What consideration the Church Commissioners have given to the future of the historic residences of the bishops of the Church of England; and if he will make a statement.

The suitability of every see house is considered when the incumbent bishop reaches the age of 62. By way of a statement, the pre-retirement review process enables constructive dialogue with the bishop, his family, his diocese and a range of other interested parties, and helps us provide a suitable home, workplace and base for his ministry.

Does the Second Church Estates Commissioner agree that it is part and parcel of what the Church of England is that we accept responsibility for looking after the buildings in our care, be they see houses or ancient parish churches? Given that 20 per cent. of this country's listed buildings—and 40 per cent. of all our grade 1 listed buildings—are maintained by the Church of England Christian community, would not the Church Commissioners be better employed in seeking a new settlement with the state about how the cost of maintaining those national treasures could be shared?

It may be Maundy Thursday, but I am reminded of a phrase that Jesus used: words often fall on stony ground. Any suggestion that the Church and the state might work together, with the state providing more money to the Church, will, I suspect, fall on stony ground.

In respect of work carried out in historic residences that are also bishops' palaces, we have of late maintained Rose castle and Auckland castle. As commissioners, we provide and maintain a residence for each diocesan bishop, so we fully understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. The Church will have to look after its own and not rely on the state. We shall continue to do the job we have been doing. We understand the historical context as well as the need to be up to date and to serve our parishioners, which is what the commissioners are trying to do.