I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Hon. Members were surprised to learn in Committee that even the Secretary of State for the Environment has no right to interfere with the way his colleagues run their Departments. We did not realise that the Secretary of State for the Environment has no say in the way that another Department might use or misuse its building, even though it may be a listed or scheduled monument. We understand the reticence of the Secretary of State to take powers over other Secretaries of State, but we believe that Parliament should express a view on this matter.

It is strange that we, as parliamentarians, are establishing a commission which, although separate from Government—it has not been separate in the past—is related to the Department of the Environment. The Department of the Environment has no real right to express concern about the lack of repair of listed buildings which belong to another Government Department. The new clause requires that the Department of the Environment should be afforded "reasonable facilities" so that the commission can make inspections and report to the responsible Minister.

However, the new clause goes on to provide a sanction—that the reports may be published by the commission "as the Secretary of State for the Environment may allow." We still maintain the power of the Secretary of State in that respect.

I do not want it to be thought that I am in any way knocking the Property Services Agency. It does a fine job in looking after the scheduled monuments and listed buildings under its control, but it does that fine job because it is required to do so. We want to encourage Departments, other than the Department of the Environment, to be more considerate in maintaining their own buildings which may be scheduled monuments.

That is the reason for the new clause. It is an attempt to require the Government to set an example.