HC Deb 06 July 1987 vol 119 cc10-1
25. Mr. Chapman

asked the hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what proportion of the Church Commissioners' revenue comes from income on their assets; and what proportion of their expenditure goes to meet the clergy's salaries and pensions.

The Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing Church Commissioners (Mr. Michael Alison)

Sixty-six per cent., the rest coming mainly from parish giving. Eighty-one per cent. of total expenditure was spent on clergy pay and pensions.

Mr. Chapman

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his spiritual elevation after the more turbulent, temporal post that he held in the last Parliament. Does he agree that those figures underline a simple point: that if we are to improve the clergy's stipends and pensions it is absolutely vital that the Church maximises the interest on its assets; and that it is important for the Church to have assets in land and property as well as in industry and elsewhere?

Mr. Alison

I agree with what my hon. Friend suggested in his supplementary question. In fact, the Church Commissioners' assets are judiciously and diversely spread. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that the main equity investment of the Church Commissioners yielded an income that rose, in 1986, by no less than 12½ per cent. Anyone who managed his personal portfolio of shares so effectively would have reason to be pleased with himself.

Mr. Frank Field

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his position and say that his appointment was probably the only acceptable consequence of the general election that Opposition Members welcomed.

Does he accept that the level of clergy pay is acceptable? If not, what sort of levels should we be aiming at, and what part should the laity play in meeting that target?

Mr. Alison

I am obliged to the hon. Member for his kind and rather sweeping commendation of my own preferment.

One should always aim for the highest possible figure. I feel that the minimum of £8,000 a year could be improved. It would be a pity if clergy and their families. had to have regular recourse to family income supplement.

We have to take into account, too, that there are benefits in kind — housing benefit particularly — that make the level of income perhaps not quite as low as it might appear from the bare figures.