Greater London Authority Bill

moved Amendment No. 115: 115: Clause 43, page 46, line 4, at end insert— ““(3) Nothing in this Part shall affect the exercise or performance of the general functions of the Board of Governors of the Museum assigned to them by section 3 of the Museum of London Act 1965 (c. 17) (general functions of board).”” The noble Baroness said: There are two amendments in the group, and the second was to be moved by my noble friend Lord Jenkin. Unfortunately, he is not able to be here this afternoon, but with the leave of the Committee I will speak to both amendments. Amendment No. 115 aims to protect the board of governors of the Museum of London and allow it to continue to exercise its functions without influence from the Mayor or the Greater London Authority. The arguments in favour of the amendment were very persuasively set out by my honourable friends in another place, and even the Minister there was able to agree with the force of them, declaring that the amendment’s wording, "““is certainly the intention behind the clauses””.—[Official Report, Commons Public Bill Committee, 18/1/07; col. 293.]" This should therefore not be a controversial debate. The one point of difference between the parties in the Commons was over the need to include the in the Bill. We continue to believe that it should be an explicit statement. It is important that the board of governors can continue to act as independently as it does now and always has done, without regard to any external factors. The change that the Bill will make, which compels us to propose the amendment, comes in the funding arrangements. The Mayor will in future be responsible for giving a grant to the Museum of London. That rather naturally leads to the preoccupation that any Mayor might withhold part of the grant unless the museum conforms to or promotes his particular ideological or cultural beliefs. We would also like to see the money effectively ring-fenced from any future raiding, for reasons other than ideological differences. There might be economic pressures, for example, on the Mayor. We appreciate that the Government are very much ad idem with us on this, and the position has been made clear with respect to the current Mayor. The concern relates to the future—a future Government who have not made assurances on the record, and a future Mayor—when it will surely be preferable to have this provision on the statute book. I may need to speak a little longer on Amendment No. 115A, as I need to bring out some factors. The amendment aims to correct an imbalance in the scrutiny arrangements between the Greater London Authority and the City which will arise once the GLA assumes the responsibility for the funding that is currently provided through Department for Culture, Media and Sport. To explain the amendment, I need to give some background. The Museum of London was formed in 1965. It brought together several collections, the most prominent of which was housed in the Guildhall Museum, which had been set up and wholly funded by the City. Before the abolition of the Greater London Council, the museum was funded, and the governors appointed, by the City, the Greater London Council and the Government. Each party contributed one third to the funding and appointed one third of the governors. After the abolition of the Greater London Council, funding and appointment of the board of governors were split equally between the City and the Government. That is the current situation. Part 9 will transfer the responsibility for the appointment of the board of governors, currently exercised by the Government, to the Greater London Authority. In other words, half the board will become mayoral appointees. That is provided for byClause 42. The Greater London Authority will also assume responsibility for funding previously provided by DCMS. In other words, the Mayor will assume the role of funding half the museum’s expenditure. The City will maintain its responsibilities to appoint half the board and meet half the museum’s expenditure. In order to identify the effect of those changes on scrutiny arrangements, I need to remind the Committee about some features of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. Section 61 of the Act provides the London Assembly with a power to require attendance by various categories of persons at its meetings to give evidence and to produce documents. That power is backed up by the criminal law, and someone who refuses to attend commits an offence attracting a fine on level 5 of the standard scale, or a maximum three-month prison sentence. The people subject to that power include staff of the Greater London Authority and its ““functional bodies””, people in contractual relations with the GLA, the Mayor and Assembly Members. Importantly for the Museum of London, it also, however, applies to those who have received a grant from the Greater London Authority. They can be examined ““in connection with”” the grant, which must mean how they spend that money. Under Clause 5, the power to require attendance and produce documents will continue for eight years after the individual ceases to have the relationship with the GLA. Now that the GLA will provide funding for the museum, it will be in the position of a body receiving a grant. The board and staff will therefore become subject to the requirement to attend Assembly meetings and produce documents—and be under criminal sanction if they do not. The museum is nota functional body of the GLA. Its board is independent, and the response of the Minister to Amendment No. 115 will, I hope, demonstrate that the Government intend to maintain that status. However, the new funding arrangement is intended to be permanent, and the legislation will put the museum in the same scrutiny position as a functional body of the Greater London Authority. In those circumstances, it is particularly important that the accountability provided to the GLA is matched bythe accountability given to the other funding partner, the City of London. Amendment No. 115A therefore provides that the power given to the Assembly to require attendance and produce documents as the result of the money that the GLA provides should also be given to the City as the result of the money that the City provides. I suggest that such a provision is clearly necessaryto avoid a lopsided scrutiny arrangement that is inconsistent both with the museum’s independent status and the nature of the funding arrangements. It would be fair to say that I have been briefed extensively on this by the City of London. I beg to move.