Greater London Authority Bill

moved Amendment No. 9: 9: Clause 49, page 51, line 4, at end insert— ““(6) Nothing in this section shall be taken as affecting— (a) any right, power or duty of the Corporation of the City of London under the Museum of London Act 1965, or (b) the independence of the Board of Governors of the Museum of London.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is intended to provide a final opportunity to clarify an issue which was debated both in Committee and on Report. Because its purpose is to clarify, it falls absolutely squarely within the rules of the Procedure Committee. The issue concerns the independence of the board of governors of the Museum of London and, perhaps more immediately, the linked question of the oversight to be applied to the museum once the Greater London Authority takes the place of the Government as the co-sponsor of the museum. The intention that the status of the museum as an independent body should remain unchanged is not now at issue. In response to an amendment moved in Committee by my noble friend Lady Hanham, the Minister made clear at cols. GC 25-26 of the Official Report of 14 May that nothing in the Bill was intended to change that. That is now accepted on all sides. What has caused the unease, which has continued since Report, is that the Bill repeals Section 5 of the Museum of London Act 1965, which requires reports to be made to Parliament on the museum’s work. However, Parliament will no longer be involved. After the Bill takes effect, the City of London, which is the other co-sponsor, and the Greater London Authority will be involved. As my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville observed on Report—I was extremely grateful to him for stepping in and moving the amendment on Report as I was not in the country at the time—that leaves the oversight and scrutiny functions subject to the general provisions of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. The concern which the City has had with this arrangement is that the oversight and scrutiny functions would be lopsided, with the GLA having powers which would not be enjoyed by the City. This would be inconsistent with the assumed status of the museum as an independent body which should be positioned, to coin a phrase, equidistant between its two co-sponsors—the City and the Greater London Authority. During the Recess there were further discussions on this issue, and a very helpful letter to the City from the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, further clarified the Government’s thinking on the powers available to the City under the Museum of London Act 1965. On behalf of the City, I thank her for that clarification. I shall read the two key paragraphs of that letter, dated 20 September, into the record: "““Under that Act, the City Corporation has power of approval over the Museum’s expenditure; any acquisition of land by the Museum; the number, terms and conditions of all its employees and officers; and the appointment of its Director. In the exercise of these powers, the City may require the Museum to report to it and provide it with full information on matters relevant to its decisions””." The next paragraph is really important: "““None of this will change as a result of the GLA Bill. The City will still be wholly entitled to require the Museum to report to them on its expenditure and activities as a condition of sponsorship. We do not agree that the London Assembly’s power to summon representatives of bodies to whom the GLA has given a grant places the Assembly at any advantage in terms of scrutiny of the Museum in comparison with the City””." Nothing could be clearer than that. It would be very helpful if the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, could confirm from the Dispatch Box, and thus place it firmly on the record, that that remains the Government’s position. The thing will then be clear. I will also press the Minister on two further points. They arose from the comments that she made in response to my noble friend Lord Brooke on Report and which are referred to in the subsequent correspondence. Again, on 26 June, the noble Baroness said, "““the corporation is, and always has been, able to agree with the museum, as a condition of its financial support, how it will scrutinise its operations””.—[Official Report, 26/6/07; col. 568.]" Can the Minister confirm that this means that the City could subject the museum to the same requirements as the Greater London Authority may apply—that is, to require the governors or staff to attend a meeting, to give evidence or to produce documents? The Minister also referred on Report to the ability of the City and the Greater London Authority to agree joint scrutiny arrangements, and expressed the hope that they would do so. From this Back Bench, I express the same hope that that might be possible. I would be most grateful if the Minister could confirm that in the Government’s view the GLA Act 1999 enables the Assembly to sit together with the City in a scrutiny session if the parties so choose. I mention those two points because some doubts have been expressed to me about the legal position, and I would very much welcome the Minister’s observations on them. I beg to move.