A similar new clause was debated in Committee. I hope that it will not be suggested by the Minister that I did not pay attention to what was said on that occasion. It became clear that the real point at issue was whether even the Secretary of State for the Environment had any right to interfere with the way in which his colleagues ran their Departments and was entitled to maintain any surveillance or inspection in deciding whether there was any misuse or failure to maintain and repair the fine buildings that often come within their departmental ambit.

As the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) rightly said—and this is the crux of the matter—this is for Parliament to decide. In my opinion, it is not proper to say that it is unconstitutional in some esoteric conceptual form for one departmental Minister to interfere in another's Department. That is not the right approach. I hope the Minister will concede that this, like other aspects of the matter, should be decided by the House of Commons. We make the rules. It is only right that the issue should be ventilated in this Chamber so that, even if the new clause is not accepted, at least all Secretaries of State will be aware that they must perhaps do better in future to ensure the care and repair of all the buildings in their guardianship.

What the new clause does not do—I hope that no one will suggest that it does—is to introduce an element of obsessive interference by the Secretary of State. All that we propose in the new clause is that the Secretary of State should be afforded "reasonable facilities" so that the new commission can make the relevant and necessary inspections and report to the responsible Minister what is required, in the view of the Secretary of the State and the commission, for any particular historic building. I commend the new clause to the Minister and to the House.