioned, make it a bit more direct and immediate after treatment. Are there any plans to simplify the process in another way? The complex cobweb that the Minister described is perhaps the reason why the patient voice is not always captured and utilised in a way that we would want if the services that people rely on are to be improved.