National Insurance Contributions Bill

I accept that some Members would see it as unreasonable. That is why I urged my right hon. Friend to be cautious when considering the amendments. I prefer the word ““expedient”” to the word ““reasonable”” for the very reason that the hon. Gentleman highlights. These are political decisions; they are not, and cannot be, moral decisions. I say to the hon. Member for Christchurch that I cannot comment on the antipodean definition of expediency that he mentioned. However, as a citizen of Canada who lived there for nine years, I am familiar with the way in which the English language is used across Canada, which is particularly distinctive in Newfoundland. I shall try to make the difference graphic. As Members may be aware, there is a federal election going on in Canada. The Canadians call constituencies ““ridings””. That word means something in this country, but it has nothing to do with parliamentary constituencies. That is an example of the way in which language evolves over time. One would have to be cautious about trying to import a definition from a Canadian law case into this Chamber—and doubly cautious, as most English-speaking Canadians would agree, when it comes from a case in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, as in that cited by the hon. Member for Christchurch. I am not sure, with due respect to him, that using that definition throws much light on our discussions in this Chamber. Let me focus for a minute on the question of retrospectivity, which the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire—