Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 9 October 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Greater London Authority Bill.


Greater London Authority Bill

My Lords, as on the last occasion when we debated the subject of this amendment, I declare a non-financial interest as a former Member of Parliament for the City of London. My noble friend Lord Jenkin has most effectively drawn attention to a number of important issues during the consideration of this Bill by your Lordships’ House. The continued independence of the Museum of London, as he said a moment ago, and in consequence the need for equidistance between the museum’s two sponsors in the future oversight arrangements are certainly of importance. Those of your Lordships who know the museum will need no convincing of its value to London and indeed to the community as a whole. As my noble friend Lord Jenkin said, this Bill repeals Section 5 of the Museum of London Act 1965, which provides oversight by Parliament. Ultimately, that section made the museum susceptible to scrutiny through the Public Accounts Committee. As your Lordships know, that is a House of Commons cross-party forum where officials are questioned on the public expenditure of the bodies for which they are responsible. It is, if I may put it this way, an ““on the merits”” forum. It is important that future arrangements proceed on the same basis. Like my noble friend, I welcome the progress that has been made in seeking to resolve this matter. I will raise one point with the Minister by way of follow-up to what my noble friend has said. Under the legislation as it will be when the Bill is enacted, the City and the GLA will, albeit as a result of different legislative provisions applying to each, have similar powers of oversight of the museum. That is clearly the Government’s intention and is, I believe, a common goal shared by all. If—I repeat, if—for any reason the arrangements were found to require refinement, could the Minister indicate her preparedness to review them in the light of experience? I posit that not as an expectation but simply as a question. Like my noble friend, I welcome the progress made on this issue, and I ask this question in that spirit.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
695 c146-7 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Accountability City of London Corporation Housing Finance Greater London Greater London Authority Infrastructure Functions Hazardous substances Local government Planning permission Powers Members Recycling Monitoring Staff Mayor of London Museum of London Standards Waste disposal Transport for London London Assembly London Waste and Recycling Board
Legislation
Greater London Authority Bill 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk