Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I want to place one brief point on the record. I referred this morning to the Inland Revenue Regulation Act; I have since found out that it is the Inland Revenue Regulation Act 1890. It is a torture of legislation to be using an Act that was clearly designed for another purpose and it tortures the language and everything else that we do now to bring it within the scope of that Act. I have not looked at copies of Hansard from 1890, but if I wanted to have a guess I would say that the Members of Parliament scrutinising the Inland Revenue Regulation Act 1890—I bet that was a fun one, if they had Standing Committees in those days—would not have had in mind that it should be used to authorise the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to make payments rather than receive payments. It is a rather curious use of language to say that the payment of money to employers in respect of statutory adoption pay should be treated as relating to Inland Revenue and that expressions in relation to Inland Revenue should be treated accordingly.

That is just a general point. It seems to me that, 112 years later and in a world where the Government are making increasing use of employers to act as a network of benefit payment offices, there is probably a need to regularise that situation. My earlier pleas for recognition of the administrative work that employers' payroll offices carry out in acting as a network of welfare state benefit outposts could equally be dealt with in such legislation. I doubt whether the Minister will want to say anything about that, but he might have some information following this morning's exchanges. Perhaps he has had a chance to talk to the Minister with responsibility for small business, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths). Perhaps he has some information on the progress of the review, set up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, into the burdens that payroll operations, especially the payment of benefits through the payroll, impose on business large and small, but particularly on small businesses. The matter is one that concerns his hon. Friend and the Chancellor.

Mr Alan Johnson (Minister of State (Employment and the Regions), Department of Trade and Industry; Kingston upon Hull West & Hessle, Labour)

I note what the hon. Gentleman says about the 1890 Inland Revenue legislation, although it has not appeared anywhere on my radar screens. On the payroll arrangements, my understanding is that the Carter review does not conclude its consultation period until the end of January. We would expect matters to move on from then.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

Without wishing to be unfair, if the Minister considers the way that his Department behaved in relation to part 3 of the Bill, he would have to agree that the fact that a review or consultation has yet to finish does not always prevent Departments of State from drawing conclusions from it.

Mr Alan Johnson (Minister of State (Employment and the Regions), Department of Trade and Industry; Kingston upon Hull West & Hessle, Labour)

Touche, as they say across the channel. And I thought that I was being helpful. That is the Carter review out of the way, but I should point out that we have stayed absolutely true to the Inland Revenue Regulation Act 1890—1890 was probably the last time that the Opposition reviewed their social policy—in so far as it governs the way in which the Inland Revenue does its business. The clause simply ensures that the same provisions, standards and practices that apply to the working families tax credit and other aspects of the Inland Revenue will be applied consistently to the provision of standards and practices for maternity leave, adoption leave and paternity leave. The hon. Gentleman says that it is time to look again at the matter, particularly the way in which the language is lifted. That is a different point for another time, but it would be wrong to use this Bill to start changing the process. To do so would cause great consternation among employers.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.