| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
CHURCH COMMISSIONERS
Cathedrals (Admission Charges)
42. Mr. Jenkin: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what is the policy on admission charges to cathedrals. [15279]
Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): It is not a matter for the Church Commissioners. Policy on admission charges rests with individual cathedrals, but I would be happy to convey any representations that my hon. Friend might wish to make to the appropriate authority.
Mr. Jenkin: Has it not become evident that cathedrals that levy charges on entrance for tourists are maximising their resources? In these straitened times, should not the Church Commissioners encourage cathedrals and other major church buildings to levy charges so that extra revenue can be raised?
Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend makes a fair and reasonable point. In practice, there is a good deal of variation in regard to the bits of a cathedral to which admission charges apply, but I shall arrange to have the general point that my hon. Friend makes widely circulated in all cathedral cities.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Is it not surprising that the Government have not sought to bring cathedrals into the private finance initiative?
Mr. Alison: I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that cathedrals are almost entirely financed by the residual money left in taxpayers' pockets after the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken his share, so their funding arises from voluntary donations from supporters of cathedrals.
Beneficial Clergy (Salaries)
43. Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what is the current average salary of the beneficial clergy; and if he will make a statement. [15280]
Mr. Alison: The average stipend for clergy of incumbent state for the year beginning 1 April 1995 is £13,450. That is 2.1 per cent. above the previous year's figure of £13,170.
Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there need to be differentials in terms of pay and emoluments between archbishops, bishops, archdeacons, vicars and curates? Vicars live in vicarages; why do so many bishops continue to live in palaces? Would it not
be better if the majority followed the example of the few who have been taken out of their palaces and placed in bishops' houses?
Mr. Alison: I take my hon. Friend's point that some bishops appear to live in substantial and splendid circumstances, but I am glad that he is in a favour of differentials in the ranks of the clergy, as he is no doubt in favour of differentials between Back-Bench Members and Cabinet Ministers, although Cabinet Ministers do not live in palaces.
Ordination of Women
(Financial Provision) Measure 1993
44. Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what payments have been made under the terms of the Ordination of Women (Financial Provision) Measure 1993. [15281]
Mr. Alison: At 31 January 1996, the commissioners had made payments from their income totalling
£6 million. Since the legislation came into effect in 1994, 300 clergy eligible for financial assistance under the Measure have resigned during that period.
Mr. Banks: That figure is astounding. Why on earth should those crusty old sexists get a penny piece for opposing the ordination of women? The right hon. Gentleman has given an appalling answer, and it shows how deep sexism runs within certain elements of the clergy in the Anglican Church. Those people should get not a farthing. They should be driven from the temples of the Lord with scourges, not be given a silver handshake from the offertory plate.
Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman called the figure of £6 million "astounding". If I had said that the amount was £600,000, £6 million or £60 million, he would still have described it as astounding. His references to the clergy of the Church of England would have been exactly the same, whatever the figures involved. The House may expect the same sort of response when we hear the hon. Gentleman speak later this afternoon on another compendious statement, the Scott report.
Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you, in the course of the afternoon, read pages 119 and 128 of the 21st edition of "Erskine May", which relate to the influencing of hon. Members? Page 128, under the heading "Improper influence", refers to the resolution of the House of Commons of 1695, which stated that
- "the offer of money, or other advantage, to any Member of Parliament for the promoting of any matter whatsoever, depending or to be transacted in Parliament is a high crime and misdemeanour and tends to the subversion of the English Constitution."
The current edition of "Erskine May" states also that
Madam Speaker:
Order. I am quite capable of reading, and the hon. Gentleman gave me the page numbers.What is the hon. Gentleman's point of order?
Mr. Mackinlay:
It seems to me that if an extraordinary package is put together for one hon. Gentleman--a Conservative Member of Parliament--so that he can avoid disqualification from the House, that could unduly influence the hon. Gentleman's conduct. It goes to the heart of the matter. If that package had been put together exclusively to keep the hon. Gentleman in question in the House, that would affect his conduct. I ask you, Madam Speaker, to consider whether or not such a package is lawful, and whether such a package should be declared in the Register of Members' Interests.
Madam Speaker:
If the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) believes that the matter may be a question of privilege, he should write to me and I will consider it in that light. If the hon. Gentleman believes that the matter relates to the standards of the House, the hon. Gentleman should write to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. If the hon. Gentleman is not clear in his own mind, if he will write to me, I will be glad to sort him out.
Mr. Jerry Hayes (Harlow):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I gave you written notice of this point
At the weekend, a well wisher gave me a letter from the hon. Member for Cynon Valley--of which you, Madam Speaker, have a copy. The letter is to Conservative constituency chairmen throughout the country, asking them to urge their Members of Parliament to vote against the Scott report. Of course that matter is for the hon. Lady. The difficulty is that the letter is on House of Commons notepaper. The added difficulty is that the letter was posted in a prepaid House of Commons envelope. I make no political points, Madam Speaker, but seek your guidance.
Madam Speaker:
The political points come later.I would ask the hon. Gentleman to refer the matter to the Serjeant at Arms. The hon. Gentleman has been kind enough to let me have a copy of the document to which he refers. The Serjeant at Arms will be carrying out an inquiry, and he would be helped in that if the hon. Gentleman let him have any information in his possession.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley):
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for writing to me to say that he was going to raise that point of order--but I could not understand his writing. I suggest that next time he writes to me he joins up his letters, or types.
I find it difficult to take seriously a point made by an hon. Member who is prepared--[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker:
Order. This matter has been referred to the Serjeant at Arms; the hon. Lady has been referred to; it is quite right that she should be heard.
Mrs. Clwyd:
Parliament has been brought into disrepute by the hon. Gentleman dressing up as French maid, and by all sorts of other activities--
Madam Speaker:
Order. I have given my ruling.The matter has been referred for an investigation.
Madam Speaker:
The hon. Gentleman would look very pretty as a French maid. I wish I had his curls.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Burns.]
Madam Speaker:
I must tell the House that speeches by all Back Benchers will be limited to 10 minutes.
The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian Lang):
The House will welcome the opportunity afforded by this debate to consider Sir Richard Scott's report, now that all hon. Members have had the opportunity to study it. That is why the Government deliberately allowed 10 clear days to elapse between publication and debate.
"the offering to a Member . . . of any fee or reward in connection with the promotion of, or opposition to any bill, resolution, matter or thing submitted or intended to be submitted to the House"--
3.35 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |