Greater London Authority Bill

I appreciate that in tabling Amendment No. 115 noble Lords opposite wish to ensure that the operational autonomy of the board of governors of the Museum of London will not be adversely affected by the Bill. However, we believe that the amendment is unnecessary. Ihope that I can offer full reassurance to the noble Baroness. As the Minister for Housing and Planning made clear in another place, the Bill does not give the Mayor and the GLA any greater power in respect of the museum than the Government have at present under the Museum of London Act 1965. The Act is quite clear in setting out both the functions and the powers of the board of governors in relation to the museum’s operations. That includes all matters relating to the care and display of collections, the employment of staff, the loan, acquisition and disposal of objects and the provision of archaeological services. None of that will change as a result of the GLA Bill which, for the most part, merely amends the 1965 Act to replace references to ““the Secretary of State”” with ““the GLA””. In addition to the 1965 Act, the museum is also a charity, bound by charity law. That means that the board of governors has a responsibility as charitable trustees to ensure that the museum is run properly, with due probity and in line with the museum’s objectives as set out in its founding legislation. Members of the Committee will also be interested to know that Mayor Livingstone in his response to last year’s DCMS consultation on this issue stated that his role in relation to the Museum of London would be, "““to act as a sponsor providing strategic direction rather than as a manager taking day-to-day decisions””." That is very much in line with the role that DCMS currently plays in regard to the museum. I do not believe, therefore, that amending the Bill in this way is necessary. I hope reading into the record those points will offer the reassurance that Members of the Committee are looking for. I thank Members of the Committee for tabling Amendment No. 115A. Although the Government strongly resist it, it provides an important opportunity to clarify arrangements for the scrutiny of the Museum of London, which will apply when the Government’s responsibilities are transferred to the GLA. When the Bill comes into force, the Museum will be subject to the scrutiny of the London Assembly under the powers set out in Section 61 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. This means that the Assembly may require the governors or staff of the Museum of London to attend proceedingsand give evidence, or produce documents in their possession or control, which is relevant—I stress, relevant—to the funding relationship which the museum will have with the GLA. The Assembly’s scrutiny will, of course, focus chiefly on the Mayor’s exercise of his functions relating to the museum. It may also look at the museum’s use of those funds that it receives from the authority and the museum’s financial health as a whole, including the levels of funding from other sources, such as the City Corporation, and the use it makes of those funds. However, I should like to draw a clear distinction between the Museum of London and the City Corporation. The Assembly’s legitimate scrutiny of the museum, which I have just described, should not extend to detailed scrutiny of the City Corporation. The Assembly’s powers to summon apply to the City Corporation only in respect to any specific contractual relationships between it and the GLA or any grant given by the GLA directly to the corporation. We do not believe that the Assembly’s powers of scrutiny mean that we need to make changes to the City of London’s powers. As co-sponsor of the museum, the City is, and always has been, able to agree with the museum as a condition of its financial support how it will scrutinise its operations. In practice, we would expect the City and the Assembly to work together co-operatively to establish a robust scrutiny regime for the museum. To stress the salient points, Section 5 of the Museum of London Act 1986 requires the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to lay a report on the exercise of the functions of the board of governors of the museum before each House of Parliament every three years, so there is quite a high level of scrutiny. As a non-departmental public body, the museum is accountable to Parliament for the use of the funds it receives from central government. The museum’s accounting officer and other senior representatives currently can be summoned to appear before the Public Accounts Committee to answer questions about use of those funds. However, when the Government’s responsibilities for the museum are transferred to the GLA, it will cease to be directly accountable to Parliament as it will no longer be a body in receipt of a central government grant. In taking the time to go through the new arrangement, I hope that I have been able to offer some reassurance. Before I sit down, I would like to say that the Museum of London is wonderful. I have been there many times and it does a tremendous job. I hope that the new arrangements will promote the museum and help it to develop.