asked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners, how much was spent in the past year by the commissioners on historic buildings under their control; what were the comparable figures 10 years ago; if he will give details of this expenditure; and if he will make a statement.

I have been asked to reply.

The commissioners have a large number of listed historic buildings under their control but do not keep a separate record of expenditure for this category. I regret that to calculate the information which my hon. Friend requires would cause disproportionate expense.

May I say how splendid it is to see my right hon. and learned Friend acting in this important capacity? May I ask him whether the Church Commissioners have any plans to charge for entry to cathedrals—as recommended by the Select Committee on the Environment—during certain periods of the day, provided that parts of the cathedrals are always left for prayer? If so, will there be a standard charge for all cathedrals, or will some be more expensive than others?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I am always grateful for anything that is passed my way.

The Church Commissioners have no responsibility for the upkeep of cathedrals or, indeed, for the upkeep of churches.

asked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the effect of value added tax on repairs on those buildings for whose upkeep the commissioners have responsibility.

I have been asked to reply.

In 1986 the commissioners paid over £500,000 in respect of VAT arising from the repair of buildings.

As the Church of England is a major owner of listed buildings, as instanced by the fact that nearly half the grade I listed buildings are Church of England churches, and as it is generally accepted that the zero rating of VAT on building repairs to such buildings would provide the greatest boost to conservation, would my right hon. and learned Friend, as a commissioner, be prepared to encourage the other commissioners to lead a campaign in Europe to get the European Community rules changed so that the other major owners of buildings, the Government, bring forward proposals to this House to zero rate for VAT purposes the repairs to listed buildings?

All hon. Members will have sympathy with my hon. Friend's objective. Versatile though I am, I do not think that I will undertake to encourage the commissioners, but I will undertake to see to it that they take careful note of my hon. Friend's point.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the commissioners and others, particularly the Historic Churches Preservation Trust, have repeatedly lobbied the Chancellor to reduce or eliminate VAT on such buildings? Will he talk to his colleagues in the Government — and how glad we are to see that he is answering this particular question today — and urge them to make this change?

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. I certainly undertake to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to my hon. Friend's point.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, though many evils flow from Brussels, there is no responsibility on Brussels for the imposition of VAT on repairs to buildings of this kind? Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that it would be open to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to include in this year's Finance Bill a measure giving relief from VAT for repairs on this kind?

I understand that there are difficulties in introducing a new zero rate. That is a matter to which the Select Committee gave its attention in its admirable report. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to all points of this nature.

asked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners, what measures the Church Commissioners propose to take to enable the payment of compensation to those clergymen who have announced their intention to leave the Church of England once the legislation admitting women to the ordained Ministry has been passed.

I have been asked to reply.

The commissioners have no jurisdiction to make proposals in a matter of this kind. It would be for the General Synod to decide, in the first instance, the form of any financial provision.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his answer, realising that you, Mr. Speaker, could have answered it as well. My right hon. and learned Friend, who is a Church Commissioner, will know that 2,000 Anglican clergy might leave the Church of England if women are ordained. The report by the House of Bishops on the ordination of women to the priesthood makes it clear that it wants unity rather division. The assessment so far undertaken in the study shows that a number of clergy would lose office and promotion. There would certainly be a starvation of promotion for those opposed to the ordination of women—

Order. This is not a debate.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend prepare the costings for that move, recognising that 1991 is not far away?

I know — indeed the whole House knows — that my hon. Friend takes a close interest in this matter, as in so many others.

Whereas I recognise the importance of financial provision in the event that women were able to be ordained as priests, that is perhaps not fundamental to what is an extremely difficult issue. It is not a matter upon which the commissioners have jurisdiction to initiate proposals.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that many of the 2,000 priests who are threatening to leave the Church are doing so under the assumption that, should they leave, they would take a substantial part of the historic resources of the Church of England with them? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman advise us that if such a division were contemplated, legislation would have to be passed by the House to approve it. Will he offer his own opinion on the chances of getting such legislation through the House?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right about legislation. To go any further into this issue on what is necessarily an ephemeral outing on my part would be unwise.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that we are glad to see him on that outing today? I hope that he makes the best of it. Is he aware that, as has been pointed out already, the Synod does not have the power to ordain women as priests? That will have to be done by this House, and that step must never be taken for granted.

No one speaks with greater personal knowledge of these matters than my hon. Friend, who is, of course, a member for the General Synod. He will recall that in February the General Synod passed a resolution requiring the standing committee to bring forward two Measures for consideration.

What my hon. Friend says about the outcome is constitutionally correct. It has to be passed by the necessary majorities in all three Houses of the Synod and then come to this House.

I also congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on his promotion, which, no doubt, is a welcome relief from his various other duties. Will he give a guarantee that any letter that he writes on this sensitive subject will not be leaked, wholly or partly?

The first of the hon. Gentleman's observations was more welcome than the second.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give a firm indication that any legislation along the lines that he has discussed will have to be discussed pretty carefully with the Law Officers?

Voluminous though our jurisdiction is, I am not sure whether it extends to that. Naturally, as we are both commissioners, we shall take a careful interest in this matter.