Mike Wood
MP for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire · Conservative · United Kingdom
“The overwhelming cytokine storms, microvascular clotting and rapid progression to acute respiratory distress syndrome and multi-organ failure seen in covid intensive care units are classic manifestations of viral sepsis.”
“Up to 50% of sepsis survivors suffer prolonged physical, cognitive and psychological impairments from debilitating fatigue and cognitive brain fog to severe muscle weakness and post-traumatic stress disorder.”
“That makes it so difficult to have a meaningful figure for the number of cases, deaths and serious disabilities as a result of sepsis. We really need more consistency in the way that is coded, as well as a guide to best practice. I join the Minister in offering my condolences to the hon.”
“Absolutely. Of course, some infections are almost unavoidable, but where infections such as UTIs can clearly be reduced with the right care and precautions, we must do everything we can to reduce those risks. Every Member in this Chamber has constituents whose lives have been permanently transformed by sepsis.”
“Like many in politics, my behaviour can at times appear to some people to be a little idiosyncratic; fortunately, Laura realised that, even for a Member of Parliament, that was not entirely normal behaviour.”
“The international theme for this year could not be more apt: “Invest in Sepsis—Save Lives.” The World Health Organisation recognises sepsis as one of the leading causes of death and disability globally, estimating that sepsis-related illnesses account for one in every five deaths worldwide.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Mike Wood, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 12.
“Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, did a good job of opening the debate and running through a number of the issues that are dear to his constituents. He has furthered his reputation as a champion—a doughty champion, of course; if I do not add the “doughty”, it will not make the Google search—of local transport connections and step-free access at stations. Of course, he can always be relied on to give us a lift. My hon. Friend mentioned his experience at the Glebe school, where he was covered in powder. Having caught a little bit of the highlights of the new series of “Celebrity Big Brother”, I do not know whether they are currently making their services available to our former colleague from Lichfield. My hon.”
“It is an honour to respond to this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. Having spent just over a year and a half in the Government Whips Office before the election, during which time the longest speech I was able to make in this Chamber was probably to move that this House do now adjourn, today is a chance to catch up on lost time. Several Members have paid kind tributes to our late and much-missed former colleague Sir David Amess, who of course always lit up these occasions with his wit, charm and good humour. As I say, he is hugely missed, and our thoughts continue to be with his family. In his absence, my hon.”
“The Minister for Civil Society knows about the fantastic work that Gordon Moody does at its Dudley treatment centre to help people rebuild their lives following gambling-related harm. The Secretary of State may not know, however, that Gordon Moody faces having to suspend its residential treatment because of the Government’s dithering over how to distribute funds from the gambling levy. Will she finally get a grip before other fantastic charities with expertise, like Gordon Moody, have to shut their doors?”
“The Northern Ireland Farming Minister estimates that three quarters of dairy farms in Northern Ireland could be hit by inheritance tax following the Chancellor’s disastrous changes. Given the particularly high cost of agricultural land compared with farming incomes in Northern Ireland, does the Secretary of State recognise that the Budget is a direct threat to family farms and thousands of livelihoods across Northern Ireland?”
“The draft regulations will be a huge relief and an enormous help to many affected people. However, we all want an effective, equitable and comprehensive scheme. I urge the Minister, who I know cares deeply about this issue, to work with his officials and look at how some of the gaps and apparent unintended consequences might be resolved, so that all those infected or affected by contaminated blood can receive the compensation that they need and deserve.”
“Might their estate be able to benefit from a claim that had already been made, for which the affected person had been eligible before they passed away? The partners of infected people registered on support schemes to date stand to lose their right to receive 75% of their partner’s payments if they are bereaved, after the end of this month when the schemes officially end. Can the Minister explain why that decision has been made, and what assessment he has made of the extent to which other provisions within the draft regulations will make up for those amounts being lost by the bereaved partners of infected people who die after the end of this month? As I said at the beginning, we will not divide the Committee because we do not want to do anything that risks delaying payments to people who have already had to wait for far too long.”
“Can the Minister give the Committee a clear idea of what kind of proof might be sufficient to demonstrate, for example, psychological damage caused by contaminated blood, which might then enable someone to access additional compensation? Turning to the estates of affected people, while recognising there might be circumstances in which the restriction could be harsh, we agree with Sir Brian’s recommendation, which is reflected in the draft regulations, that affected persons should be compensated in their own right but to go further and allow a claim by their estate would draw the circle too widely. However, can the Minister clarify what the position would be were an affected person to die after submitting an application for compensation, or possibly between receiving an offer of compensation and accepting it?”
“Will he set out why haemophilia and hepatitis C cases were not included under the special cases mechanism in the supplementary route? How many infected people does he expect to be worse off as a result? Can he explain which experts decided which medical conditions would be recognised through the supplementary route and who among them had clinical experience of hepatitis and haemophilia? Some of the requirements to qualify for further compensation, beyond core payments, look particularly onerous. While it is, of course, essential to be careful when dealing with such large amounts of taxpayers’ money, I know that the Minister would not want the scheme to preclude people who have genuinely suffered different forms of harm and loss.”
“Although the tight tariff-based approach set out in the draft regulations clearly has benefits in fairness and consistency—and we strongly agree that this approach is appropriate in the vast majority of cases—is there a risk that such a framework could fail to provide fairness in some unusual cases that do not easily fit within the categories and levels set out? Will the Minister look at how IBCA could be given discretion to take into account atypical personal or health impacts, such as infertility? IBCA could, for example, be allowed to consider individual cases for injury, autonomy and social impact awards, as well as for financial loss and care awards. The Minister will know that particular concerns have been raised about how those who developed hepatitis and haemophilia are treated under the draft regulations.”
“How does the Minister expect that kind of detail to be evidenced? If care was provided to a friend or family member without remuneration, as the regulations require, how likely is it that there would be written records or agreements? What evidence does the Minister expect to be available when the care might have been provided many years ago, particularly if the infected person has sadly since passed away? We strongly support the IBCA framework document published two weeks ago and agree that there are sound reasons why it is appropriate, and arguably necessary, to initially second civil servants to allow IBCA to begin its important work without delay. However, as the Minister will be aware, some campaign groups have expressed concern about IBCA’s level of independence.”
“Will the Minister confirm that the Government will ensure that further amounts are made available, as and when they are needed? We have other concerns about the bureaucratic and evidential requirements in the regulations. There is a risk that those requirements prevent eligible people from applying. For example, not only partners, parents, children or siblings of infected persons but other carers of such persons can apply as “affected persons” for the care award to compensate for past and future care needs. However, they must be able to show that they provided an average of at least 16.5 hours of care per week to an infected person over a period of at least six months without reward or remuneration, show the nature of the care, and show the length of time such care was needed.”
“At that rate, it would take more than 15 years for all those infected to receive their compensation, and the draft regulations could extend compensation to perhaps 30,000 persons directly or indirectly affected by contaminated blood. It would take nearly 120 years to pay all those compensation payments at the current rate. We recognise that part of the purpose of these regulations is to give additional powers to IBCA to pay compensation, but the current pace is clearly unacceptable, and is causing significant distress and despair to many who have already suffered more than anybody should. That raises questions about whether IBCA has the capacity needed to properly compensate those affected and those infected by contaminated blood. It looks increasingly unlikely that the £11.8 billion set aside for compensation will prove to be sufficient.”
“There has been agreement across both sides of the House that we must implement the recommendations of that inquiry to begin to make right these serious wrongs. To be clear, we will not divide the Committee on the draft regulations because we do not want to do anything that jeopardises the payment of compensation that is already overdue to those who were affected or infected by contaminated blood. The biggest concern that Members share has been the very slow pace of assessing and paying compensation claims. We welcome the progress highlighted by the Minister, but as of 14 March only 63 offers of compensation had been made and only 40 accepted. That equates to about five victims paid per week since the Paymaster General’s statement last month.”
“I thank the Minister for presenting the draft regulations. I am particularly pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury agreed to bring his enormous expertise on this matter to the Committee. When he was Paymaster General, he worked tirelessly to make sure that victims and their families could at last receive some degree of justice. Above all, I thank those campaigners and victims who have spent years pushing for justice for this terrible tragedy, which continued for over a decade. It has taken decades more for it to begin to be put right. This is an issue on which all parties have spoken as one, recognising the horrific harm caused to so many by this scandal. It has been a unity built around agreement with the incredible work done by Sir Brian Langstaff in his inquiry.”
“I thank the Minister for her response, but why does she feel that benefit fraud ought to be a specific offence, with maximum sentences under the Social Security Administration Act 1992, but that it is not appropriate for a specific offence to apply to people who deliberately defraud other public authorities?”
“The Minister is being generous in giving way. Prosecutors have a choice as to which charge to bring. They can still bring a charge under the common law offence, which as the Minister says, has a high maximum sentence—but one that is very rarely imposed—or, as with benefit fraud, they could bring it under a specific offence, as proposed in new clause 2. The Sentencing Council would then develop the guidelines that apply to deliberately defrauding public authorities. Although the Minister is right that the maximum sentence under the new clause is lower than the theoretical maximum for the common law offence, in practice, it is likely to see rather more substantial sentences imposed on conviction.”
“I wish the hon. Gentleman’s mother a very happy birthday. It is a great date of birth to share. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the ombudsman’s report concluded that there had been maladministration between 2005 and 2007, and that some women had suffered a loss as a result of that maladministration. The Government accept that there was maladministration. The ombudsman has left it to Parliament to decide how to make sure that those who suffered loss get properly recompensed. What would it say about us as a Parliament if we decide that yes, the maladministration is there and the loss is there but, frankly, we are not going to do anything about it?”
“It is a plea for those who are fighting for their lives—a lifeline for families who are watching their loved ones slip away, bit by bit and day after day. Too often, those diagnosed with rare cancers are left stranded in a system that does not have the answers they need. We know the wonders that pharmaceutical companies can do in drug development, but the horrible truth is that few people are able or willing to invest the enormous amount of money needed to take forward drug development—knowing that about one in 25,000 drug candidates make it to market—for conditions that will require that drug 1,000 or 2,000 times a year, at most.”
“Gentleman could not have picked a better cause than the one represented by this Bill, and if he is never again quite as popular as he was in the few hours after the publication of the ballot results, I know that he would willingly exchange all of that popularity in an instant for the difference that this legislation can make to so many lives across the country, if and when it is passed and implemented—as we hope it will be. I stand today not just as a Member of this House but as a friend who is deeply moved by the pain of seeing someone I care about—someone who has become like family—struggle against an insidious disease. This Bill is not just another piece of legislation; it is a cry for help.”
“I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), both on his good fortune in being drawn in the private Member’s Bill ballot and on his wisdom in picking this very important issue to take forward. Having been similarly lucky in being drawn in that ballot a few weeks after I was first elected, nearly a decade ago, I know the barrage of calls and emails that suddenly come your way—the very sudden and slightly fleeting popularity that comes from coming towards the top of the private Member’s Bill ballot—and the very many, very worthy causes and campaigns that come your way for you to choose between. The hon.”
“The cost of inaction is measured not just in money, but in precious lives lost. Let us pass this Bill. Let us give people like Dan and his family the hope they so desperately need. Let us give them a future—a future that is still within reach.”
“We spend a lot of time in this Chamber talking about politics, but this is not about politics: it is about real people like Dan who desperately need our help. Cancer does not care about politics. It does not care what background we come from, our age or gender or what party we belong to. It strikes indiscriminately. It takes what it wants, and it leaves devastation in its wake. That is why we must respond with urgency, with compassion and, most importantly, with action. I strongly support this Bill and I urge all hon. Members here today to stand with us, to stand with the families clinging to the hope that there is something more we can do and to stand with those, like Dan, who are fighting for more time, for more moments, for more chances to hold their loved ones close.”
“It mandates a review of the orphan drug regulations to ensure that rare cancers get the investment they so desperately need, creates the national specialty lead to drive research and innovation, and establishes a registry service to help to connect patients to the clinical trials that really could save their lives. This Bill gives hope—a real chance for families who are facing the unimaginable. I stand here today with a heart full of hope, but also with a heavy heart, because I know that time is not on their side. Dan does not have the luxury of waiting. His family do not have the luxury of waiting. No one diagnosed with rare cancer has that luxury. That is why this Bill is so very urgent.”
“Dan dreams of walking his son to school every day and of being there for every moment that really matters, whether it is his graduation or his wedding—the moments that every parent should have the chance to see. He is fighting with his wife, Sonia, who has been his rock through all of this. Sonia has stayed by his side through every hospital visit, through every sleepless night, and through every moment of doubt and fear. Together they have dreamed of a life growing old together, of watching their child grow up, and of building memories that will last forever, but that future is slipping away. That is why we are here today—to ensure that no parent, no family, no child has to face the horror of rare cancer without hope. This Bill is not just about changing laws or regulations; it is about giving families like Dan’s a fighting chance.”
“It was a free voucher for an eye test that saved Dan’s life, because it was not until, by sheer luck, an optician noticed something wrong in his eyes that anyone realised the nightmare he was living. That optician saved his life. What followed has been nothing short of a nightmare: brain tumours, surgeries, radiotherapy and the heart-wrenching hope that every treatment might be the last, only for the disease to rear its ugly head again. Now the cancer has spread to his spine. His doctors and consultants have no answers. His options are dwindling, yet Dan’s fight is far from over, because Dan is not just fighting for himself, but for his two-year-old son, Elijah, who deserves to grow up with his father by his side, cheering him on at his first football match and guiding him through life’s milestones.”
“I have watched him endure brain surgeries and radiotherapy, and seen the fear in his eyes each time the disease comes back and he hears his doctors tell him that they do not know how much more his body can take, and whether he can be put through that next course of radiotherapy. Dan’s journey started with something as simple as headaches, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West referred to in another case, that no one thought were serious at the time. As a teenager, three GPs all misdiagnosed that tumour and for unknown reasons, the GPs did not want to send Dan for a scan. A simple scan to check that there were no malign causes would have identified those tumours months earlier.”
“He is best known as the owner of Bella, his therapy shih tzu who he had while he was being treated for his third brain tumour and who is often seen roaming around the Palace and 1 Parliament Street. Dan has worked for me since I was first elected in 2015, but he is not just my senior parliamentary assistant; he has become like family. He is a father, a husband and a four-time cancer survivor. For 14 years, he has fought this monster, each time feeling the ground slip more from under him as his options narrow, leaving him and his family with ever-reducing hope. We have seen him face unimaginable pain.”
“The hon. Lady is obviously right, and I know that she approaches this subject with, tragically, a huge amount of personal experience. We have already seen drugs—in some cases, long-marketed drugs—being applied for new purposes and new conditions. Without those costly clinical trials, they will not be licensed or approved for prescription, and that is why the Bill is so important. Clinical trials are sadly a distant hope for far too many currently, and many patients are left with the crushing, gut-wrenching words, “There is nothing more we can do.” Those words can be a death sentence, but they do not have to be—not if we act. Many Members and House staff will know my senior parliamentary assistant and dear friend Dan Horrocks.”
“I congratulate the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) on promoting this Bill so ably. The last Conservative Government massively expanded eligibility for free school meals, meaning that the proportion of children and young people eligible is much higher than was the case under any previous Government. The evidence here proves that the inheritance we left behind in this area last July was much kinder than that which the last Labour Government left us in 2010, with one in three children able to get a free school meal—as opposed to one in six when the previous Labour Government was last in office—despite a large fall in the number of workless households.”
“When we look at dietary habits in recent decades, we see that that is not confined to parts of the income spectrum. There has been a deterioration in the quality of diets going back over several decades that is quite separate from issues of poverty. As of January 2024, more than 2.1 million pupils were eligible for benefits-related free school meals, which amounted to 24.6% of all pupils. In addition, more than 90,000 disadvantaged students in further education received a free school meal at lunch time. Collectively, this supported the children and young people who needed it most to ensure that they could make the most of their world-class education, boost their health and save their parents considerable amounts that they could not afford.”
“The Bill would also give powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations to make provision for the definition of the term “state-funded school”. In what circumstances does the hon. Member believe that a change in definition will be necessary? I will be clear, as we were in government, that we believe in targeting support to where it is most needed. We believe that the state should do less but do it well—but that does include delivering sufficient support to those who need it most, and particularly to children and young people.”
“However, I have a couple of questions about how the Bill will achieve that, which I hope that the Bill’s promoter can address in his closing remarks so that Members can consider that as the Bill proceeds. I know that the hon. Member for Crawley has extensive experience in local government, and I think that 20 local authorities have now piloted their own auto-enrolment schemes at some point. In drafting the Bill, what consideration did he give to the burden that will be added to local authorities? Does he have any assessment or measure of the cost for local council tax payers and how that relates to both the savings for local families and the additional income for schools through pupil premiums?”
“Since 2018, the programme has delivered enriching activities and nutritious food to the children and young people who need it most, with more than £200 million each year delivering 15.6 million half days to children and young people across every single one of the 153 local authorities in England. The Bill requires local authorities in England to identify each child of school age resident in its area who is eligible for free school meals. It also requires state-funded schools that identify a child who is eligible to provide those meals. We support the desire to ensure that all those eligible for free school meals have an opportunity to receive them, so do not wish to prevent the Bill from proceeding.”
“That involved five different models, ranging from a traditional breakfast club to a healthy grab and go. The programme has had great success in supporting those who needed it most and I welcome the Minister’s confirmation that his party will continue to support it until at least next March. I hope the support extends past that date. Nutrition does not cease to be an issue outside of term time, which is why the previous Government rolled out the holiday, activities and food programme to support during holiday periods disadvantaged and low-income families in receipt of free school meals.”
“At this point, Madam Deputy Speaker, I ought to declare an interest. My wife is in teaching, although she is providing one-to-one special needs teaching rather than in a classroom at the moment. We know that those children who do not have breakfast are more likely to have issues with behaviour, wellbeing and learning. That is why the previous Government expanded the provision of breakfast, investing up to £35 million in the national school breakfast programme. That funding supported 2,700 schools in disadvantaged areas, providing thousands of children from low-income families with a free nutritious breakfast at school to support their attainment, wellbeing and readiness to learn. Moreover, we trusted school leaders to deliver, building a breakfast provision that fitted the needs of their pupils.”
“I really must continue. The Government have promised to move on to the next Bill at quarter to two, so I need to keep interventions to a minimum. We also introduced extensive protections which have been in effect since 2018. They ensure that while universal credit is being fully rolled out, any child eligible for free school meals would retain their entitlement and keep getting free school meals until the end of the phase; in other words, until they complete either primary or secondary school if their family’s income rises above the income threshold such that that would otherwise have stopped. On breakfast clubs, we all know that breakfast is the most important meal of the day, setting people up with the fuel they need to make the most of the day ahead, and the evidence supports that.”
“T3. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Some 66% of hospitality firms say they will have to cut staff or staff hours, 75% say they will cut investment, and 97% say they will increase prices because of the Chancellor’s manifesto-breaking national insurance increases. What assessment has the Minister made of the number of workers being dragged into national insurance contributions for the first time, and if the Government must continue with this disastrous policy, will they at least delay it for 12 months to bring it into line with the introduction of business rates reforms?”
“Given what the hon. Lady just said about the number of farm holdings, would she regard it as a sign of failure of this Government if that number is lower at the time of the next election?”
“While thousands of farmers were looking to the SFI for support, Labour has chosen short-term political convenience over long-term sustainability. Our farmers deserve consistency and trust in the future, not abrupt cuts to vital programmes. We will continue to back farmers. Labour’s inheritance tax policies are a direct attack on the heart of family farms. The planned cuts to agricultural property relief and business property relief will make it impossible for farmers to pass on their livelihoods and their businesses—the farms that they have been farming for generations—to their children without facing huge tax burdens. According to the NFU, someone who inherits an average cereal farm from their parents faces 10 inheritance tax payments, with each one representing 1.5 times what they can expect to make in annual profits.”
“We believe in a future in which farming thrives—one based on stability, growth and sustainability. Sadly, Labour’s policies jeopardise all three. Whether it is the disastrous last-minute overnight closure of the sustainable farming incentive, the relentless family death tax assault on family farms, or the negligence towards rural businesses, Labour’s agenda harms the heart of rural Britain, including my Kingswinford and South Staffordshire constituency. Labour’s short-sightedness in deciding to stop accepting new applications for the sustainable farming incentive—with just half an hour’s notice given to the NFU despite the promise of six weeks’ notice—is a clear sign of its failure to understand the long-term needs of our farmers.”
“The sustainable farming incentive, inheritance tax reliefs, biosecurity, and the damage caused to our high streets by Labour’s Budget—in each of those areas, Labour’s mismanagement is letting down farmers, their families and our rural communities. Rural Britain can thrive when farmers are supported, businesses are protected and communities grow stronger. We will continue to fight for that future, and I call on the Government to change course before it is too late for our rural way of life. We will continue to fight for our farming communities, including mine in Kingswinford and South Staffordshire.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Clearly, the people who are best placed to avoid paying the tax are the very people who ought to be paying and contributing: the mega landowners. For the average cereal farmer, however, who could face inheritance tax bills of 1.5 times the value of their annual profits, the only recourse will be to sell land or machinery. That is so blatantly obvious that the fact that the Government do not see it makes it difficult to assume that the policy is down to incompetence rather than a deliberate strategy to dismantle family farms, particularly when combined with the compulsory purchase plans set out by the Deputy Prime Minister this week. Labour’s policies threaten the future of farming, rural businesses and the communities that rely on them.”
“The overnight withdrawal of the funding is yet another blow to many of my farmers in Kingswinford and South Staffordshire. The Minister still has not answered the question as to why he has broken his word, which was clearly set out on the Government website, to give at least six weeks’ notice, nor the one asked by the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), which was that if the reason for doing so was because the budget had become exhausted, when that first came to the Minister’s attention. Was it really yesterday afternoon?”
“Perhaps the Minister can correct me if I have misunderstood, as the drafting obviously relates to the parallel provisions we debated in clause 22. My understanding is that, as currently drafted, if the Minister or the Public Sector Fraud Authority is satisfied that a loss is the result of fraud, they can impose a lump sum deduction up to 100% of the credited amount in an account. However, if they were to use a regular deduction order, each sum can be only 40%. Is there any reason, in principle or for welfare, why it is okay to take 100% of someone’s account on day one but not okay to take 50% today and 50% the following month?”
“It sounds as though the Minister is speaking to amendment 22, which would restrict his power to set a lower amount to non-fraud cases. If we agree that lower limits should apply only in cases that do not involve fraud, can we just accept the amendment?”
“Does the hon. Lady recognise that, unlike the indoor smoking ban in particular, the regulation of mobile technology and social media is very much not a one-off event? When the Bill that was to become the Online Safety Act was published, it was genuinely world-leading in many respects, but, as the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) pointed out, many countries have now introduced measures that go further. Should we not be taking action now and then continuing to develop it, rather than just introducing a series of reviews?”
“If we are given clarification regarding the degree of discretion available, the seniority, and training in decision making and the safeguards that ensure fairness, we will be content for the clauses to stand part of the Bill.”
“Again, the requirements in the clause appear to be sensible and necessary if we are to ensure that individuals and organisations are fully informed of their liability and have an opportunity to challenge decisions that they believe to be incorrect or unfair, so we support the clause standing part of the Bill. Clause 58 deals with reviews of penalty decisions. I have a few questions about who in the PSFA or Government will conduct the review. Who will ensure that they are properly separate from the individual decision-making process and if the reviews are to be conducted by officials, what will be the level of seniority required? The clauses set out important procedural safeguards that seem to be appropriate to ensure penalties are not imposed unfairly.”
“We assume that the decision on whether to maintain, reduce or cancel a proposed penalty will be made by an authorised officer rather than the Minister for the Cabinet Office, so will the Minister set out the level of seniority of the authorised officers within the PSFA and how that decision was reached? What training will those officers be required to undergo for this specific function, and what steps is the PSFA expected to put in place to ensure consistency in decision making across different cases? Clause 57 outlines the process for issuing a penalty decision notice once a final decision has been made.”
“In the light of the Government’s intention to repeal the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, I am interested to know whether they have assessed the impact that might have on the operation of the Carltona principle in these circumstances. The principle is derived from pre-second world war case law, but it was significantly weakened in the Gerry Adams challenge. It was one of the things the previous Government were seeking to change, as a response to amendments in the House of Lords to re-establish the principle. In the absence of the 2023 Act, will the principle still be legally robust enough to allow the delegation that the Government intend under this Bill?”