Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The clause addresses the exercise of Revenue functions. Subsection (1) splits up the general Revenue functions and the Revenue inheritance tax functions, and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield and I have expressed concerns about the way in which the inheritance tax provisions operate. I do not want to reopen that debate, but I wonder why it is necessary to split those functions between separate paragraphs.

I also want the Minister to clarify something. Concern has long been felt about extra-statutory concessions made by the Revenue—as I know from my own work at the Bar, although I do not have specific expertise in that field. Subsection (3) rightly states that the director is bound by

''(a) any interpretation of the law which has been published by the Board''

and

''(b) any concession which has been published by the Board and which is available generally to any person falling within its terms.''

Does paragraph (b) refer to all of what are called the extra-statutory concessions made by the Revenue, or is there some significance in the extra words? They appear to provide a condition that would be available to anyone who falls within the terms?

I ask that question because some extra-statutory concessions are made only to certain classes of persons. An example of that—which will be particularly familiar to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) and me—is that extra-statutory concessions were adopted for many years in relation to practising barristers. That is the kind of thing that would always get the goat of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson).

Will the Minister tell us more about extra-statutory concessions?

That is the one to pay for wigs and gowns. Once upon a time in the car industry, I enjoyed a sharp tool allowance; I did an honest day's work for my remuneration then.

When you were a Whip.

Clause 318 requires the director of the agency to apply the taxation system in the same way as the Board of Inland Revenue. He must apply the material published by the board on the interpretation of the law and the extra-statutory concessions. He must also take account of any other material published by the board. The important effect of that is the maintenance of a single, national and consistent taxation system. Without the provision, the Board of Inland Revenue and the director might apply different interpretations of tax law.

The clause also limits the delegation of taxation functions by the director to his staff, rather than to anyone else who provides him with services. It will send out the important message that the director will apply tax law in the same way as the Board of Inland Revenue. That reinforces the point that taxation will be applied fairly and equally to everyone.

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath mentioned his continued concern that inheritance tax is signified separately from other taxation provisions. That is a purely technical necessity. Inheritance tax has not been singled out in any way. The structure of current legislation is the reason why the Bill was drafted in that way.

I am grateful to the Minister. I accept his second point; I was simply asking for clarification about inheritance tax.

In connection with the extra-statutory concessions, I was fascinated to hear about the Minister's sharp tool allowance. Clearly, I must research that further. [Interruption.] I did not hear what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok said, so I shall give way to him.

You still don't get the point.

I am not sure whether the Minister fully answered the question about whether some extra-statutory concessions that do not apply generally would apply here. I understand that the director will work in exactly the same way as the Inland Revenue

does at present. That is fine. That will be on the record in Hansard, and will help any person who wishes to rely on an extra-statutory concession in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 318 ordered to stand part of the Bill.