To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what total sum he now estimates will be required to compensate clergymen and bishops expected to leave their orders in the event of the ordination of women; and if he will make a statement.

The estimated cost per 100 men of financial provision under the proposed legislation, as at present drafted, is some £3 million spread over five years. The legislation will shortly be considered by a revision committee of the General Synod. It is too early to make any realistic estimate of how many bishops and clergy might ultimately resign.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the suggested compensation of £30,000 per head is very low for a young man early in his orders? Does he also agree that respect for the law is basic to the Christian faith? Does he therefore agree that back-door women priests and their congregations who break the law on premises run or owned by the Church Commissioners are simply waiting for the law to be changed?

The costs of compensation, to which I have referred, are estimates and remain subject to further revision, although there is a limit to what the Church of England and the commissioners could afford in this context. It is unlawful for a woman priest to minister the sacraments in a Church of England building, and I understand that any who do so may be prosecuted under canon law, which has the force of statute law.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the aim is to get the reform through in such a way that people do not wish to leave the Church? In that respect, are not the guarantees that were first outlined crucial to reassuring people who are hesitant about the change? Does the right hon. Gentleman therefore deplore the House of Bishops' move in its latest report to undermine some of those guarantees?

I take careful note of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I believe that the provisions made for payments of the type under discussion are constructive and reasonable, although the legislation that underpins them is still far from close to enactment, and there has to be a further election to the General Synod before the Measure can be introduced in this House.

Has the Church got this round the wrong way? Is it not the duty of those who want a different sort of Church to leave it, not to drive out those who wish it to stay as it is?

That is a general observation which, as my hon. Friend has stated it, has some validity. There is, however, a lot to be said for staying inside an institution which one wishes to change and trying to reform it in the direction that one prefers.

The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) spoke about breaking the law. If ecclesiastical law is changed and women priests are ordained so that they can minister the Communion, by what right should any reactionary elements in the Church expect to receive any compensation? Surely they should obey the law. I do not see why these reactionary old buggers should expect anything.

Order. The hon. Member will withdraw that remark.

These reactionary people should not expect anything.

The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to demonstrate whether he is reactionary or progressive when the Measure comes before the House. He will understand that, although the law may be legally enacted in the House, it can be considered oppressive by some people. For them, in those circumstances, to resign and be offered ex-gratia compensation by their fellow Christians in the Church of England is a perfectly wholesome and acceptable alternative.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that the aim in making such a big change, if it comes about, must be to ensure that as few people as possible leave the Church and thereby keep the compensation down? With that aim in mind, will he heartily endorse the views of the Archbishop of York at the weekend, which are certainly supported by many of us who wish to see the ordination of women priests; and does he agree that the events in London at the weekend certainly did not help the situation?

I agree with my hon. Friend. He will have noted that the lady or ladies concerned did not seek to minister in a consecrated church. Had they done so, they would have been liable to prosecution. I am sure that the Archbishop of York's views on trying to keep within the law until the law is changed must be the right and proper advice.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Church Commissioners will need all the resources that they can get, including diocesan quotas, not only for this reason, but for many others? If they pursue a policy of irritating parishioners by selling off local parsonages adjacent to churches so that the churches have to be locked to prevent vandalism, people will not support the church financially, diocesan quotas will not be paid and they will not have the resources for this or any other purpose.

My hon. Friend has referred to the practice of selling old vicarages and parsonage residences adjacent to churches, which obviously bears upon some local phenomonen which is worrying him. I should be obliged if he would let me have details, which I shall certainly look at. He will understand that the resources of the Church Commissioners, to which he referred, depend to some extent on rationalising their property ownership and selling off old large houses so that modern vicarages can be constructed in their place.