asked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners, what is his response to those parts of the House of Commons Environment Committee's report on historic buildings which relate to the responsibilities of the Church Commissioners.

The commissioners welcome the references to redundant churches and the ecclesiastical exemption, which directly concern them. I know that the General Synod's working party on state aid for churches in use will be especially heartened by what the committee has recommended in relation to VAT on repairs.

I welcome my hon. Friend's reply. Will he encourage his fellow commissioners to urge the deans of our cathedrals to accept that if they expect public money to help with the repair and maintenance of our glorious ecclesiastical architectural heritage, they must play their part in seeking more voluntary funds in the form of entrance fees from the millions of people who visit our cathedrals?

I must make it clear that the commissioners have no direct responsibility for cathedrals. Speaking as an individual, I find it entirely acceptable when visiting cathedrals abroad to make a contribution to go in. There are a number of places in this country, such as St. George's at Windsor, where it has been entirely proper, right and accepted for many years that those going in, other than for services or to pray, should pay to do so.

asked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners, what are the financial implications for the Commissioners of the proposed sale of Church House and the move by the General Synod and the Church House staff into the Commissioners' headquarters at Millbank.

As my hon. Friend will know, the move of the Church House staff to separate accommodation adjacent to the commissioners' offices in Millbank was approved by the General Synod last week. The adaptation of Millbank for this purpose will cost around £4 million and is the most economical of all the options considered. The future of Church House, which the Synod will leave with sadness, will be the responsibility of the corporation of Church House.

As staying at Church House would have cost £28·7 million and as there would possibly have been women ordained priests based at Church House, it is right that the Church of England organisation and General Synod staff should be moving to No. 1 Millbank. Does my hon. Friend agree that the savings are so incredible that that option was worth approving? Does he also agree that hiring the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre for Synods at £10,000 per year means that money will be saved to enable the church and the clergy to go out and attract more people to increase the flock which the church is losing, not because women may be ordained but because of modern services and the new Lord's Prayer?

My hon. Friend has included a good many points in his question, with the skill that we have come to associate with him. There is no doubt that the most economical and sensible of the various options has been chosen and I look forward with the greatest pleasure to a building that will encompass in one set of rooms both my hon. Friend and women priests.

As "Faith in the City" made much of what the Government could do to regenerate the inner cities, could not Church House and the Church Commissioners use this opportunity, instead of preaching to the Government, to set a n example by moving from Westminster to one of the northern cities?

The hon. Gentleman with his close connection with these matters, will have noticed that the General Synod debated this with great care only last week—

And came to the wrong conclusion.

The hon. Gentleman says that it came to the wrong conclusion, but that would be the view of anyone in a minority. The decision was made by a group of people overwhelmingly drawn from outside London. They concluded—whether they were right or wrong is another matter — that it would not be appropriate for the General Synod to move out of London. I must make it quite clear that the commissioners have no responsibility, nor do they wish such responsibility, for decisions taken by the General Synod. However, the conclusion was taken after mature and careful debate.