Natasha Irons
MP for Croydon East · Labour · United Kingdom
“My hon. Friend is making powerful comments. I was struck by his argument that we need to focus more on what we do in communities. In Croydon East, a community diagnostic centre has opened, which is important because people in my community have a healthy life expectancy 10 years lower than that of people living a mile down the road.”
“Our young people are just as ambitious, just as determined and just as willing to work for their future as anyone who has gone before them, and in that context of hope, opportunity and ambition for our young people, the national youth strategy is so important.”
“In Croydon, London’s youngest borough, the council shut down the youth engagement team, a group of wonderful youth workers who were a critical link between the voluntary sector and the council. The lack of statutory protections meant that it could be closed down without real consultation with young people, the NHS or the police.”
“I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) for securing this important debate. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on youth affairs, I know the importance of services for young people, and I welcome the Government’s leadership on this issue.”
“Although I wholeheartedly welcome this landmark strategy, for it to have a truly meaningful impact it must be backed by statutory protections for the services that our young people rely on.”
“I declare an interest: I worked for a public service broadcaster and my husband still does. I say as somebody who understands the sector a bit that it is not just about public service but about recognising Britishness on our screens and in the media and, essentially, protecting what it is to be us, as well as providing opportunities for p…”
The complete record
Every one of 202 lines we hold for Natasha Irons, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 5.
“My hon. Friend is making powerful comments. I was struck by his argument that we need to focus more on what we do in communities. In Croydon East, a community diagnostic centre has opened, which is important because people in my community have a healthy life expectancy 10 years lower than that of people living a mile down the road. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should be focusing on those real, tangible interventions at the heart of the communities that need help the most? That is what this Government are trying to do.”
“In Croydon, London’s youngest borough, the council shut down the youth engagement team, a group of wonderful youth workers who were a critical link between the voluntary sector and the council. The lack of statutory protections meant that it could be closed down without real consultation with young people, the NHS or the police. Protecting our youth provision is not about placing unrealistic burdens on local authorities; it is about making a practical investment in our young people’s future and financial savings for our communities. As has been outlined, for every £1 we save on youth services, we save up to £6.40 in social value. Although I wholeheartedly recognise and welcome this strategy, I urge the Minister and the Government to think again about how we can provide statutory protections for our youth services.”
“Although I wholeheartedly welcome this landmark strategy, for it to have a truly meaningful impact it must be backed by statutory protections for the services that our young people rely on. That is why I introduced the Youth Services Bill last year, which aims to strengthen the statutory duty on local authorities by introducing clear, measurable benchmarks for what sufficient youth provision looks like. It includes expectations around qualified staff and accessibility, and it embeds the conditions needed for long-term improvement through joined-up safeguarding, quality standards and meaningful youth voice in the design and delivery of services. I have seen at first hand the impact of a lack of statutory protections for youth services.”
“Our young people are just as ambitious, just as determined and just as willing to work for their future as anyone who has gone before them, and in that context of hope, opportunity and ambition for our young people, the national youth strategy is so important. Around £1 billion has been taken out of the sector since 2010, more than half of council-run youth centres have closed, and the statutory framework is often too weak. We have been left with a postcode lottery for youth provision, where spending on youth services can range from as little as £1 per young person in one area to £137 in another. Co-created with young people, and backed by £500 million of Government investment, the national youth strategy is a 10-year plan to provide young people with somewhere to go, something meaningful to do and someone who cares.”
“I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) for securing this important debate. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on youth affairs, I know the importance of services for young people, and I welcome the Government’s leadership on this issue. When I meet young people in my constituency or through my work on the APPG, I am struck by how tough it is to be a young person in Britain today. Whether through the 73% cut in youth services over the last decade, a housing crisis that prevents some young people from moving on to the next stage of their lives and means that others grow up in temporary accommodation, or youth unemployment, our young people are growing up in a world that is economically challenging, internationally volatile and often hostile to them.”
“I declare an interest: I worked for a public service broadcaster and my husband still does. I say as somebody who understands the sector a bit that it is not just about public service but about recognising Britishness on our screens and in the media and, essentially, protecting what it is to be us, as well as providing opportunities for people to get into the sector. I really welcome the thinking on this issue, but can the Secretary of State give us a bit more detail on how the changes will ensure that our public service media are protected for the future, so that people can continue to access high-quality news and content in general, and are given opportunities?”
“I would like to thank the young people in my constituency from Ark Blake Academy, Oasis Academy Arena and Oasis Academy Shirley Park for meeting me to share their views on how to keep them safe online. They were clear that they wanted action against the harmful aspects of social media, but wanted to protect the good bits. Can the Secretary of State outline the work being done across Government to ensure that young people continue to have access to safe opportunities to connect, both online and in their communities? Does she agree that it is time to give proper statutory protection to youth services, so that we ensure that all young people have somewhere safe to go, and something meaningful to do IRL?”
“Q3. I am proud that, after decades, this Labour Government are putting passengers before profit by bringing Greater Thameslink Railway, Southern and Gatwick Express into public ownership. The previous Government shelved plans to unblock the bottleneck at East Croydon station, which not only causes delays from Bedford to Brighton, but leaves constituents at Norwood Junction station in limbo. Will the Prime Minister look again at the Croydon area remodelling scheme and back my campaign to unblock the Croydon bottleneck? Does he agree that, by bringing our railways back into public hands, this Government are getting us back on track?”
“This is not just about work; this is about what it means to grow up as a young person in this country and meeting the ambitions of young people like those in my community in Croydon East. The Government have already announced a number of measures to support our young people. Can the Minister outline what can be done to bring together the national youth strategy, the Young Futures programme, the youth guarantee, youth hubs, health and education to ensure that our response to this emergency is joined up and across all of Government?”
“Q8. With £158 million in fair funding, £20 million of Pride in Place funding for New Addington and funding for new trams, this Labour Government are finally giving Croydon the backing that it needs. Building a Croydon for all starts with ensuring that our residents have the dignity and stability of a decent home, but hundreds of families in my constituency face homelessness because of no-fault evictions, so will the Prime Minister outline how the Government are progressing on their plans to fix the private rented sector and ensure that renters in Croydon have the security and peace of mind that they deserve?”
“I thank the Minister for her tireless work and campaigning on this issue, both in this place and in our community of Croydon. I know that this moral mission is personal to her, but given her experience, does she agree that tackling knife crime requires a whole-system approach bringing together policing, schools, health and communities? Can she outline how this plan strengthens the partnerships at a local level in communities like ours in Croydon?”
“Gatwick’s northern runway expansion is a £2.2 billion project that is expected to support around 14,000 jobs and deliver an estimated boost of £1 billion a year to the economy. However, that could all be held back by poor rail infrastructure. Gatwick plans include a commitment to have 54% of journeys to the airport made by public transport, so rail is not an optional extra; it is a fundamental element of Gatwick’s success. Without remodelling at East Croydon and in the wider Selhurst triangle, the Brighton main line is expected to reach 100% capacity by 2030. Addressing the bottleneck could unlock around £5.1 billion in economic value over the next 20 years, and provide the resilience and growth that this corridor needs to succeed.”
“It is a critical pinch point, where limited platforms, constrained tracks and complex junctions restrict the number of trains that can flow through it. It is because Thameslink is such an interconnected system that delays here do not stay here. A problem at the Croydon bottleneck quickly spreads across the Brighton main line, through the Thameslink core and across the wider network. Around 67% of trains passing through East Croydon are late or cancelled. For the people who rely on that vital route every day, that means missed connections, unreliable journeys and longer commutes. The issue is made even more pressing because every rail service between London and Gatwick passes through East Croydon.”
“Across the local authorities served by the Brighton main line, around 34,000 homes are required to be delivered every year, and on the Thameslink line Luton airport wants to nearly double passenger numbers to 32 million by 2043, while Gatwick is seeking to grow from around 40 million passengers today to as many as 80 million in the late 2030s. The new Universal Studios theme park in Bedfordshire, which is due to open in 2031, is expected to attract 8.5 million visitors a year and support 28,000 jobs. That is a genuine growth and opportunity corridor, and it all flows through the bottleneck at East Croydon. East Croydon station already handles more trains in a day than all the inter-city operators from Euston, St Pancras and King’s Cross.”
“Around 18% of national passenger journeys take place on the Govia Thameslink Railway network, and south of London it is already the most congested part of the rail network in the country. The Brighton main line is 5% of the southern region network, but delivers about 25% of its revenue, which helps to sustain and subsidise the wider rail system. About 1.7 million people live in areas served by the Brighton main line outside of London and more than 30,000 passengers a day already depend on this corridor.”
“The Croydon area modelling scheme, or CARS, is a Network Rail plan to add capacity and resilience to the most complex part of Britain’s rail network, and improve services not just on the Brighton main line but on the wider Thameslink growth corridor, which runs from Peterborough to Brighton. The lack of capacity at East Croydon station and the complex series of junctions north of Croydon—the Selhurst triangle—means that trains across the Brighton main line and the wider Thameslink corridor, including those that run between Gatwick and Luton airports, have been vulnerable to delays and cancellations for many years. Thameslink and the Brighton main line are integral to economic growth in the east and south-east, and the demand for services will only increase.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for the Croydon Area Remodelling Scheme. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. As the Minister will know, this is the second time that I have secured a debate on this topic; it is great to be reunited with him today. It is really important to return to the subject, because the Croydon area modelling scheme is not just about driving billions in economic growth across the east and south-east, or capitalising on key infrastructure projects such as the expansion of Gatwick and Luton airports, or the opening of the Universal Studios theme park, but about something far greater. It is about getting a lift at Norwood Junction station.”
“This Government have rightly stated their intention to grow every corner of this country, and that good public transport will no longer be confined to the boundaries of our city, so I urge the Minister to consider the wider impact that investment in CARS could have on our coastal communities and our towns and regions outside London. CARS is not just good for Croydon and south-east; it is good for the whole country.”
“The scheme would also support wider station improvements, drive economic growth and, most importantly, finally get us a lift at Norwood Junction station. Network Rail will not draw up plans for a lift just in case CARS happens at some point in the future, but the Department for Transport has not agreed to restart CARS, which leaves commuters at Norwood Junction stuck in an endless cycle of lift limbo. Further delays to getting CARS off the ground could hold back economic growth not only for the south-east, which is estimated to be the seventh largest regional economy in the country, but for some of this Government’s key infrastructure investments.”
“I completely agree. We have to look at economic investment and infrastructure in broad terms. The fact that local plans can unlock local growth corridors and be key to local areas should be included in the assessment of the validity of these projects. Addressing the bottleneck could unlock around £5.1 billion in economic value over the next 20 years and provide resilience and growth for this vital corridor. The Croydon area remodelling scheme would expand East Croydon from six platforms to eight, redesign the track layout and remove the conflicting train movements that cause so many delays today. It could create capacity for an additional four to six trains an hour and, based on previous modelling, could deliver around 15% extra peak capacity.”
“Will the Minister please outline what he will do to ensure that postal services are protected in my community, and communities across the country?”
“I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for securing this urgent question. In my constituency, we have had a massive uptick in complaints about not only letters being delivered late, but priority service not happening when people have paid for it, and constituents being advised to collect post from delivery offices without prior notification of an attempted delivery; essentially, they are asked to become their own Royal Mail. Having met local workers over Christmas, I know that they are working incredibly hard to keep on top of this, and they are just as frustrated as my residents. My biggest concern is that when Members have raised the issue with Royal Mail, its response has been, quite frankly, rude, dismissive and a bit lacklustre.”
“I recently had the pleasure of visiting Coloma Convent girls’ school in my constituency, where students are campaigning on the vital issue of debt relief for developing countries and what this nation can do about it. They highlighted the stark reality that 3.3 billion people live in nations that spend more on servicing debt than on health, infrastructure and education. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking the teachers, students and staff at Coloma for their work to highlight this issue, and will he make time for a debate on the growing global debt crisis and the UK’s role in supporting meaningful debt relief?”
“I have enjoyed the perks of being an elder millennial, graduating in 2004 as a plan 1 student. The retrospective changing of the threshold, burdening plan 2 students with debt, is unbelievable, as is linking interest to the retail price index not the consumer prices index, which the Office for Budget Responsibility has discredited. Does my hon. Friend agree that addressing fundamental fairness means changing those structural factors that came in after people signed up to the agreements?”
“It is about designing a system that is progressive and sustainable—one that protects universities, supports students and reflects our values as a country. It is about fairness.”
“Using RPI as the measure to calculate interest—a measure the OBR says should be discouraged, as it is not a good measure of inflation—is completely wrong. Linking rates to CPI rather than RPI and removing the additional 3% margin could restore credibility and better reflect economic reality. Student loans were supposed to be an income-contingent contribution towards higher education, not a perpetual liability. Today’s graduates are being asked to accept not only a system that we did not face ourselves, but one in which the terms can be changed after they have been signed up to. This debate is not about walking away from supporting our universities. It is about building a country where talent thrives and choosing to become a nurse or a teacher is not quietly penalised by decades of repayments. It is about restoring balance.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for securing the debate. The system that the current Government have inherited, after years of failure on the issue by the previous Government, is complex, ineffective and simply unfair. What was supposed to be a system that enabled fair contributions to the cost of higher education has become a long-term financial burden that is quietly eroding living standards. Freezing the repayment threshold for plan 2 borrowers has quietly increased the real cost of payments year after year, pulling more people into making repayments and extending the burden far beyond what was expected. Changing the terms of a repayment after a contract has been agreed is fundamentally wrong.”
“On that point about making an economic choice, we are talking about the creative industries, which are worth hundreds of billions of pounds to our economy. Ensuring we have a diverse voice and qualified people in those jobs and having access to those skills is really important. I was a working-class child who ended up working at Channel 4 because of my degree. We should not ask working-class children to make those distinctions so early on in their careers; we should give them the opportunity to experience those careers as they move forward.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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.”
“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?”
“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?”
“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.”
“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).”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”