COMPOSITION OF BOARD OF GOVERNORS

HC Deb 03 February 1986 vol 91 cc100-5

Mr. Tony Banks

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 7, after second 'by', insert 'the Corporation of the City of London under paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section 1 of the Museum of London Act 1965 and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 1, line 10 leave out from second 'date' to end of line 14 and insert 'that number of members shall be appointed by the Greater London Arts Association'. No. 3, in page 1, line 11, leave out from 'subsection' to end of line 14 and insert 'shall be increased from six to eighteen'. No. 4, in page 1, line 15, leave out subsection (2).

Mr. Banks

Amendments Nos.1, 3 and 4 are consequential upon each other. Their purpose is to eliminate the Corporation of the City of London from that part of the Bill which allows nomination to the museum's board of governors. The continuity of the museum's board will be broken on 1 April 1986 when, with the abolition of the GLC, that council's nominees will not longer be able to serve on the board.

In Committee the Opposition were consistent in opposing extensions of nominating rights to the City of London. On reflection, we now wish to remove the City of London entirely from the right to nominate to the board. The Bill is before the House only because of the abolition of the GLC. We would not be considering changing the board's composition were it not for the disgraceful abolition of the GLC—something on which I have spoken many times in the House and on which I shall continue to speak until citywide government in London is restored. I agree that we shall have to await the next Labour Government, but I can be patient for about two years.

In the meantime, we should bounce this matter straight back at the Government. We must say to them, "You have caused the mess in London because of an act of political vindictiveness by the Prime Minister, who personally wrote into the 1983 Tory party election manifesto the abolition of the GLC and then added the metropolitan county councils for good measure." The Government are only now realising the mess that will be left in London and elsewhere because of abolition. The Bill represents only a small part; it is not the messiest part of abolition. The provision of sewerage and waste disposal services will be a far messier consequence of GLC abolition than altering the composition of the board of the Museum of London, but they stem from the same irresponsible, undemocratic act—the authoritarian approach of the Prime Minister, who said that, because she did not like the people who controlled the GLC, she would abolish it.

That might sound an unlikely thing for the Prime Minister to say, but I refer hon. Members to the speech made by the chairman of the Tory party—the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit)—who, in his inimitably gallant and moderate way, said that because the new divisive Labour party controlled county hall, the Government would abolish the GLC. He is the only Conservative to have spoken the truth publicly about the abolition of the GLC. It was an act of political vindictiveness inspired by the Prime Minister, and this Bill is a consequence of it.

I want the Government to pick up the entire tab for the Museum of London and to give all the rights of nomination to the Prime Minister, because she caused the problem. Another reason for my wishing to do so—this is much more pleasant from the Opposition's point of view—is that the City of London has no long-term future. The next Labour Government will have to consider the structure of London local government—

Mr. Hanley

Why?

Mr. Banks

I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why. I am certain that, when the Labour Government do so, the City of London will not avoid the fate that it has dodged since the 19th century. At that time, the City of London had an opportunity to expand its limits to those of the natural London at the time, but it declined because it wished to retain its ancient rights and privileges.

I remind the House that the Herbert Commission, which reported in 1960, said that if logic had anything to do with it, it would recommend the amalgamation of the City of Westminister and the City of London; but logic had its limits and, for its purposes, the City of London lay outside them. What an amazing statement: the City of London can defy logic. It might have been able to do so until now, but it cannot defy the democratic wishes of the incoming Labour Government, and I look to that Government to do something about the City and the democratic structure of London.

8.45 pm

My amendments anticipate that event. We do not wish to have to introduce a Museum of London Bill in 1989 and again change the structure of the board of governors. The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) asked why we wished to abolish the Corporation of the City of London. I refer him to the structure of the City, with 13,000 electors controlling the wealthiest part of London. The City retains the business vote, although it was abolished in the rest of Britain some years ago. It retains aldermen, who were abolished throughout local government elsewhere. What is more, those aldermen are elected for life. Can one imagine the uproar if I came to the House and said that GLC members should be elected for life? There is a good bunch of GLC members over there, and they deserve to hold office for life—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Not all of them; occasionally one has to take prisoners on board, and one cannot always pick and choose the people with whom one travels. We should have met great opposition had we introduced such an undemocratic proposal. That is what happens in the City, and that is why we do not want the City to have nominating rights to the board of governors. Central Government should accept the entire burden.

The Museum of London is not the museum of the City of London. Another reason for our objection to the corporation's power of nomination being enhanced was our fear that a museum designed for all of London would become more limited in its scope and vision because one of its major paymasters was the City of London. A concentration on the square mile would not be in the interests of Greater London as a whole, nor in the interests of the museum generally—[Interruption.] I realise that interesting meetings are occurring in the Chamber; clearly my hon. Friends are already completely convinced of the argument and need not listen to my speech. However, from the attentive faces of Conservative Members, I know that the power of my rhetoric is swaying them. They understand the basis of my argument. They realise that right is on our side in this argument, as in all others, and in that confidence I urge the amendments on the House.

Mr. Luce

I have heard the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) speak many times, but that was one of his more extraordinary speeches.

Amendments Nos.1,2 and 4 would end the appointment of governors, not only by the GLC, but by the City of London, and would allow them to be appointed by the Greater London Arts Association. Amendment No.3 suggests that those nominees should be replaced by a further 12 governors to be appointed by the Prime Minister. That is the most curious amendment, because in Committee and on the Floor of the House during the past half hour we have heard several attacks on the suggestion that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister should be responsible for appointments to museums, yet the amendment suggests that she should have the power to appoint not just nine governors, but all 18 governors. I am delighted and interested in that suggestion. I think, however, that the Opposition ought to make up their mind on what they want my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to do—

Mr. Banks

The right hon. Lady can do anything that she wants to do.

Mr. Luce

—about the appointment of governors.

I am delighted that the Opposition have such trust in my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It is excellent news that they believe my right hon. Friend would make a good range of appointments to the board. It is marvellous news that the Opposition have now changed their mind after all the discussions in the debate. At least we have managed to convert the Opposition to the wisdom of the Government's approach and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's sensible appointments to the board of governors.

I must rightly and firmly stick to the fundamental point that I have made throughout. It would not be sensible to divorce the appointment of governors from the funding arrangements — that is to say, 50 per cent. from the Government and 50 per cent. from the City of London. it would be sensible and consistent to stick to that approach.

Mr. Tony Banks

The corollary of what the Minister said earlier is that he should now accept the amendments. If he does not do so, it will prove that he has no faith in the Prime Minister's ability to make the right appointments.

Mr. Luce

Unlike the hon. Gentleman, who seems to be totally inconsistent so far in his contributions, I am trying to be consistent. The Government are giving 50 per cent. of the funding, and the Corporation of the City of London is giving the other 50 per cent. It makes absolute sense that each should have nine nominees out of the 18, and we should persist with that broad approach. If the City is contributing 50 per cent., it is certainly not unreasonable that it should have that role in the appointment of the governors.

I must reiterate that I have always taken seriously the important points about the Londonwide nature of the museum. That concept is built into the Bill in clause 2, which was debated to a considerable extent in Committee. I repeat what was said in Committee and during the earlier stages of the Bill, that in making these appointments to the board of governors my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the City of London Corporation will take full account of the Londonwide nature of the museum.

I wholly and utterly reject the attack made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West on the City and his claims that the City is unsuitable as a body to make these nominations. I must tell the House that the corporation has a long and distinguished tradition of serving Greater London and the surrounding area. We should remind ourselves that the City Corporation established the Guildhall museum, which was a forerunner of the Museum of London. The corporation has played a major part in the creation of the Museum of London. I ask the House to reject the amendments.

Mr. Buchan

The Opposition cannot get reason through to the Government. The whole point is that since this mess was created by the Government and the Prime Minister, the sensible thing is to let them get on with it for a couple of years, not involve the City of London with all the problems: leave it to the Government.

The Opposition have made every attempt to secure some democratic representative content in the governing body. We do not regard appointment by the Prime Minister and the Government as particularly democratic, and it is certainly not representative. We do not regard the City of London as democratic or representative. For that reason we tried different methods, successive bodies, a combination of the boroughs, the question of ILEA and so on. It seemed to us that at least the Greater London Arts Association has concern for the arts—and there is no guarantee that the Prime Minister or City of London nominees would have that—and that was one final, modest attempt to get the matter resolved.

Mr. Spearing

Does my hon. Friend recall that the City Corporation and the City fathers, for centuries no doubt, have received great benefit from the existence of the Sadler's Wells theatre? The Prime Minister and some of her colleagues seem to have reneged on that understanding. Perhaps there is more sense in this than the Minister might think.

Mr. Buchan

My hon. Friend is trying to make a comparison and seeking to find someone who is better than the present Government.

Mr. Tony Banks

Anyone is better than the present Government.

Mr. Buchan

I was about to say that. That is an easy comparison, and is one that I accept.

Who would have thought that after 300 years of theatrical history a nationally and internationally renowned body may now have to close its doors because of the stupid malevolence of the Government in abolishing the GLC? That particularly foolish act has affected Sadler's Wells and the Arts Council which will have difficulties as it has been completely under-funded. I hope that the Minister will take back to the Prime Minister the point that is being made in our concern about the Museum of London. We are concerned about the wider arts.

Mr. Hanley

In his closing remarks, will the hon. Gentleman say why he has been so dissatisfied with the appointments of the City of London corporation, and with which of the current members of the board he is dissatisfied? I believe that the directors who have been appointed so far, have carried out their tasks admirably in the interests of all the citizens of this country and especially of Londoners. Will he explain why he wants to remove the power which has been so wisely exercised by the City of London Corporation?

Mr. Buchan

The hon. Gentleman must do me no wrong on that point. I have never, at any point, attacked any member so far appointed by the City of London. The Opposition have criticised the City of London and disputed the suggestion that it is the appropriate body to make such appointments. Above all, we have disputed the suggestion that its power in relation to the board should be increased. We have no doubts about that but I made no criticism of present members, despite the actions of the Government.

The only advice I would give to whatever directors are appointed, is that they should not write any solicitors' letters and, above all, they should not go near the Solicitor-General while this Government are in power.

We have made every attempt to get a proper solution to the representation on this body and no doubt we shall return to it later.

Mr. Tony Banks

The Opposition have been consistent throughout about the City of London. There has been no criticism of any governors, either those appointed by the City of London or by the Greater London council. I still hope that when the Minister announces the names of the new governors, he will bear in mind the service and contribution of a number of the GLC nominees, who have been drawn from across the parties, to the success of the Museum of London.

This is a matter of principle. The Opposition have opposed the extension of powers for the City in terms of nominating rights because we do not believe that, in local government terms, the City of London is the correct and democratic institution to have such powers.

I have many personal friends within the City of London. In my term of office as chairman of the Greater London council, which still has some weeks yet to run, I have had many courteous exchanges with past and present Lord Mayors of London, and very charming and pleasant people they are. But I stress that this is a matter of principle not a personal matter. The reason behind the Opposition amendments about the City is that we want to minimise the disruption to the composition of the governing body by the City of London. It is the full, firm and stated intention of the Labour party when it is returned to power in a couple of years time, to deal with the City of London. There will not be abolition in the crude sense; rather I trust it will be through the incorporation of the City of London into the surrounding boroughs.

County hall may well have been sold as a hotel or supermarket or for some other obscene purpose promoted by the London Residuary Body supported by the Government. We might have to transfer the government of London to the Guildhall and the Mansion house. I look forward to a new Lord Mayor of London who will represent all Londoners and not just the 13,000 residents within the square mile.

9 pm

When that day comes and I, as the last chairman of the GLC, greet the new Lord Mayor in the Mansion house, I shall be able to say, "We tried in 1986 to stop further disruption of the Museum of London governing bodies, but it looks as though we failed." That is one of the consequences of the incorporation of the City of London. We are merely trying to anticipate what will happen in two years' time. Clearly, the Minister does not want to take the opportunity to look into the future.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Buchan

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. No one said no.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I heard the Minister say no.

Mr. Buchan

I am glad that your hearing is better than ours, Mr. Deputy Speaker.