National Insurance Contributions Bill

Obviously, it would be better than not accepting the amendment at all but, in deference to my hon. Friend, the word ““expedient”” is far too broad for the Bill, which gives the Government power by regulation to introduce retrospective legislation to penalise British citizens with higher taxes, especially national insurance contributions. If my hon. Friend had tabled such an amendment, I would be happy to address it, but I do not wish to encourage a joint test of reasonableness and expediency, as there is an inherent conflict between the two concepts. That is why I did not table such an amendment. ““Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary”” says:"““The word ‘reasonable’ has in law the prima facie meaning of reasonable in regard to those circumstances in which the actor, called on to act reasonably, knows or ought to know””." That is exactly what we are trying to achieve. The Government should act reasonably in the exercise of the great powers that it seeks in the Bill. There is no reason why we should discuss all the other uses of the word ““reasonable””, but it is worth remembering that expressions such as ““reasonable acts””, ““a reasonable amount””, ““reasonable and probable cause””, ““a reasonable time”” and ““reasonable care”” are frequently included in legislation, and have been the subject of judicial decisions. If we are to introduce strong regulations that can penalise people retrospectively and if the Government act unreasonably, it should be possible to challenge such action in the courts.