 House of Commons |
Session 2006 - 07 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Greater London Authority |
Greater London Authority Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Alan
Sandall, Keith Neary, Committee
Clerks
†
attended the Committee
Public Bill CommitteeThursday 18 January 2007(Afternoon)[Ann Winterton in the Chair]Greater London Authority BillClause 42Period
of appointment of Governors to the
Board
2
pm
Michael
Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con): I beg to move amendment No. 67,
in
clause 42, page 45, line 4, at
end add—
‘(3) Nothing in
this Part of this Act 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.’.
It
is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Lady
Winterton. The Minister and all the Front-Bench spokesmen have
expressed their gratitude to Mr. O’Hara for his
chairmanship of the Committee. I wish again to place on record our
thanks to you for the graceful way in which you have chaired our
proceedings and we look forward to serving under your chairmanship for
the duration of the
Committee.
I hope that
the purpose of the amendment will be congenial to the Government. All
that we want to do is to provide the Museum of London and those
whouse the museum, in particular its governors,
withthe reassurance that is implicit in everything that the
Government have said so far but which, for the convenience of the
future trustees and of the Mayor, might be better written into the
Bill. The Minister said that, given that the Museum of London deals so
explicitly with London’s history and culture, it makes sense in
devolutionary terms for its governance tobe in the hands of
the Greater London authority, particularly the Mayor. In broad terms,
we can see the logic of
that.
I am sure that
the Committee will be aware that other museums in London, such as the
Horniman museum, have a similar constitution to the Museum of London in
that they receive grant-in-aid funding from the Department for Culture,
Media and Sport but have a particular London focus that would not be
covered by the amendment. However, it is appropriate that the Museum of
London, because of its specific focus on London’s history and
culture, which is not shared by the Horniman museum, should have the
benefit of the Mayor’s closer
attention.
The purpose
of the amendment is to deal with the role of the governors who might be
appointed by the Mayor in future. One of the issues on which we need
greater assurance is how the change of funding will not lead to a
diminution in the independence of the trustees and those charged with
the governance of the
Museum of London. Because grant will come fromthe Department
for Culture, Media and Sport to the Mayor and he will be responsible
for giving that grant to the Museum of London, worry has been expressed
that he might use the grant to bend the museum to his particular
ideological or cultural
preoccupations.
We all
know that culture policy can sometimes be used for ideological ends.
Whether in Vietnam, Cuba or St. Petersburg, museums that have been
erected by people or maintained by Administrations have been used not
so much to enlighten and inculcate a sense of pride in the
nation’s history, but to press a particular ideological
agenda.
Stephen
Pound (Ealing, North) (Lab): Good afternoon, Lady
Winterton. It is always a pleasure to serve at your feet. I ask the
hon. Gentleman to resist the temptation to paint a picture of the
national newt museum or the national comrade newt museum with which he
seems to be threatening us. The Horniman museum to which he referred is
different from the Museum of London in that it came from a trust on
behalf of a family who were originally tea dealers. The house dates
back about 200 years. The Museum of London goes back only to 1965,
which is why it has a different structure. Whereas there may be
charming and delightful aspects to the management of the Horniman
museum, they have grown up over hundreds of years. What we are
discussing is actually a pretty sensible structure for management, and
it is unlikely that it will become the Che Guevara friends of the newt
museum in the immediate
future.
Michael
Gove:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his
intervention. He underlined the difference in focus and history of the
Horniman museum from that of the Museum of London. My point was that
current funding arrangements for the Horniman museum and the Museum of
London are analogous and we accept that, because of the Museum of
London’s distinctive status, it is appropriate that the Mayor
should exercise the role envisaged by the Bill for him or for
her.
I mentioned Cuba
and Vietnam not least because those are two countries that I have
visited and whose museums I have had the opportunity to look at. What
is striking about the governance of both museums is that they tend to
portray one particular slant of the history of both countries in an
heroic light. Both museums also seek to demonise other nations in a
particular way. I admit that they are examples of museums used for
ideological purposes, which are at the further end of our
considerations, but it is not impossible for this Mayor, or a future
Mayor, to apply pressure through his control of the purse strings to
the trustees of the museum that might compromise their essential
independence. In pressing this amendment, we seek to secure a provision
in the Bill, and an assurance from the Minister, so that the trustees
will continue to enjoy the independence that they currently
enjoy.
Mr.
Andrew Slaughter (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush)
(Lab): Having kept fairly close in previous sittings to the
brief as set out in the Bill, are we now getting on to the political
knockabout? That may dictate how I allocate my time over the rest of
this afternoon and how much attention I pay to what is
said. If we are going to hear a lot about Hugo Chavez over the next
couple of hours, I have some correspondence to get on with. Will the
hon. Gentleman stick to the
Bill?
Michael
Gove:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and pleased to
add to his convenience in carrying on the voluminous correspondence
with his constituents, which is facilitated by the House of Commons
grant of an additional £10,000 to all hon. Members enabling them
to maintain that close and intimate relationship. I shall not be
labouring points about Fidel Castro, Che Guevara or Hugo Chavez at this
point, but a new clause later on will give me an opportunity to return
specifically to that topic. That is not because the history of Latin
American revolution is close to my heart—although it
is—but because it is particularly close to the Mayor’s
heart and he indulges that passion at the expense of London’s
council tax payers. We want to safeguard them, rather than safeguarding
some 1968 image of the revolution. We will have an opportunity to
return to that matter when dealing with that new
clause.
Martin
Linton (Battersea) (Lab): Does the hon. Gentleman not
agree that the greatest danger to the Museum of London is not that the
Mayor or the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are trying to
influence it in respect of what it exhibits, but that they may suddenly
withdraw funding? Such a fate has caught up with a wonderful small
local history museum in the county courthouse in Garratt lane in
Wandsworth, which was closed quite peremptorily last week by Wandsworth
borough council as a misguided economy
measure.
Michael
Gove:
I am unfamiliar with the details of
Wandsworth museum. The history of Wandsworth council’s record of
a lower council tax than any other London borough—lower, indeed,
than any other borough in the United Kingdom—is one that all
hon. Members know and cherish. However, other aspects of the history of
Wandsworth and Battersea, not least the fact that Battersea was the
first constituency to elect a communist Member of
Parliament—
Michael
Gove:
Indeed. Such matters are best commemorated locally.
The Wandsworth museum may play a role in doing so, but it is not my
role to trespass on the appropriate decisions taken by the locally
elected and accountable members of Wandsworth borough
council.
Martin
Linton:
May I recommend that the hon. Gentleman pays that
museum a visit before it is closed? He will then be put right on two
things. Wandsworth borough council, for all the propaganda that it puts
through letterboxes, has not sought to set up a shrine to its low
council tax in the Wandsworth museum. In fact, I do not think that it
is mentioned at all. However, the hon. Gentleman will see the history
of Shapurji Saklatvala, a Labour and also a communist Member of
Parliament in the 1920s, although not the
first.
Michael
Gove:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I note that
that former Member for Battersea was both Labour and communist: he was
not the first and I am sure—looking at Committee members
today—that he will not be
last.
The funding
arrangement envisaged for the Museum of London would, essentially, mean
funding being split 50/50 between the Corporation of London and the
GLA. The GLA portion would, we understand, be a ring-fenced grant from
the DCMS. But how ring-fenced would that grant be? In addition to our
concern about the way in which the Mayor may use his funding for the
museum, potentially, to influence the trustees and the governance and
its contents, we are also concerned that he might say thank you to the
Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport for that grant and then
say, “The exigencies of governing London mean that I’ve
got to raid it.” That means that a larger burden potentially
falls on the Corporation of London, which may have to go to court to
ensure that the Mayor honours his commitment to spend the money that he
has been given appropriately. If it does not, it might have to pay
rather more than its fair share of the costs of the museum without
having the decisive say that the Mayor will have been given in the
appointment of governors.
The amendment seeks two
assurances from the Minister to the corporation, Londoners and future
trustees. First, will the money from the Department for Culture, Media
and Sport be effectively ring-fenced so that the corporation is not put
into an invidious position and the Mayor can ensure that money set
aside for the Museum of London stays there? Secondly, will the absolute
independence and integrity of the trustees and those charged with
governance of the Museum of London be protected against this Mayor or
any future Mayor who attempts to use that prestigious site to push an
agenda that is not in the interests of all
London?
Michael
Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con): Is it not apposite today,
given the statement of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and
Sport on the licence fee, to draw a comparison with BBC funding? The
BBC’s integrity and independence are enshrined in the
Broadcasting Acts and its charter. Is not my hon. Friend asking for a
similar assurance? There is a precedent in the BBC. Funding is passed
on—in the BBC’s case, from the licence payer through the
Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Treasury, which sets
the licence fee—ensuring independence and protection for the
BBC’s board of governors. My hon. Friend is asking for similar
protection for the Museum of
London.
Michael
Gove:
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He is well
known as a broadcasting expert in both legislative and operational
terms, and the distinction that he draws is valid. I appreciate that
throughout her time in office, the Secretary of State for Culture,
Media and Sport has had a lively appreciation of how BBC governance can
effectively ensure its operational independence.
I emphasise that existing
legislation produced and presided over by this Government provides an
effective guarantee. The Bill has raised doubts in some
people’s
minds as to whether those guarantees will be kept as
secure as they are at the moment. I am sure that the Minister will want
to reassure us that the Government will be consistent in maintaining
their integrity, and I hope that she will accept the amendment in that
spirit.
The
Minister for Housing and Planning (Yvette Cooper):
Hon.
Members have asked a series of questions connected with the amendment,
and I will try to respond to them. It is the Government’s
intention, as the amendment says,
that:
“Nothing
in this Part of this Act 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”.
I reiterate the
amendment’s wording to put it on the parliamentary record
because that is certainly the intention behind the clauses. We do not,
however, believe that the amendment is needed. It is unnecessary
because it restates the impact of our proposals.
The Bill will not give the GLA
and the Mayor any greater power respecting the museum than the
Government have under the Museum of London Act 1965, which
clearly establishes the board of governors’ functions and powers
in relation to the museum’s operations. They include all matters
of the care and display of collections, the employment of staff, the
loan, acquisition and disposal of objects, the provision of
archaeological services and the kinds of exhibition run. None of that
will change as a result of the Bill. It will merely amend the 1965 Act
to replace references to the Secretary of State with references to the
GLA.
2.15
pm
Hon. Members
raised specific questions about the appointments process. The nine
board members currently appointed by the Prime Minister will in future
be appointed by the Mayor, but the City of London will continue to
appoint the other nine members to maintain a balance on the board. The
museum will continue to be a charity and thus will be bound to ensure
that it complies with its duties as set out in the
Act.
As
far as the funding is concerned, clause 43(5) requires the GLA to pay a
sum equal to that given to the museum by the City of London, unless
both parties agree that they should pay a different proportion of the
expenses incurred by the museum. The City, however, is not obliged to
match extra funding provided by the GLA unless it so chooses. So in
fact there are far greater obligations on the GLA than on the City to
ensure that funding is in
place.
We think that
the appropriate measures are in place to ensure that the current
arrangements and operating procedures of the board and of the museum
will continue, but we think that it is right that the current functions
exercised by Government Departments and by the Prime Minister should be
exercised by the Mayor instead. On that basis I ask the hon. Member for
Surrey Heath to withdraw his amendment.
Michael
Gove:
I am grateful to the Minister for those assurances.
They are broadly along the lines that we had hoped for. I must enter a
note of personal regret,
however. The Minister said that our amendment was captured by the spirit
of her remarks, and so I believe it was. There is, therefore, no
objection in principle to our amendment. So far in my 18 months in the
House, I have had absolutely no luck in getting my name scribbled into
the statute book. Given that the Minister agrees with my amendment, I
had thought that perhaps I would have the opportunity to tell my mum
that I had changed Government legislation. My mum will be disappointed
to know that, even when the Government agree with me 100 per cent.,
they still will not give me the credit. Nevertheless, I beg to ask
leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill.
Clauses
43 to 47 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2007 | Prepared 19 January 2007 |