5,750 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I like a lot of what the hon. Lady is saying, because I believe in communities, towns and villages being properly represented. However, names are important, too. Does she, as a Surrey MP, agree that instead of east Surrey and west Surrey, perhaps west Surrey and south Middlesex would be the correct name for the new authority, because of the area that is traditionally part of the county of Middlesex?
I rise to speak in support of my new clauses 85 and 86. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock), my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) for supporting both new clauses. New clause 85 seeks to ensure that the boundaries of the ceremonial county of Essex are once again aligned with the historic county, as they were for many hundreds of years—in fact, for well over a millennium. It was only in 1965, under the London Government Act 1963, that that changed. The entire history of the constituency that I represent has, except for in the past few decades, been a part of the historic county of Essex. New clause 85 would combine the historic Essex with the ceremonial Essex, which I believe would end the confusion and allow the people of my fine county to once again fully celebrate the rich heritage of the county in its entirety. Let me explain a little further. Across the entire country, the identity of each county is very important to all our constituents. People are proud of their historic county identity, and it is reflected in so many ways—whether it is through sport, social activities, church or the local regiment. Whatever it may be, we are proud of our county identity, and it should not be muddled up with administrative councils, which chop and change, as we are now seeing again today. Historic and ceremonial counties are for cultural celebration and for historic purposes, so the lord lieutenants of the different historic counties and ceremonial counties really should be as one. That would end the confusion. In my borough, which is the so-called London borough of Havering—everyone who comes to Havering knows that it is really Essex, not London at all—we are constantly confused about where we are. The people of my borough are tired of this, and they want the muddle and confusion, which was caused by bureaucrats in the 1960s, to end. It is a very simple thing to resolve. I say to the Minister that it would not affect any of the local government changes the Government are proposing. It is nothing to do with local government; this is purely ceremonial and historical.
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. That is why fundamental reform of the Greater London Authority and the Mayor of London needs to take place. Personally, I do not believe that we need the GLA. I believe we should transfer powers back to local boroughs, towns and communities. If we have some form of authority for London, it should deal purely with the capital—the central part of London. Frankly, do we need a GLA that goes all the way from Hampton Wick up to Havering-atte-Bower, and from Ruislip down to Biggin Hill? We do not; it is an unnecessary layer of government. I would prefer the authority, power and funding to go directly to our towns, villages and boroughs that are controlled locally by elected councillors, not a huge bureaucracy in City Hall that is unaccountable, undemocratic and has very little support among anyone I speak to.
Yes I would, personally. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will undoubtedly recall that our former Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, abolished the Greater London Council. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) will remember that very well, because he sat on the GLC at the time. In 1986, the GLC was abolished and what happened? The power went back to each borough across London. We did not have to pay a huge precept. We paid our way for policing and the fire brigade and so on, but generally speaking the powers truly returned—as I hope the Liberal Democrats believe in—to local communities. We did not have an overarching bureaucracy interfering in everything we do, from planning to transport to policing. I would hope that the Liberal Democrats believe that powers should be held as locally as possible. The overarching bureaucracy in City Hall, which is so unaccountable, really needs to go. No, I do not believe we need a Mayor of London. I believe we need to have local authorities working together where there are strategic matters to be discussed—transport, planning or infrastructure—but we do not need to create a monstrous bureaucracy. Margaret Thatcher was right to abolish the GLC and Tony Blair was absolutely wrong to bring back the GLA, with all its paraphernalia, bureaucracy and huge costs to the council tax payers of the Greater London area. On that note, I ask Members to please support new clauses 85 and 86 to restore our Essex identity and to give us the democratic right to decide our own future.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. This instrument follows the Education (Scotland) Act 2025, which was passed by the Scottish Parliament in June this year and gained Royal Assent in August. As the Minister set out, that Act dissolved the Scottish Qualifications Authority, established Qualifications Scotland to replace it, and established the role of His Majesty’s chief inspector of education in Scotland. This statutory instrument enables that Act by amending references to the SQA in UK legislation, ensuring that the qualifications are recognised throughout the United Kingdom. Importantly, that allows the body to operate and be adequately recognised throughout the UK, which is outside the scope of the Scottish Parliament; hence we are here today. I take this opportunity to thank my MSP colleagues in the Scottish Parliament for their work in challenging the Education (Scotland) Act and holding the Scottish Government to account on poor educational outcomes. I pay particular tribute to my friend Miles Briggs, the Scottish Conservative MSP for the Lothian region, for highlighting the limitations of the Scottish Parliament’s Bill. There are significant questions about whether the legislation makes progress on the wider educational reforms that are so desperately required. We believe that it is a missed opportunity to enact genuine and meaningful reform of Scottish education. While the order we are considering today is unobjectionable, it would be remiss of me not to take the opportunity to raise the state of the Scottish education system. Once the pride of the country, the Scottish education system has suffered poorer and poorer outcomes. The Conservative legacy in education saw students in England climb the international league tables from 27th to 11th in the world in maths in 2022, while Scottish students continued to slip down the programme for international student assessment rankings in maths and science under the Scottish National party Government—it is a shame that none of its Members could join us this afternoon. Earlier this year, the head of Scotland’s second-largest teaching union said that “education is broken” and that the school system “has passed the tipping point leading to crisis”. The “Curriculum for Excellence” is anything but. At the core of this is the Scottish National party’s desperation to be different for difference’s sake. It is exceptionalism gone too far, and nowhere is that more evident than in the Scottish education system. For once, the SNP Government should take a look at what works south of the border, put their pride and politics aside and emulate best practice for the sake of Scottish students. The SNP has something—lots—to learn from the Conservative party’s legacy, especially in the English school system. However, that is a debate for another day and another place, so I will leave it at that. His Majesty’s Opposition will not stand in the way of this instrument.
12. What steps he is taking to help prevent industrial action in the NHS.
After warnings from the NHS Confederation and NHS Providers, my constituents are still rightly concerned that services may yet be cut, appointments lost and operations delayed as a direct result of the BMA’s industrial action. These strikes did not need to happen. What will the Secretary of State do to reassure patients in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that their safety and wellbeing is a priority for this Government, who have no timetable and no plan, and who have made no progress towards ending these damaging rolling strikes?
What is grey belt, and can the Minister tell us what assessment he has made of the risk it poses to the integrity of the green belt in areas such as mine?
As a west midlands MP, I find this deeply troubling. There are clearly questions that need to be answered. Specifically, in the light of the significant inaccuracies that have now been confirmed by Dutch law enforcement, does the Minister agree that there are also questions that should be asked of the political leadership in the west midlands and, in particular, the police and crime commissioner, who—however we look at it—is supposed to be representing our communities?
Can the Minister assure me that the devolution of powers to our mayors—the west midlands is a really good example, because we have had a mayor for a number of years—will be accompanied by a devolution of accountability and scrutiny to local councillors and, importantly, to local communities? I fear that that is exactly what is missing and continues to be missing in this piece of legislation.
I am concerned that this measure will result in a railroading of planning applications, which will impact on constituencies such as mine, on the periphery of the west midlands. What specific safeguards will the Minister be putting in place to ensure that ward councillors, local planning committees and local Members of Parliament continue to have a voice? At the moment, the Mayor of the West Midlands does not even reply to my letters.
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is more of an English centralisation and community disempowerment Bill?
It sounds as though the Minister is getting to grips with this, and I am very grateful for that. Will she accept that the counterpart or corollary of operational independence for the police is their political impartiality, and does she agree with me that the last thing we want is a poisonous cocktail of football hooliganism infected by the hatreds arising out of the middle eastern conflict?
Will the Minister tell the House what is so special about the year 2035? It is the year by which the Government say they will achieve expenditure of 3.5% of GDP on defence—compared with the 4.5% to 5% we used to spend in the cold war years of the 1980s—and it is now the year by which that the Government say no more than 60% of any critical mineral will come from a single country. Do the Government not feel that the deterioration of international relationships is such that we ought to be thinking about a rather closer timescale than 10 years from now?
My hon. Friend will be aware that the District Councils’ Network has been briefing Members on both sides of the House that if the Government go ahead and force these changes through, the very least they can do is to have district councils represented on the strategic authorities until all the changes have come to completion. Does he think that he might be able to persuade the Government to have that more limited aim?
I know the Minister is a reasonable person, and I am trying to find some common ground here. I could understand it, if the transgender males held in this particular unit had at least undergone reassignment surgery. They would definitely be vulnerable in a male prison. The argument for them to be held in a truly separate unit is strong. It seems from what we heard from my hon. Friend that the people who are causing concern are those who are biologically intact. In other words, they are any male who chooses to identify as a female.
I thank the Minister for Housing and Planning for his constructive meeting last week on the community infrastructure levy. Could he tell the House whether Liberal Democrat-controlled councils such as mine in Waverley should be charging the community infrastructure levy to private householders who do a straightforward extension on their house?
The Prime Minister, the Chancellor and even the Secretary of State himself have said that they will not touch council tax bands in this Parliament. Does he not recognise that a new tax, or levy, revaluation or surcharge, would be a de facto breach of that commitment, and will he therefore rule it out?
All the Secretary of State had to do was repeat his earlier commitments. He chose not to do so. Labour’s unfair funding review shows that the party is consciously starving well-run councils of money, penalising councils that have kept council tax low and subsidising his political friends in high-spending, wasteful, Labour-run councils. How on earth can the Secretary of State justify this blatant party political decision?
It is the Government’s clear intention to devolve powers, but in the reorganisation of local government, the Government are taking sweeping powers to determine the outcome of any reorganisation—in Essex, for example. Will the Minister undertake to listen to the consultation and to reflect the consultation responses in the decision that the Government take? Currently in the Bill, there is no obligation on them to do so.
Today the Government put forward 23 of their own amendments, which meant that the Minister allowed less than a minute for each one in her speech. That includes two new schedules. Moreover, we have still not seen a great deal of the regulation that will flow from the Bill, even in draft form. Is this Bill ready, in any way?
I am most grateful; my hon. Friend is being exceptionally generous. I commend the Minister for being on top of her brief, but I did not have a chance to raise this question, which is directly relevant to the point that my hon. Friend is making. The regulations have not been written to show how the neighbourhood panels, or whatever they are called, will be created, but the Bill contains sweeping powers to direct how those neighbourhoods should be constructed. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we believe in devolution, this should be left to the local authorities to determine, rather than its being determined by Ministers?
The Minister knows the Birmingham and Sutton Coldfield area well, so she will understand why so many of us locally are deeply troubled by this unpleasant episode. The initial decision to ban the Israeli fans was clearly wrong, and that is compounded by the information that has now come to light. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) on securing this urgent question. Birmingham is a welcoming and tolerant city, and community relations in Britain’s second city are truly excellent. That is not because of the politicians, but because of the work that faith communities have done over many years.
Let us cut to the chase: Jew hatred in this country has been on the rise for over a decade. It was given a safe space in the past, and that has grown. I have a significant Jewish population in my constituency, who will tell you that Leeds sometimes feels like a really threatening place because of the protests. But the reality is that the protests that take place are okay under freedom of speech, which I support, as long as they do not break the law. These fans were not breaking the law, and they should have been allowed to go to the match, but it appears that there were people—for example, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) outlined, in the safety advisory group—who had a biased intent. Will the Government start to analyse and audit these groups, which are supposed to be independent? We have seen bias at the BBC and a rise in antisemitic language and incidents in the NHS—which, despite the Health Secretary saying they are unacceptable, the General Medical Council clears. It is reported that 51% of students in Russell Group universities feel that it is okay to insult Jews. Can there please be a root-and-branch review from the Government to make sure that bodies are truly independent and are not hiding their blatant antisemitism?
When did the Prime Minister realise that his preferred candidate to be the football regulator had donated to his leadership campaign? From whom did the Prime Minister seek advice when he learned that? What was the nature of the advice in response? In particular, what advice was the Prime Minister given regarding his continuing involvement in the process and his ability effectively to be judge and jury on the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport? Notwithstanding what the Minister has rightly said on the status of the ministerial code, which is authored in and policed by Downing Street, is it not time, given the problems that successive Governments have had on these issues, for serious consideration to be given to bringing the ministerial code under the orbit and auspices of this place and not No. 10?
Can the Minister say a word or two about her expectations for this new arrangement that she is creating—it will have some plus points and some minus points, because no system is perfect—and the timeliness of decision making? Investors and others want timely decisions so that they can move things forward, and not get lost in the weeds of officialdom, strategies, papers, consultations and so on. If we are to power growth, time is of the essence.
T8. A more dynamic and active market unblocking pathways to home ownership and boosting local businesses by up to £1.2 billion—I am sure if someone offered that to the Secretary of State, he would bite their hand off, so why, when those are the benefits of scrapping stamp duty on homes, is he not lobbying the Chancellor to do just that on Wednesday?
How can the Minister justify the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) receiving severance pay after she had to resign in disgrace?
The Minister said that the Government’s defining mission is to uphold the highest standards, but he is failing to answer simple questions about transparency. How much did the Prime Minister receive in donations from David Kogan, and did he adhere to the ministerial code in declaring those donations?
As vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group against antisemitism, I can attest to the fact that many British Jews do not feel safe, especially in Birmingham. I take the Minister at her word that she takes this very seriously. When I stood up and spoke about the issue, I received torrents of abuse for doing so, but I did so because I thought it was clear that the decision was wrong: it was bad for the people of the west midlands, bad for Aston Villa fans, bad for British Muslims—some of whom wrote to me expressing concern that they had been dragged into it—and, of course, terrible for British Jews. The Minister said that she could not comment on the evidence having been made up. Has she read the Dutch report, does she knowledge that the stories over the weekend have further upset British Jews, and will she ensure that West Midlands police are held to account?
The Great Ayton allotments group received funding from the community ownership fund last year. As the deadline for disbursing the funds approaches, delays in a related planning application are threatening that funding. I thank Department officials for trying to resolve the issue, and I ask Ministers to support that flexibility, because the project means a great deal to the community of Great Ayton.
I am grateful for being granted this debate on the safety and wellbeing of women in HMP Downview. Women prisoners are some of the most vulnerable in our society, yet very few people give much thought to the conditions in which they are being held. Today I want to draw attention to an unacceptable situation, one that not only places these women at risk of harm but that fails to recognise their basic rights. The law is being broken and it is being broken by our public institutions. It was in 1823 that the Gaols Act was passed, mandating sex-segregated prisons. Before then, women in prison faced sexual assault and exploitation on a daily basis. Elizabeth Fry brought about important reforms that improved conditions for women, but she would be turning in her grave at where we now find ourselves over 200 years later.
That is absolutely right and the situation at HMP Downview is a great source of concern to me, which is why I am raising it with the Minister. However, I want to move on to another issue. Once again, we have mixed-sex prisons—inclusion trumping safety, ideology winning out over reality, the feelings of a man holding more weight than the fears of many women. HMP Downview is a women’s prison in Banstead, near the Sutton border. It includes a wing, E Wing, specifically for biological males who identify as women. E Wing local policy sets out that it is for transgender women with or without a gender recognition certificate where risk indicates they cannot be safely held in the general women’s estate. Over the course of the last year, between five and seven males have been housed in this wing. The Minister in the other place has said that these males are vulnerable. Before I look at the facts, I have a warning: some may find the data difficult as it yields an uncomfortable truth, but one that it is incumbent upon this House not to ignore. In 2024, of the 245 transgender males—biological males with a trans identity—in prison, 151, or 62%, were convicted of a sexual offence. This is a far, far higher rate than that for the overall male prison population, which is only around 17%. And it is not a one-off either: a similar rate can be seen for 2023—a rate of 56%. So sexual offences are massively over-represented in this specific cohort of biological males.
I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. This is the reality of the data; we must not ignore what the data tells us. I did warn that it makes for an uncomfortable truth, but I can verify all of it and provide hon. Members with the data—I would not come to the House and give hon. Members incorrect data. Accordingly, we can conclude that the male transgender prison population poses a much higher risk to women and girls. When people parrot the line that transwomen are not a threat to women, in the case of the prison population, I am afraid that that statement does not hold up. Zoe Watts, a biological male who identifies as a women, was jailed for eight years and six months after trying to use a 3D printer to make a gun that had the capacity to cause mass casualties. He was arrested by armed officers and a stockpile of weapons and materials was found at his home. There was a disturbing video on social media of him smashing a watermelon with women’s faces on it using a glass shard-encrusted baseball bat. He was put in HMP Downview. Joanna Rowland-Stuart, a biological male who identifies as a woman, who stabbed his partner to death with a samurai sword, was put in HMP Downview too. John Dixon, now known as Sally, is a paedophile who was found guilty of 30 sexual assault charges involving seven children, some as young as six years old. He may have been held in HMP Downview too. There are also more well known transwomen prisoners who have hit the headlines, such as Isla Bryson and Karen White, both incarcerated with women. Isla Bryson, from Scotland, was jailed for raping two women, but only after being charged did he come out as transgender. This dangerous rapist was remanded in a women’s prison. Holyrood, it seems, is even worse than Westminster for drinking the gender Kool-Aid. The case of Karen White is even more appalling. A transwoman convicted of rape and a knife attack, he was remanded in HMP New Hall, a women’s and young offenders’ prison, where he sexually assaulted two inmates. Thankfully, this dangerous predator is no longer in the women’s prison estate. I hope hon. Members understand why I have grave concerns about such violent males continuing to be incarcerated with women. Not only is it against the law, the Supreme Court clarified back in April that single-sex provision must be based on biological sex alone, not anything else, but it is irresponsible and dangerous. Women prisoners deserve better than this. They should feel and be safe. I now want to get into a bit more detail about E Wing within HMP Downview. Ministers have said many times in response to written questions that E Wing is not part of the general women’s estate, which is an odd statement for them to make. E Wing is a wing within HMP Downview, and HMP Downview is a women’s prison, ergo E Wing is part of the women’s prison estate. I have visited it and seen it with my own eyes. Why might Ministers be at pains to say that it is not part of the general women’s estate? I believe they are using a play on words to obscure the fact that the single-sex provisions of the Equality Act are being breached. The current policy for managing transgender prisoners, introduced by the former right hon. Member for Esher and Walton when he was Justice Secretary, prohibits male prisoners who retain their birth genitalia or have any history of sexual or violent offences from being held in the general women’s estate, unless an exemption is granted by a Minister. So this ministerial characterisation that E wing is not part of the general women’s estate appears to be a tenuous effort to argue that they have complied with the policy and the Equality Act after all. E Wing is physically located within a women’s prison. It is subject to the same policies and procedures as the rest of HMP Downview. It has the same Governor. Its funding comes out of the same pots. Its inmates are supported by the same health services. It beggars belief that Ministers think that we will believe that this wing is not part of the women’s estate. Putting to one side this blatant breach of the Equality Act for now, let us consider whether the males held in E Wing are truly segregated from the rest of the female prison population. Again, Ministers keep saying that they are, but E Wing is like any other wing.
I will not. E wing has sleeping quarters and bathrooms, along with some living room space. Everything else that these prisoners need, like work, education and health services, are only available in the main estate. They therefore spend their days mixing with the women. So what supervision arrangements are in place to protect the women from these dangerous males?
I will not. In September, the independent monitoring board published its report on HMP Downview and shed some light on this matter. The report makes it clear that there had previously been “a requirement for constant sight and sound supervision of E wing prisoners by a dedicated prison officer on a 1:1 basis whilst in activities…alongside prisoners in the general population.” However, the report notes that that was changed earlier in the reporting period. It says: “The previous 1:1 supervision arrangement was replaced” by staff having “general oversight of the E wing residents off the wing, as they do for all other prisoners”— in other words, nothing additional. To be completely clear, we have violent males housed in a women’s prison, which in itself is against the law. These males are not segregated from the women in the daytime; they use all the same services and communal spaces. These violent males are not supervised any differently from the female prisoners, with the previous one-on-one supervision by a dedicated prison officer being stopped. That is gross negligence and shows a complete disregard for the safety and wellbeing of female prisoners at HMP Downview. What have been the responses of Ministers to the supervision issue raised in the report? Are they horrified? Have they committed to look into this issue? No, of course not. What they did do was remove the chair of the independent monitoring board the day after publication of the report highlighting the safeguarding failure. Before I bring my speech to a close, let me comment on assertions that these males have not caused any issues for female prisoners. In reality, I really do not know if that is the case, because my question about how many of the prisoner-on-prisoner assaults at HMP Downview were committed by males has not elicited a response. Ministers simply say that the information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Why is that information not being provided? A failure to respond to that straightforward question does not fill me with confidence. I would be grateful if the Minister could answer the following questions. When are the biological males being moved out of HMP Downview and all other women’s prisons, in accordance with the Equality Act? What immediate action is being taken about the inadequate supervision of these males in HMP Downview and any other women’s prison where it is relevant? How comfortable is the Minister with the removal of the chair of the independent monitoring board the day after the publication of the IMB’s September 2025 report highlighting the changes to supervision of E Wing inmates? How many assaults of female prisoners and prison officers by biological males in the women’s prison estate have taken place since the inclusion of males in women’s prisons? What percentage of total assaults do they make up? I thank all Members for their participation in the debate this evening. Those who notified me in advance that they would like to make an intervention were granted said intervention—courtesy needs to be paid to these things. I also thank the Minister for listening to what I know is probably a difficult speech to listen to. I hope the issue at hand is now clear. I urge the Minister finally to grasp the nettle on this shocking scandal and ensure that women’s prisons become single sex once again. We managed to get this right more than 200 years ago. Please restore our faith that this country is not going backwards on basic safeguards and rights for women.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have just been accused of misinformation, and I want to make the point that the information and data I cited was obtained through written parliamentary questions. I can provide that data, so it is not misinformation; it is information that has come from the Ministry of Justice.
The Minister mentions risk assessments. The independent monitoring board report seems to suggest that no such risk assessments have been provided. Can she put on the record that those risk assessments for every single biological male in HMP Downview are on file somewhere, and that she is comfortable that they exist?
I will speak today in support of new clauses 64, 65 and 66, all tabled in my name. As I said on Second Reading, my concern is that the Bill does precious little to strengthen accountability of existing devolved bodies, especially the Greater London Authority. It establishes simple majority voting in combined authorities as the default decision-making process, but does nothing to bring other authorities in line with this new standard. The London Assembly will retain its two-thirds majority requirement. A two-thirds majority has proved impossible to achieve in the London Assembly, which is why no budget or strategy has been amended in 25 years. New clause 64 would abolish the two-thirds majority requirement to amend budgets and strategies. By allowing a simple majority, it would give Assembly members the opportunity to debate changes realistically, bringing mayors back to the table and ensuring proper accountability. Unlike other combined authorities, the Assembly cannot call in mayoral decisions, and London’s 32 boroughs are excluded from decision making; as a result, the mayor does not need to seek consensus, negotiate or even listen to opposing views. In a city the size of London, that effectively alienates and disenfranchises millions of people, leading to disengagement and distrust of London-wide government.
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I have tried hard to ensure that my new clauses are objective and would apply to anybody serving as mayor. If I could be cheeky, I can completely understand why she might not want to limit mayoral powers, being mindful of future ambitions that she might have. New clause 65 would rectify the democratic deficit in London by giving the Assembly the power to direct that the mayor not take proposed decisions while they are under the Assembly’s review and scrutiny. It would also give the Assembly the power to recommend that the mayor reconsider a proposed decision. These powers should be standard for any devolved authority, and would ensure that the views of all Londoners are heard loud and clear by the mayor. The leaders of the 32 London boroughs have made a united cross-party call for a seat at the table as part of the devolution settlement for the capital, and I fully agree with them. New clause 66 would start the process in delivering that new settlement, requiring the Secretary of State to consult on proposed reforms to the London Assembly, including proposals for greater involvement of London borough representatives in GLA decisions. I am firmly of the view that any new model must give the 32 boroughs a voice and a vote in London, so that not only my borough of Bromley but all London boroughs are able to contribute to and challenge decisions that impact them directly. It is right that power is returned to our cities, regions and communities, but this must come with effective scrutiny and accountability of those who hold devolved power. There is a glaring democratic and accountability deficit in London, and anyone who is serious about the success of devolution in London will see that my new clauses are sensible first steps to rectifying that deficit. This is not political in nature. At this point, I note the excellent new clause 32, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), which also seeks to equalise that democratic deficit. As I said to the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), this is not political—indeed, the very make-up of the GLA means that these new clauses would return power to Assembly members of all parties, as well as empowering London boroughs and local councillors to do the job they were elected to do. I urge the Government to embrace these new clauses, listen to London’s council leaders—the majority of whom are from the Labour party—and ensure that we have a properly accountable mayor in London and in all combined authorities up and down the country. It is difficult to see how anybody could seriously argue for less accountability.