I have arranged for the Codes and Information to be placed on the Chamberweb.

Clearly, the Assembly is a new institution, designed to bring Government closer to the people it serves. Democracy and inclusiveness are fundamental principles dependent on openness, accessibility and transparency and allowing effective scrutiny of decisions. The Codes before you are the result of consultation. As an institution we need to establish codes. However, as was mentioned yesterday, these codes are not set in stone. They are the property of the Assembly and, as such, can be revised by the Assembly through the appropriate channels, either through the plenary sessions of the Assembly, the Business Committee or through the Standards Committee when it is established.

Part I of the Code of Practice on Public Access to Information sets out the general principles of openness on which we will operate. These include how we will be proactive in making information publicly available; how we ensure that we cater for the needs and preferences of different sectors of the community; how we respond to requests for information promptly—ideally within 15 working days—and how we publish our complaints procedure so that those who disagree with the decision to withhold information can appeal ultimately to an independent arbiter—the Welsh Administration Ombudsman.

This Code is non-statutory. However, there is a clear presumption that information be made available on request, unless there are overriding reasons for withholding it. The question is why should information not be made available rather than why should it. The Code has been drafted against the background of a Freedom of Information Bill, which will introduce statutory rights of access to information, and the Code will need to be reviewed in the light of the consultation on this Bill as it progresses through the parliamentary process. Members should note that this Code introduces a more open regime than is currently operating across Government, and thus places this Assembly at the forefront of freedom of information. The rest of the United Kingdom will continue to be subject to the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. However, it is vital to balance a need for openness and accountability against the requirement to protect certain types of information, such as personal data the disclosure of which might harm or be prejudicial to particular interests. For this reason, Part II of the Code describes the categories of information which may be withheld unless the public interest outweighs the harm or prejudice likely to arise from this disclosure. Judgement on disclosure will be delegated to officials and additional guidance on interpreting the Code will be drafted. Those decisions will be subject to review, and a formal complaint procedure will be established in the event of disagreement with these decisions.

We need to be aware that this Code applies to information held by the Assembly only, including information given to it by others. The Code does not apply to the public bodies sponsored by the Assembly. There is no legislative basis on which we can do this at the moment. However, there is a suggestion that we look at the practicalities of extending this Code to Assembly-sponsored public bodies. This will bring us into line with proposals in the Freedom of Information Bill, which covers these bodies.

This Code represents a significant step forward in introducing a freedom of information regime, which gives the public genuine access to a wide range of information with which people can test the decisions that we, as an institution, make, and which affect their daily lives. I therefore urge the Assembly to adopt the Code as drafted, and also to agree that officials should consider the merits of asking Assembly-sponsored bodies to follow the Code.

I have a question for Andrew Davies on the presentation he has just made. The Code of Practice relates to information that is publicly available. Yesterday, however, the press and media had considerable difficulty in getting access to working documents that are relevant to our discussions here. Can I assume, therefore, that a code of practice of this sort, would cover the needs and requirements of the press and media, which take an active interest in the work of this Chamber. As a matter of principle they should generally have access to any information that comes through to us on the IT system, unless there is a good reason for them not to have it.

The point Dafydd makes is a good one. It has taken an enormous amount of hard work and preparation by officials and technical staff to prepare the systems and the Assembly to the high level that we found when we first arrived. A lot of new ground has been broken. I understand that the press has had some difficulty gaining access to documents and information, and that Members have also come across problems.

Some of that has been to do with the technology and also the fact that the systems are new. I can certainly assure Dafydd that it is our intention to smooth out the wrinkles in the availability of information to the press, the public, and particularly to Members. I do not think that the document before us contradicts anything that he has said. Practical wrinkles are getting in the way. Should it turn out to be more than that, I will then be happy to discuss those matters.

We are in a new situation. Therefore, the more we talk about problems as they arise, with good will and the intention of trying to solve them, the more that will help the positive development of the Assembly. It is my intention to meet the party leaders on a regular basis to make sure that all of us are able to do our jobs properly.

This will back up the work of the Business Committee. We will therefore find informal ways of making sure that those problems, when they arise, can be discussed as quickly as possible.

I was interested to hear the Business Manager say that there was a public interest involved in this, and that in certain cases the public interest would demand that information be made available. Forgive me if I have missed that in the actual Code of Practice. However, if that principle is going to be included, will it be enshrined or put down in words? And will it be done by the time the Ombudsman or administrator—who after all will have the responsibility of deciding whether particular pieces of information should be made public or not—comes to consider his or her work. I would like some information on it.

I welcome the principle set out in paragraph 1.6 of this Code of Practice. There is, however, a notable omission. Hundreds of thousands of people in Wales today have access to the Internet at home or at work, and hundreds more are connected each day. Sometimes the technology even works.

I believe that an additional principle of electronic dissemination should have been added to this Code. Every document published by the Assembly should also appear on our website without exception. Simple publication is not enough. The register of interests for Members of the European Parliament is a published document. However, to inspect it, you have to travel to Strasbourg and locate the correct office, to discover it is available only in the language of the Member concerned.

That is an example of how not to do it. We must use the power of the Internet to make our business instantly available on computers from Patagonia to Pen-sarn. In short, a digital democracy for a wired Wales.

I am not entirely sure of the point that John Marek was making. Perhaps it would be easier if I invite him to discuss his concerns separately, and if they are of general interest then we can come back to them.

The Business Manager indicated the underlying principles of the document. This means that we need to balance the public interest of various sorts. Without looking at individual cases, there are sometimes pieces of information which immediately ought to be in the public domain. There are other pieces of information which need to be given context in being brought forward. The document itself seeks to underpin the general principle that information should be in the public domain to the greatest extent possible.

I agree with Alun Pugh about the electronic dissemination of information. Indeed, we have sought to do that. For instance, we have attempted to make documents published by the Welsh Office and Goverment in general available on the appropriate website. We have also attempted to link websites in order that access to government information is maximised.

Government has perhaps been slower than others in achieving this. That point is underlined when we look at the way new ground has, and is, being broken in the availability of electronic systems in this Chamber, and their availability to Members of this Assembly.

What becomes immediately clear is that—whereas the systems are theoretically perfect—in practice there are problems. Systems do not always work quite as intended, and some of us manage to operate them in a way which produces results that are less than perfect. The general principle that he has enunciated is the right one. Indeed, the use of information technology and its availability is one of the crosscutting issues that the Assembly will need to address.

When we return to the question of crosscutting issues, I intend to place a responsibility within the Cabinet, and therefore within one of the Committees of the Assembly. We will then be able to decide how to deal with that type of issue.

I have a reservation about category 6 of the Code and I am surprised that it has not been noticed hitherto. If colleagues look at category 6, they will see that there is a catch-all justifying the withholding of information on the basis that it is:

‘information whose disclosure is likely to compromise the effectiveness of the Assembly Cabinet’s deliberative process or that of Assembly Secretaries or Assembly Staff in carrying out functions delegated to them.’

There is no attempt at actually describing or defining it, or saying under what circumstances it would apply. It does seem to be a considerable catch-all phrase to justify the withholding of information.

One issue that arises is the way in which protection of information is undertaken. I wholeheartedly underline the commitment of the Business Manager. We should make information available wherever possible and there would have to be good reason for withholding it. In addition to the opening statement of the category, there are sub-divisions that indicate the type of material we are discussing. If one is trying to make progress on issues that involve other assemblies, or matters that are being discussed with Ministers in the UK Government, one needs to make sure that those exchanges can be as frank and as open as possible and not feel that they will become stilted and unproductive because every piece and comment has to be made public immediately. I am sure the Assembly will accept that there is a good reason for having category 6. It must not be abused and it is not my intention or that of any other member of the Assembly Cabinet to misuse it.

I accept the point that Alun has taken in respect of (a), (b) and (c). However, I do think that category 6 is very broadly drawn. Having brought it to the attention of the Assembly, I accept the assurance from the First Secretary that it will not be used without good reason. I hope the Assembly will record that I have voiced some reservations about this. It might also be necessary to return to this if the system is being abused.

In that spirit, what Ron has said is entirely acceptable.

This is a new institution and its principles are based upon honesty, integrity, openness and transparency, as well as accountability. We must have Members that are bound by those principles. In these post-Nolan times, it is important that our proceedings are open, honest and democratic. The way we carry out our functions and activities has to be according to these highest principles. It is, therefore, very important that we as Members, declare our interests and that those interests are registered.

I draw Members’ attention to category 11, paragraph 1.31 that decrees that membership of the freemasons must be registered. I am not a freemason, nor am I the son of a freemason. As far as I am aware, no member of the Conservative Group is a freemason. I understand that when these rules were drawn up, the commissioners omitted this reference and that it was included at the request of the First Secretary. In a free and inclusive society, surely all are permitted to join societies and clubs according to law, without risk of scrutiny or further questioning. In my personal experience as a lay magistrate, the Lord Chancellor made inquiry of us all. This was done in a slightly different way and we did not have to make a reply. Would the First Secretary undertake to give to this Assembly, or the appropriate Committee, information of an evidential nature as to why freemasonry should be so prescribed?

I feel that a declaration of this kind is possibly a slippery slope. We know the lessons of history. For some curious reason, freemasonry has been prescribed not only by the Roman Church but also by the Nazis and in Communist countries. I would not like to think that we are embarking on a register that is to be so inclusive that it will be necessary to declare membership of other charitable bodies. Perhaps in the future we may need to declare whether we are members of Rotary, the Women’s Institute, the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion, or even the Pony Club. I know that something to do with an oath is part of this problem and I believe that that is given by both Scouts and Guides. I would like the First Secretary to look again at this measure.

In responding to this, the First Secretary may wish to bear in mind the experience of the National Assembly Advisory Group when we consulted on this matter. When consulting in Wales, we did not receive any objections from freemasons to freemasonry being declared an interest. We did, however, receive a letter from a senior figure in freemasonry in London. While these discussions were going on, I took part in a radio phone-in programme, where it was clear that the host of the programme hoped we were going to have numerous outraged freemasons phoning in, saying that their privacy was to be breached. On the contrary, we had numerous happy freemasons phoning in saying that they were more than happy to declare their membership of what they regarded as an honourable and charitable organisation.

During the consultation we were concerned about what was perceived as a secret society having had excessive influence in the past upon certain sections of Welsh public life. We received wide support from members of the public in Wales. On behalf of Plaid Cymru—the Party of Wales, we believe that the First Secretary’s decision in his capacity as Secretary of State not to accept the guidance of the Standing Orders Commission on this matter, but to accept the original advice of the National Assembly Advisory Group, was both acceptable and appropriate.

I am grateful for those last comments. Helen Mary underlines the fact that the National Assembly Advisory Group did recommend that a declaration of membership of the freemasons should be part of the requirements. As the Member who raised the question said, it was not part of the recommendations that came from the Commissioners on Standing Orders. I therefore had to look at the two and I felt it was right that the requirement to register membership of the freemasons should be in the requirements put forward to this Assembly. That is why they are there. People are permitted to join but they are not permitted to be free of scrutiny. If you wish to consider evidence, I would refer anybody who is interested in this issue to the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee of the House of Commons. The acceptance of this by the Home Secretary led to the issues being looked at in relation to the Criminal Justice System as a whole, in the way that has been referred to. In deciding on the stance of the Assembly, we should strive for the highest standards in public service. At the moment the requirement to declare membership of the freemasons only applies to some public offices. Following the report from the Home Affairs Select Committee we are clearly moving forward and this Assembly should be at the forefront of the higher standards of public service. I therefore urge the Assembly to accept the requirements set out in this Paper, including Category 11.

I will take the two issues together. I propose that

I also propose that

This Assembly is a unique body as there is no separation between the Legislature and the Executive. The Civil Service, therefore, is in the unusual position of working for the Assembly as a body, unlike in the House of Commons where they work for the Executive. The Assembly must make a difference. However important the deliberations of Members in this Chamber and in Committees, they will not, in themselves, make that difference.

The Assembly has a small staff, less than half the staff of the Scottish Office. We must make the most effective use of staff if we are to meet our promises. The Assembly’s staff are all civil servants, which means that they are part of the British Civil Service and are bound by the Civil Service Code—copies of which are available on the Intranet. All staff work for the Assembly and some work specifically for the Members in providing guidance, briefing, translation and committee support—to name just some of the areas. The staff who carry out those functions will, therefore, take instructions from the Assembly Cabinet and the Secretaries responsible for their subjects in terms of the powers of the Cabinet and the First Secretary. This is the most effective way to execute our decisions, given the scarce resources at our disposal. As I mentioned, this is a new institution and the Civil Service will have to adapt to the way in which it works, and to the Assembly’s new inclusive style.

As officials in the Assembly, they will also be working with colleagues in Whitehall. If the Assembly is to keep up with and move ahead of policy developments in the rest of the UK, its staff must be given access to the huge information source in Whitehall. These documents set out the way in which the staff/Members relationship will work. The staff/Members protocol is a brief statement of principle. It explains the basis on which staff will serve the Assembly and the principles on which we all work as public servants. The Nolan principles of public life are central to this document; we must all work together to follow these principles.

Civil servants will also work to their own code, as will Assembly Members and Assembly Secretaries. We must recognise the fact that different staff in this Assembly will carry out different duties. Staff with executive duties, who carry out the functions delegated to the Cabinet and the First Secretary by this Assembly, will take instructions from members of that Cabinet. Civil servants can only give advice to those who have decision-making powers. They can advise the Assembly Secretaries but not individual Assembly Members. The Code on Provision of Information to Assembly Members explains clearly what information is available to Members.

There is a huge range of factual information available through the Library, which will provide a confidential and efficient briefing service to all Members. They will be able to access briefing on their constituencies, details of grant schemes, and the latest information on the Assembly’s activities. The Library will also provide a gateway to members of staff. Requests for information on specific topics will be answered by executive staff, and only the Library staff will know who requested that information. Similarly, as its databases fill up, the Intranet will be a key source of information. All supporting papers for plenary committee sessions can be found on the Net, and the issue that Dafydd Wigley raised will be discussed with members of the press later this week. However, if the Assembly is to make the best use of its resources, Members’ access to staff must be limited. The best way, therefore, to ensure a quick and accurate answer is to refer to the Library. Staff are busily carrying out the wishes of the Assembly and its Secretaries. Members requesting information directly from staff would simply delay this work. Given the complexities of many issues, this could lead to an incomplete answer from someone who does not have the full picture.

This Code, therefore, proposes that Members contact Executive staff at Head of Division level or above, ensuring full and accurate replies to queries covering all the issues. However, this is not an attempt to keep Members away from the Civil Service. There will be regular contact with executive staff through briefings, committees and day-to-day contact. I wish to put on record the work of the staff in the Civil Service and the way in which they have been extremely helpful to Members. However, Members should realise that the job of the Assembly staff is to carry out the Assembly’s functions and that, ultimately, the decisions are taken by those to whom these functions have been delegated.

We have said that we do not wish to replicate the practices of other institutions. This will not be a new Westminster, where Members of Parliament are referred to Ministers if they dare to contact the civil servants. Assembly Members will be able to speak to senior staff to acquire factual information. If there are difficulties, I wish Members to contact me directly. A new partnership is needed in this new body. We are planning a number of partnerships with bodies outside this building—the Partnership Council of Local Government and the Voluntary Sector. We also need a partnership within the Assembly—between the Cabinet and the rest of the Assembly, and between Members and the Assembly staff. These protocols and codes are a vital part of this new partnership and, in that spirit, I commend them to the Assembly.

I agree with what Andrew has said. I see that there is an advance in this Paper in so far as Members will be able to talk to civil servants. There is, however, a potential point of conflict which is not evident at the present stage, given that there have been no divisive votes. However, this current situation could change. A civil servant’s loyalty is to the Crown. It is a philosophical point as to how that loyalty is exercised and through which channels it goes. I would like to put my reservations regarding this Paper on the record, because I think we will return to this point. A civil servant is, first and foremost, a servant of the Executive. However, there will be times when, as Members of the National Assembly, we will need advice from civil servants. It could, therefore, place them in very difficult positions. I am not trying to denigrate any civil servants; I have no doubt that they will do their jobs well. I emphasise that in most legislatures there are civil servants whose primary loyalties are to the legislature and not to the Executive. The last administration of the Westminster Parliament changed the situation so that people like the Controller and Auditor General were no longer paid from the Government vote but on a cash vote directly from the House of Commons. His loyalty therefore is directly to the House. Our Servants of the House—whose loyalty is to the House and not to the Executive—are paid directly from the votes by the House. We had this argument in the Westminster Parliament and I think it is a serious point to be addressed by the Assembly in the future.

I have given you written notice in the form of an e-mail that I wish to move a procedural motion which would refer to paragraph 6.2 of the Code on Provision of Information to Members and also the phrase with the agreement of the relevant Assembly Secretary in paragraph 6.3 to the Business Committee. Are you prepared to accept the motion?

I thought you might say that. Therefore, may I speak?

Thank you for that clarification. The difficulty is that, normally, one would have proposed deletion of words, but you cannot do that until you have seen the document. The document has not been available on the Intranet until very recently; it did not appear within the timescale. That makes life slightly more difficult for Members, particularly at this difficult early stage of the Assembly when we set out the turf for the future. This is one of the most thorny issues facing the Assembly, and it stems from a decision not to have separate staff for the Executive and Members. That was an appropriate decision, but it places the Civil Service in a very difficult position. How can staff serve two masters at the same time?

In paragraph 6.2, I find the following phrase objectionable:

‘executive officials will need to inform their Assembly Secretary of the inquiry, and the inquirer, in order to support the Assembly Cabinet effectively.’

Paragraph 6.3 states that Assembly Members who wish to have a briefing from a member of the Civil Service can do so only with the agreement of the relevant Assembly Secretary. I also believe that the head of division is too high a level and it would be more appropriate for the paragraph to apply to staff with a salary of £30,000 and above, or head of branch. I believe that this will cause a problem, not only because of the political arithmetic, but in creating a balance between the advice and information service that Members and Assembly Secretaries can receive.

For the vast majority of Members in this Assembly, the Code will virtually require Members to obtain their information through the Library. Therefore, Members will receive only written information. If you wanted information from a civil servant, face to face, that information and the nature of the inquiry would be passed to the Assembly Secretary. You would also have to obtain permission to speak to more than one Member at a time. Information is crucial in this Assembly to help us make up our minds, and written information often requires clarification or further explanation. A few words over the phone might make all the difference in understanding the complexity of issues, and the way in which they arise. Therefore, the problem lies with the original decision not to have independent staff. I mentioned this matter when we, the Liberal Democrats, were briefed by civil servants before the elections. At that time, the Civil Service struggled to understand how they could serve both masters at the same time. I believe that the paragraphs tie the hands of Assembly Members who are not members of the Assembly Cabinet. The outnumbering is quite obvious—20 staff in the Library to 2,000 staff in the Civil Service in the current Welsh Office. I believe that we must re-examine this matter in order to create the right balance of information flow.

If I ask my standard question about flood schemes on the River Taff, I need to find more information about the number of opportunities there have been to put that matter right and how the Environmental Agency has dealt with the problem. I do not wish to keep putting that in writing every time I want information. It is far easier to deal directly with someone, but the confidentiality of that information is prejudiced by these paragraphs. In my view, that matter should be of great concern to the majority of people in this Assembly. If we are intent on being inclusive—including everybody inside the circle of information—the paragraphs would prejudice that information. I hope that the First Secretary will re-examine this issue which is crucial to Assembly Members’ performance. I agree that there have to be safeguards but those are not apparent. This is a one-sided document. I hope that the First Secretary will reconsider the matter and respond with something slightly more substantial.

I support Mike German’s views on category 6. Listening to the presentation and reading the document, I got the impression that there was an attempt to put ordinary Members of the Assembly in their place. I do not believe that this should be the way forward for this Assembly. I am worried that we are setting procedures and processes in stone, and not allowing for the evolution of the role of ordinary Assembly Members. The role of the Assembly Member is still being defined, not only in terms of holding the Executive to account, but also in terms of service to individual constituents, as representatives and advocates for their areas. By defining access so tightly we may be in danger of hampering their role. I hope that the First Secretary and his team will consider the anxieties that we are expressing and reconsider the document in terms of giving ordinary Members greater access to the Civil Service on matters of concern both to themselves and their constituents.

I did not know that two papers were going to be considered together, but I want to mention commercial confidentiality, which is included in paragraph 5.2 of the Provision of Information to Assembly Members. It states:

‘Members will not normally have access to information which is commercially confidential.’

I support the previous speakers. This is a catch-all phrase to ensure that any information that the Executive does not want us to have will not be given. Any commercial organisation will say that everything is commercially confidential. For the public, the test must be not whether harm, but substantial harm will be done by the release of that information. However, it must be a different test if the information is going to be supplied to us as Assembly Members. I am unhappy with the paper as it is drafted now, and I support those Members who have said that it simply is a catch-all phrase so that the Assembly is given only the information that anybody in the Executive allows it to be given.

I wish to comment on category 6. I understand that there is no problem whatsoever with Members getting access to civil servants. They have to apply to a higher level because the civil servants would want an accurate answer to be given. Sometimes it is necessary to go to the top to get the best possible information. As Conservatives, we do not have a problem with this issue.

This has been an interesting debate and I hope that we can use it as an opportunity to look a little further into the distance. First, the purpose of establishing the codes and protocols is to enable us to enter a totally new type of relationship. The Assembly is a new type of body—it does not have the same relationship between the officials and the Assembly Cabinet as that between officials and Ministers at Westminster. Therefore, civil servants are being asked to enter into a completely different type of relationship. As I said earlier, it is particularly positive that civil servants in the Welsh Office have entered into what will be a very challenging situation with a great deal of enthusiasm. They are very positive about their ability to engage with Assembly Members, both through the committee structure and individually. However, there are also concerns on propriety, the different types of information that the Assembly needs to do its work and its relation with other Government bodies. We must also ensure that civil servants are protected from inappropriate approaches. It is reasonable to expect the most senior civil servant to be aware of what is right to give out and what is not. As processes build up over a period of time, it may be possible to relax current requirements because the pattern of working will become familiar to everybody, and everybody will know where the lines are set and what the ground rules are.

A Standards Committee will look at the way in which issues of propriety are dealt with over a period of time. None of this is set in stone for the future. The codes provide a set of ground rules that allow us to start to build confidence within the Assembly, on the part of both Members and officials, so that appropriate exchanges can take place and information can be made available. I emphasise that although we are approaching this as a totally new institution, we accept the transfer of civil servants to the Assembly. They have great experience of working in a different type of environment, and, therefore, we need to allow time to settle down.

John Marek is right to say that the decision was taken not to separate the Assembly and the Executive. It would have been possible to have a separate group of officials whose accountability and loyalty was entirely to the Assembly, and another set of officials who were responsible to the Executive. That would have spread officials far too thinly instead of making sure that the resources and the capacities of all the officials who work for the Welsh Office—especially at a policy level—were available to the Assembly as a whole. That is why we have to create procedures that may seem somewhat mechanical. It is to make sure that we fulfil our aspirations. I am sure everybody agrees—that we should have the greatest openness and protection for staff by setting out certain rules.

We should reassess most of the issues that have been raised. I believe that it would be helpful for party leaders to meet the Permanent Secretary in order to talk about the relationship between officials and Members. This would enable greater understanding, and could be followed by a discussion involving a wider range of Members. This would help to ensure that everybody over a relatively short period of time understood the relationship. It is vital that positive relationships are established between Assembly Members and Assembly officials.

I turn to the issue of the agreement of an Assembly Secretary. It is not intended to be a way of stopping the flow of information; it is to enable officials to give information with authority. It may be that we will find in time that it is possible to simplify structures and to extend the range of officials. It is possible that the Library system is the correct way of providing information. The Library, in this case, is part of the Civil Service and part of the Assembly. It is not like the House of Commons Library, which is a part of the services available to Members and separate from the Executive. We are all one Assembly. However, in the House of Commons Library, if you ask an expert researcher for information, they will return with information that is gathered very quickly from officials in the relevant department. This is because they have regular contact and they know where to ask the question. I suspect that Members of this Assembly will find that the Library service is one that acts as a short cut and enabler rather than an obstruction. If that proves not to be the case, then it would be right for us to reassess it.

The Permanent Secretary, officials in the Office of the Presiding Officer, the Clerk, John Lloyd, and many others, have given much thought to trying to establish a system which will create the greatest confidence on the part of Members and officials alike. What I would urge the Assembly to do is to try and tease out the reasons why it has been placed in this way. I suggest that the leaders of the other three parties facilitate a discussion, and if there are things that are not working let us, as an Assembly, revise the issues in the future. However, if we find that it is working, it may be that the knowledge and expertise of those who proposed the systems to us was right.

In that spirit, I urge members not to dismiss the points that have been made by those who raised them, in particular the point that Mike German raised. Let us keep issues under review, but let us establish processes that will enable the Assembly to start its work.