Statutory Instruments (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 13th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak to this Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I will not detain your Lordships with a lengthy restatement of our concerns about the Bill, because we made them clear in Committee. I simply say that we have issues with the way it seeks to grant powers to the House of Lords that are arguably greater than the powers afforded to the elected House. Having put those concerns on the record, we did not seek to amend the Bill on Report and will not seek to delay its progress, but we cannot support it.

I close by thanking the Minister for her work on this Bill and, especially, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for his engagement with me throughout its passage. He graciously and generously took time to meet to discuss the details before Committee, which was greatly appreciated.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for bringing forward this Bill. It has been an excellent opportunity to highlight the importance of secondary legislation. This Government place great importance on Parliament having the information it needs to scrutinise. From the introduction of the delegated powers toolkit to an enhanced training offer for civil servants at all levels, the Government are taking steps to demonstrate how seriously they take secondary legislation.

I also thank the clerks and advisers of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, as well as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, for their diligent work in scrutinising the secondary legislation the Government lay before Parliament. I remind the House that my husband is a member of the JCSI.

I take this opportunity to thank the National Archives for maintaining legislation.gov.uk, which is a valuable resource for all Members of your Lordships’ House, as well as the general public, and for its work in administering the correction slip process, which the Bill would place on a statutory footing. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, the Government disagree that this is a necessary service for the correction of insubstantial errors. We remain of the view that there has always been a need to strike the balance between providing the Government with the flexibility they need to deliver for the country and ensuring that the information they provide is clear and explains why legislation is necessary.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Will the noble Baroness take this opportunity to reassert the principle that secondary legislation should never seek to move away from the intention of primary legislation?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an excellent point. As the Attorney-General has made clear in several speeches, that is absolutely the intention and objective of this Government’s legislative programme.

I do not wish to repeat the reasons why the Government cannot support the Bill. We will continue our efforts to improve the secondary legislation that is laid before Parliament, including the documents that accompany it, but we do not agree that further legislation is the way. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated at all stages of this Private Member’s Bill and for the opportunity to discuss the importance of secondary legislation. As ever, your Lordships’ House’s ability to scrutinise is second to none.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

I am most grateful to the Minister and those who have spoken for the kind words that have been said.

AI and Creative Technologies (Communications and Digital Committee Report)

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Friday 13th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Massey of Hampstead, on his maiden speech: it was very well researched. I am sure he will make a huge contribution to this House with his knowledge and detail.

I also welcome and congratulate my noble friend Lord Evans of Guisborough. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, outed him in terms of his place of birth and where he has chosen, but, obviously, after his speech, I would say that London should have been a designation, if not Havering and Redbridge. I have known my noble friend Lord Evans for the best part of the last 20 years. As he mentioned, a number of us—maybe a golden generation of politicians and administrators across parties—have taken that well-worn path from City Hall to this place. He is very welcome to have taken that path.

I do remember my time there, because it was intense. I had a transport brief, an environmental brief and then the digital brief: there were plenty of briefs from my former boss. When it came to looking for good guidance, a bit of political compassion and camaraderie, you did look to assembly members on your side for support.

There were various kinds on the assembly. We would sit around the mayor’s table and say, “Who can we talk to? Who can we get some sage guidance from? Who will give us that calm, measured warmth, and a sense of direction?” We were quite inexperienced and new to the role. The name of my noble friend Lord Evans would invariably be at or near the top of that list. He provided me with much guidance, time and patience. I look forward to him being in this House and providing that to us and many more through his measured, emotional and intelligent approach, as he has done throughout his career. I welcome him.

I acknowledge yet again the excellent work of the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee, which was chaired with great dedication by my noble friend Lady Stowell. My only regret is that I was not part of this committee through her tenure in producing this report on AI and creative technology scale-ups.

I acknowledge my registered interests, especially my roles in the technology sector, specifically with UK AI businesses. I have spent the best part of the last 25 years working in the technology industry and consider myself to be still in the industry. I am vice-chair of the APPG for AI, and an angel investor in tech businesses.

We cannot help but be aware of the pace of both development and investment in the world that is awakening to the endless possibilities of AI. I will speak today through the lens of not just the creative technology sector, because, as the report recognises, the challenge of evolving our numerous innovative and successful scale-ups to full-blown global businesses is consistent across many industries.

As most of us recognise, the report states that we in the UK have many of the essential ingredients for scale-up success. I am acutely aware of this because it was the emergence of the start-up scene in London in the late 2000s that led me to persuade the then mayor to establish the first digital office for London. Working with the then Government, we set out to support the emerging creativity and innovation in east London with policies and interventions to attract talent and investment by ensuring that risk takers—the entrepreneurs and investors—felt the city was on their side, wanting them to succeed and wanting them to stay in London and the UK to drive both opportunities and economic growth.

The result was Tech City, as the ecosystem became known, which significantly transformed London’s economy and global tech standing. By 2013, Tech City had grown from 85 start-ups in 2010 to approximately 200 firms. Around 5,000 companies were located in the wider area, contributing to economic growth and high-value jobs by four years after that.

Since 2010, London-based tech companies have raised $5.2 billion in VC funding. By 2021, London’s tech ecosystem was valued at $142.7 billion, with 76,660 digital technology firms employing 590,000 people, representing 14% of the UK’s total tech firms. Tech City helped position London as the digital capital of Europe, with more than a third of Europe’s tech giants based in the city, contributing over £56 billion to the economy.

Tech City also fostered a vibrant start-up scene, producing 23 unicorns—tech companies valued at over $1 billion or more—by 2019, and with a combined value of $132 billion. Community initiatives such as Digital Shoreditch, Independent Shoreditch and Silicon Roundabout meet-ups, along with events such as, as we have seen this week, the still-growing London Tech Week, created a collaborative ecosystem for networking and innovation. The UK Government’s £15.5 million funding package from the Technology Strategy Board and the UK digital services index, launched in 2013, supported innovative businesses and benchmarked digital sector performance.

But these policies were then, and this is now. The successful foundations from the last decade need to be built on as we enter the AI age, because now we are in a global economic race, not just to utilise AI technology in all its forms but to own the innovations and host the businesses and associated support ecosystems of businesses and jobs that will reshape the economy and the jobs environment. As the report states, the risk we take by being uncompetitive in this race is that the UK will become an incubator economy for other nations, as foreign companies and investors acquire and hoover up our emerging talents.

Where would this siphoning off of business talent leave us? Apart from being an incubator, we would become an AI-receiver economy. Yes, we would utilise more innovative services. We will still embed long-term solutions and costly platforms across our industries and public sector, which will enable transformative change and efficiencies. But we will be getting only a small fraction of the value from the AI economic cake, for it will be those owners and nations where the businesses reside that will take the lion’s share of the jobs, investment and vast revenues and tax receipts. In effect, we will receive the services; they will get the revenue. That is not all bad, noble Lords may say. We may be able to live with that. But it is like saying we would be happy for nearly all our future energy supplies to come from other nations. Let us just mull over the geopolitical risks we have seen materialise in recent years and the impact on our energy prices.

In the age of AI, the large-language models, the datasets that feed those models, and the AI services that are developed using the datasets will have huge influence and power over nations, their people and even our culture and traditions. If cultural artefacts—the UK’s museums, history and libraries—are not available online to non-UK companies and LLMs, will that history, literature and culture still exist in a future digital world where the answer to your prompt is provided by an American-based model that does not know, does not have access or just does not prioritise its response based on sovereign accuracy?

This debate is about how we can encourage more scale-ups to succeed, but it is also about the future of our economy and much more. It is about the future sovereignty of businesses, LLMs, datasets and the online world that will influence and fundamentally create our future society. This is an issue of our sovereignty.

In case noble Lords feel I may be somewhat overdramatising the scale of the issue, let me share some of the numbers that demonstrate the state of play in the global AI market. According to research by Silicon Valley Bank, the UK remains a dominant AI hub in Europe, securing nearly $6 billion in AI funding last year, more than France and Germany combined. However, France is rapidly catching up, with Mistral AI emerging as the region’s leading LLM provider, having raised over $1 billion within one year of its founding. Meanwhile, Germany’s AI sector remains deeply tied to its industrial roots, where advanced automation is transforming its automotive and manufacturing industries. Further good news for us is that, since September last year, the UK AI landscape has experienced robust expansion. There has been broader enterprise adoption, the daily influx of approximately £200 million in private investment and a rise of 17% in the number, 34% in the economic output and 29% in the jobs among AI firms. That might sound impressive, and I am supportive of the Government’s approach and initiatives taken to push and support the sector, but let us gaze across the pond.

In early 2025, the US unveiled the Stargate project, a $500 billion AI infrastructure initiative in partnership with Oracle, OpenAI, SoftBank, Microsoft and NVIDIA, to name a few, aiming to create thousands of jobs and reinforce the US’s determination to maintain its leadership in the AI race. To date, according to PitchBook, US-based AI companies have attracted nearly $100 billion in funding, more than the rest of the world combined. The US has first-mover advantage in AI, driven by a combination of world-beating private sector companies, chip makers, hyper-scalers, cloud providers and dataset providers. Combined, all these companies provide the infrastructure that enables AI training and deployment at scale.

The race to lead in AI has become a defining part of global business competition. So, are we really in this race? Are we doing enough with our action plan, investment in compute and our growth zones to really compete? Will we be able to keep the scale-ups that will give us a chance to have a real stake in the global AI field economy? We can, but we must be bolder and more ambitious in how we attract and lock in the critical element that drives growth—private sector investment. Yes, the Government must do their bit, as the report suggests, to remove barriers to necessary infrastructure and resources, and must maintain their proportionate approach to AI regulation. But none of this will work without the investors, the risk-takers, the VCs, the capital markets, and the time is now. I appreciate that the Government responded to the report by stating that for some technology and creative companies, accessing the

“capital required to scale a business can be a challenge”.

This is the challenge.

I welcome the report and what the Government have done so far. But I strongly suggest that it is now time for the Government to get creative with a laser-like focus and do all they can to unlock domestic growth capital and increase the incentives for investment in the UK. They need to make our investment landscape and policies more competitive so that strategies such as the Delaware flip, whereby UK businesses restructure and relocate to meet the requirements of an attractive investment proposition put forward by a funding partner in the US, are not the best options for British entrepreneurs.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, I would be ever so grateful if the noble Lord could bring his contribution to a conclusion.

[Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)]

We need to build a competitive, sovereign-based, British-made, British-owned AI economy for the future.

Environmental Targets (Public Authorities) Bill [HL]

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 13th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Clause 1 agreed.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, it might be helpful if I inform your Lordships’ House that we will be finishing all the business on today’s Order Paper, so Members may want to consider the length of their contributions.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Perhaps I might clarify that that has not been agreed by the usual channels and the convention is that we finish at 3 pm. We have already had two very late sittings this week, if not three.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, I did just put it in the Teams chat. I did try to talk to the noble Lord about it this afternoon. I am happy to continue such conversations, but having this conversation is also eating into our time. It may be helpful, given that noble Lords are here waiting for their business to commence, that we commence with the business.

Clause 2: Duty on public bodies to take steps to achieve environmental targets

Amendment 2

Moved by

Ethics and Integrity Commission

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

To ask His Majesty’s Government when they plan to establish an Ethics and Integrity Commission to ensure probity in government.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, this Government are committed to establishing the right structures to uphold the highest standards of ethics and integrity. Steps we have taken already to improve probity and transparency include the new Ministerial Code, the strengthened terms of reference for the independent adviser and the new monthly Register of Ministers’ Gifts and Hospitality. On an ethics and integrity commission, Ministers are assessing all the options and we will update Parliament on decisions in due course.

While we are discussing processes related to ethics, integrity and standards in public life, I should declare that my husband is a member of the Committee on Standards in the other place.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

I congratulate the noble Baroness.

This was a clear pledge in the Labour Party’s manifesto, and Liberal Democrats agree that it is essential to re-establishing public trust after the many unethical actions, and even corruption, that we saw particularly under Boris Johnson as Prime Minister. On my shelves at home, I have a whole file of reports from the Committee on Standards in Public Life and from outside commissions, think tanks et cetera, setting out the options on this. There are some very clear and simple choices. If I were asked to write the consultation paper, I think it would take me a weekend. Why have the Government delayed so much in doing so?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, we should discuss bookshelves. As for what we are doing, we have taken immediate action, but we want to make sure that, given how important ethics and integrity are in public life, and especially as—and I think the noble Lord agrees—one of the main ways in which we can challenge and counter the politics of populism is to make sure that people can genuinely trust their politicians, we need to make sure that the structures we put in place work and are right and effective. We are working on it, and I will update the House in due course.

[Lord Lisvane (CB)]

My Lords, when this commission arrives, if it ever does, will His Majesty’s Government ensure there is no unprofitable overlap with the excellent work being done by the Committee on Standards in Public Life?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises an excellent question. That is one of the reasons we have not rushed into it—to make sure that we are not replicating the organisations and entities that govern standards, integrity and ethics in public life, and that we can come forward with a proper, genuine response to what is needed. I assure the noble Lord that we are factoring in his question.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, is there not also a deeper issue as to who is entitled to decide who sits—particularly in the elected House—to represent people? Fundamentally, should it not be for the criminal courts of this country and the electorate to decide both on the individual they are being asked to vote for and, indeed, collectively the Government?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, as we are the unelected House, I completely agree that it is for the electorate—I have faced them several times; they liked and then did not like me—to decide who they seek to represent them and to have an understanding of the values of those people. I thank my noble friend, but we have very clear processes in place to protect standards. It is important the general public has faith in them too.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

My Lords, would the Minister agree that there is a real danger that ethics and integrity considerations could seriously impede the working of the Government by forcing them to reclassify minor misdemeanours, such as the killing and dismemberment of a journalist in a friendly country, as gross abuse of human rights, as seen in other countries?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The noble Lord has an interesting take on the questions of ethics and integrity in public life. Obviously, the Government have to look at all issues in the round when considering issues of diplomacy and engagement with all our allies. The specific point raised is a matter for the FCDO.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, on 25 July last year, when asked about progress on establishing an ethics and integrity commission, the Government Minister in the other place said:

“this is always going to be about ‘show, not tell’”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/7/24; col. 797.]

We have since had a year of the Government telling us there would be progress. Could the Minister tell the House what the timescale is for when the Government will be able to show us progress?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

Well, I query the interpretation of what my honourable friend in the other place said. He said “show, and tell”. We have told: we have updated the Ministerial Code; we moved the Nolan principles into the Ministerial Code for the first time; we have added the concept of service, which is incredibly important to this Prime Minister; we have updated the terms of reference for the independent adviser, who can now act without the Prime Minister’s instigation; and we have introduced a new monthly register of guests and hospitality. We have both shown and told. In terms of establishing the commission, noble Lords will have to wait a little longer and I will update your Lordships’ House in the normal way.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, in July last year, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster confirmed in the other place that work had begun on the Government’s planned ethics and integrity commission. Obviously, the role of the chair of this commission will be very important. Can the Minister confirm that there will be proper oversight of the appointment of any future chair of the commission, that Parliament will have a role in the process and that the chair will remain democratically accountable to Parliament through Ministers in the usual way?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The noble Baroness tempts me to give details about what the commission will or will not look like. I am sure we will discuss this in your Lordships’ House when parliamentary time allows. With regards to the independence of the chair, the appointments to bodies and offices listed in the public appointments Order in Council are made in accordance with the Governance Code on Public Appointments and so would the chair of any future commission.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, the Minister and most Members of this House will be aware that there have been a large number of examples of scandals and misdemeanours in Scotland by Scottish Ministers as well as Members of the Scottish Parliament. Will this commission cover the devolved authorities? I hope it will.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The noble Lord tempts me into areas that are not appropriate, but he is right that there has to be a trusted and valued ethics and standards process in each part of our nations and regions. With regard to the devolved Assemblies, that is wholly a matter for the devolved Governments, but I would hope that any changes that the UK Government made are also considered—because I am sure they will be best practice—by our devolved Governments.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, we have just had a round of local elections in England and many new councillors have taken up their responsibilities. Will this body be considering the local government dimension as far as ethics is concerned?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises an excellent point, which I am just assured by my noble friend sitting to my right that we are working on in the English devolution Bill and that conversations are ongoing.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, this clearly involves considering a large number of bodies which are concerned with standards in government, Parliament and local government. Does the Minister consider that the process of establishing an ethics and integrity commission will require legislation, or can it be done through executive decisions?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, work is currently ongoing about what we will bring forward and how we will bring it forward. I will update the House as soon as I can.

Immunity for Soldiers

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2019 Westminster Hall

[Damien Moore]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. That is the right thing for us to do. As I look around the room, I see many hon. Members who will answer that clarion call to amend the legislation so that Operation Banner in Northern Ireland is included. That should not have had to be done in an amendment, however; it should be in the Bill already. It is the Government’s duty to care for and look after our precious veterans, who stood on the frontlines to protect us from some of the bloodiest enemies our nation has ever encountered.

[Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. We all have veterans in our constituencies who are in their 70s and have received paperwork from the Ministry of Defence that they are too scared to open, because they are worried about what it means, and they do not know what will happen afterwards. This is about people who put their life on the line, as he said, but who now do not feel that they have support from their Government or community. The Government need to act.

[Damien Moore]

The hon. Lady makes an important point; we must foster a true caring environment for our veterans. They should not be hounded in old age, and sometimes illness, by the thought that there could be a letter or a knock at the door that will mean them having to answer for something that happened many years ago.

I say to the Government: enough with the hesitation, and enough with the special provisions that, in the name of supposed human rights violations, have caused our country’s dereliction of its sacred duty of care. We cannot let brave former personnel spend the rest of their life in fear of yet more investigations, more trials and more prosecutions. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) rightly proposed that a statute of limitations be introduced to shield soldiers and police officers from further scrutiny once their names had finally been cleared by our justice system; I am pleased that the Government are looking at that. That is what a motion that he brought to the House would have achieved, and that is what the hundreds of thousands of people who signed the petition want us to do.

Servants of the Crown involved in Operation Banner have had to endure far too much because of the hesitation shown by Governments from 1998, whether in the name of political correctness or out of fear of opening old wounds. It is our duty to put an end to any wavering, and to be decisively proactive on behalf of those who bravely put their life on the line out of a sense of duty and love of country. Indeed, it falls to us Members of Parliament, and to the Government, to protect those who gave their life to protect us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

Given his service to the country and experience in Northern Ireland, the hon. Gentleman knows this issue better than many others in this place. Veterans have raised the question with me about how decisions are made because sometimes there is a sense that not everyone who was involved in the operation is being pursued. However, I entirely agree with and understand the hon. Gentleman’s point.

The sense that I have been asked to communicate, and I do so for the final time now, is that many veterans who served in Northern Ireland, and many who did not, feel betrayed and let down by the Government. They hope that whatever comes out of the situation and the debates—

[Ruth Smeeth]

It all comes down to a sense of fairness, for the victims, their families, everyone who lived through the troubles in Northern Ireland and all those who continue to live with the consequences, but also for the veterans and their families: so that they know exactly where they stand and why. It comes back to whether more effort needs to be put into peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland, into talking, while ensuring that there is no prosecution at the same time. It is down to fairness for the families—for everybody.

[Luke Pollard]

I agree. Fairness is an important part of the solution to dealing with a sense of betrayal. Justice needs not only to be done but to be seen to be done and, at the moment, there is pain in many different communities.

Everyone in this House welcomes and values the progress made in Northern Ireland through the Good Friday agreement. I would like more Members to read that agreement; I sense that an awful lot of debate takes place without its words having been read. However, there is an opportunity here for Ministers—be they from the Northern Ireland Office or, especially, the Minister of Defence—to really understand the concerns of those who served in Northern Ireland and, equally, those who did not but just feel that something is not right here. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed the concerns raised, especially about the definition of new evidence.

Draft Northern Ireland (Elections) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2015

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2015 General Committees

[Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter, for my debut delegated legislation Committee. I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), the shadow Minister for Northern Ireland. This Committee was originally scheduled for yesterday, and my hon. Friend had made arrangements to be present but is unfortunately out of the country today. He asked me to apologise on his behalf and to assure the Committee that no disrespect is intended.

Turning to today’s business, I would like formally to put on the record the Opposition’s support for last week’s agreement and pay credit to the UK and Irish Governments and all the parties for the considerable amount of work undertaken over 10 long weeks to resolve the crisis that was threatening to destabilise the functioning of the Stormont Assembly. I would also like to place on record my party’s thanks to the outgoing First Minister, Peter Robinson, for his considerable service to the people of Northern Ireland.

The order will amend the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 2001 and the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2008 in order to make necessary changes to rules relating to elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly. We consider that the statutory instrument is not contentious and, as such, we will support its implementation. However, I have two questions for the Minister.

First, in view of the changes made last year to anonymous voter registration in Northern Ireland, can the Minister assure the Committee that changes to the timeframe for updating the register, where certain details have not been confirmed, will in no way impact individuals who are registered anonymously? Secondly, will he say what additional funds are being made available by the Treasury and the Cabinet Office for the digital changeover?

In conclusion, I confirm that the Opposition will not object to the order. We pay tribute to all in Westminster, Stormont and Dublin who are working to bring normalcy to Northern Ireland. Their efforts will always be supported by the Opposition, and we wish them every success.