Dan Jarvis MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2025 · Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to make that final point. There is no political convenience in what we are seeking to do today. We are seeking to ensure the security of our country, and if he has a little patience, I will further make that case to him and to the House. Let me turn to Palestine Action. The public attention it has garnered should not be confused with legitimacy, nor should a group formed five years ago be conflated with the legitimate campaign for Palestinian rights and statehood, which has existed in our country and in this House for more than five decades. Let me be clear: the proscription of Palestine Action is not aimed at banning protest that supports Palestine. There are many ways in which people can continue to lawfully express their support for Palestine without being a member or supporter of Palestine Action.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 30 June, be approved. I am grateful to the House for its consideration of this draft order, which will see three distinct groups proscribed: Maniacs Murder Cult, Palestine Action and the Russian Imperial Movement.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism · Hansard source

  More

  I am happy to respond directly to the right hon. Gentleman’s point of order. The process of proscription requires this House to agree such action. Should the House do so later this evening, it would then go to the other place, and it would be for the other place to agree the action or not. It would then be for the Home Secretary or myself to sign an order, and that order would then become law at midnight on the night it had been signed.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism · Hansard source

  More

  I will make a little more progress before giving way. The definition has three limbs. First, the use or threat of action must reach a certain level of seriousness, such as serious violence or serious damage to property. Secondly, the use or threat must be designed to influence a Government or intimidate the public or a section of the public. Thirdly, the use or threat must be made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause. Successive independent reviewers of terrorism legislation have upheld the UK’s terrorism definition as effective and fit for purpose, even as the threat from terrorism has evolved.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  indicated assent .

• 30 Jun 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Let me make a bit of progress, and then I will happily give way again. The key point is that deprivation of citizenship on conducive grounds is rightly reserved for those who pose a threat to the UK, or whose conduct involves very high harm. We are talking about some of the most serious cases handled by any Government. Where a loophole is identified in the processes underpinning it, it is the job of any serious and sensible Government to close it, and that is precisely what this Government will do. Let me turn to the substance of the Bill. The House will note its brevity and narrow scope; it contains just one substantive clause, focused solely on addressing the specific issues that have already been discussed. Its primary objective is to protect the United Kingdom from dangerous people, which includes those who pose a threat to our national security. The Bill will achieve that by preventing those who have been deprived of British citizenship from regaining that status automatically when their appeal is successful, until further appeals have been determined. That will replicate the approach taken on asylum and human rights appeals; in those cases, the effect of an appeal is suspended up to the Court of Appeal and extended to appeals to the Supreme Court. To be clear, the Bill does not change any existing right of appeal or widen the reasons why a person could be deprived of their citizenship. Should an appeal mounted on behalf of the Government prove unsuccessful, then where there is no possibility of further appeal, British citizenship would be reinstated with immediate and retrospective effect.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am always grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It is. Perhaps he did not hear me make that point earlier, but I specifically said that one of the reasons for the Bill was to prevent someone who is outside the UK, and who poses a risk to our national security, from returning when a further appeal may be upheld by the Home Secretary’s decision. He is right: that is a potential scenario that we have to guard against, and the Bill will enable us to do that, just as Governments could prior to the ruling of the Supreme Court. I hope he finds that reassuring. As I set out, deprivation is one of the most powerful tools we have in our ongoing efforts to protect the United Kingdom and its citizens from harm. For it to remain an effective part of our armoury, we need to legislate. Before I finish, I pay tribute to our world-class law enforcement and intelligence agencies. In turbulent and uncertain times, their tireless work to maintain stability and security at home has never been more crucial. They must be supported at every turn, because the safety of our country stands apart from everything else we do. It is the cornerstone of our society, and ensuring that safety is the primary purpose of everyone involved in public service, including in this House. It is a responsibility borne not just by those of us on the Government Benches, but by parliamentarians of all parties. In that spirit, I urge Members to support the Bill, which is required to preserve our national security. I commend it wholeheartedly to the House.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Forgive me, but I do not think I said that; I think I said the opposite. I am very happy to discuss the matter further with my hon. Friend. I hope she understands, and I hope I have made it clear, that the Bill is incredibly narrow in its scope. It seeks to take us back to the legal position we were in a matter of months ago, prior to the judgment of the Supreme Court. It does not in any way undermine the right of appeal. If she has further concerns, I am very happy to speak to her, but I can give her an assurance. She is very welcome to look at the Bill. It will not take her very long to read it. It is two clauses, with a single substantive clause, specifically designed to take us back to the legal position we were in just a few months ago. I hope she will be reassured by that.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to follow the shadow Minister. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken. As I mentioned right at the beginning, the Bill is extremely narrow in its scope and intent, focusing solely on closing a loophole in the existing deprivation of citizenship process. As I outlined, the Supreme Court decided in a recent case that if an appeal against a deprivation decision is successful, or a deprivation of citizenship order is withdrawn, that initial order will have had no effect and the person will be considered as having continued to be British. That means that people who have been deprived of British citizenship will automatically regain that status before further avenues of appeal have been exhausted. The Bill will therefore protect the UK from people who pose a threat to our national security by preventing those who have been deprived of British citizenship and are overseas from returning until all appeals have been determined. It will also prevent a person who has been deprived of citizenship on the grounds that it is conducive to the public good from seeking to undermine deprivation action while an appeal in their case remains ongoing by renouncing their other nationality and putting themselves in a position whereby a deprivation order would render them stateless. The Bill does not change any existing right of appeal or widen the reasons for which a person could be deprived of their citizenship. It is crucial that our world-class law enforcement and intelligence agencies have the necessary powers to protect the public and secure our borders. Let me reflect briefly on the contributions made during the debate. I am very grateful to the Opposition Front Benchers for their support and their speeches. It is always my intention that national security should never be a party political issue. That was the basis on which I approached it in opposition, and that is the basis on which I approach it in government. I am very grateful for the constructive and reasonable way in which they have presented their points today. I am also grateful to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), for her contribution. She took the opportunity, as is absolutely her right, to call for wider reform, and she raised specific concerns about the process and about transparency. The Government believe that the measures in the Bill are necessary and proportionate, but I listened carefully to the points that she made about transparency. The Government believe that there is sufficient oversight and transparency of the use of the deprivation power. The Home Office publishes data in relation to the number of deprivation of citizenship orders, and the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration has the remit to review the power. The ICIBI has conducted independent reviews of the deprivation power, with reports published relatively recently, in 2018 and in 2024. I also want to take the opportunity to further reassure the hon. Lady that deprivation decisions are made following careful consideration of advice, both from officials and from lawyers and, under this Government—I am sure it was the case under previous Governments as well—strictly in accordance with international law. Each case is assessed individually by the Home Secretary, and decisions to deprive, where it is conducive to the public good, are taken by the Home Secretary, and the Home Secretary alone. The power is used sparingly, it complies with the UN convention on the reduction of statelessness and it always comes with the right to appeal. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons) made a thoughtful speech, including about what citizenship means, and I know that the House will be grateful for the contribution that he made this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) raised a number of specific concerns, and I want to do my best to respond to them. The deprivation of citizenship on conducive grounds is rightly reserved for those who pose a threat to the UK or whose conduct involves a very high harm. Deprivation on fraud grounds is for those who obtained their citizenship fraudulently, so were never entitled to it in the first place. Decisions are made following careful consideration of advice from officials and—in respect of conducive deprivations—lawyers, and in accordance with international law, including the UN convention on the reduction of statelessness. The Government take these matters very seriously, and I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that we have to ensure that we have the powers necessary to keep the public safe.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I know that the right hon. Gentleman will understand and appreciate, from his time as a Home Office Minister, the huge responsibility that the Government invest in the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary of the day has to make some incredibly difficult, finely balanced judgments. I hope that he would agree that we have to ensure that the Home Secretary, whoever they are, and whatever political party they are from, has the necessary power to make decisions that safeguard the security of our nation. I am certain that he and I agree on that. The Bill essentially ensures that the Government can continue to do that, precisely as the Government whom he served could.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Again, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I do not doubt that if he and I and others sat in a room and sought to design a system, we probably would not end up with the one that we have, but I hope he understands that, given the constraints on parliamentary time and the bandwidth of Government, we are seeking to go back to the position that we had a number of months ago—I know that he did not agree with it then—to ensure that we have the powers that we need so that we are best placed to respond in the circumstances that I have described. I want briefly to come back to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), because I gave him an assurance that I would do so. I can say to him that a dual British-Irish national could be deprived of British citizenship and excluded by the Home Secretary. An Irish national who had been excluded from the UK would then require leave to enter. I hope that responds to his point. This Bill, although short in length, will have an important impact on the safety of those in our nation. It will ensure that those who pose a threat to the safety and security of our country do not have their citizenship restored until all appeals have been determined. The safety and security of those in our country is the foundation on which everything else is built and, as I have remarked in this House before, for this Government nothing will matter more. With that, I commend the Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to . Bill accordingly read a Second time . Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill: Programme Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)), That the following provisions shall apply to the Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill: Committal (1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House. Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading (2) Proceedings in Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement. (3) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House. (4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading. Other proceedings (5) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.— ( Martin McCluskey .) Question agreed to.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  For reasons that I do not understand, my hon. Friend is progressing a hypothetical scenario; I do not know whether it is based on a particular case that he has in mind. I have not personally dealt with such a set of circumstances, but I am happy to look at the matter he has raised.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I can absolutely give my hon. Friend and the organisation in her constituency that assurance. This Bill is very narrowly drawn; it has two clauses.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to make a little bit of progress, if I may. I will give way in a moment, but I want to address the point that has been raised. There are very good reasons why the Government may wish to stop citizenship being regained until all appeals are determined, withdrawn or abandoned. These include to prevent someone who is outside the UK and who poses a risk to our national security from returning when a further appeal may be upheld pending the Home Secretary’s decision, or to prevent a person from renouncing their other nationality and putting themselves in a position where, if further appeals are successful, a further deprivation order would not be possible as it would unlawfully render them stateless.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I hope my hon. Friend heard the point I made a moment ago about how the Government have brought forward this legislation in response to a recent Supreme Court decision. Essentially, an appeal against deprivation has resulted in a requirement for us to bring forward this clarification of the law. In response to her and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), this does not represent any widening of the existing arrangements. The right of appeal is completely unaffected by this legislation, which is incredibly narrowly drawn.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am happy to do that. If my hon. Friend bears with me for just a couple of moments, I will provide him with the information that he has requested. In the latter category especially—where deprivation is conducive to the public good—deprivation is used against some of the most dangerous individuals, including terrorists, extremists, and serious and organised criminals. Someone in the UK who has been deprived of their British citizenship no longer has any immigration status, steps may be taken to remove them from the UK, and they may be held in an immigration detention in the interim. If they are overseas, they cannot re-enter the UK using a British passport. In both circumstances, this is clearly an effective way to disrupt the threat posed by dangerous individuals.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I do not agree with my hon. Friend’s second point. This Bill has been very carefully and narrowly drafted, and I do not think it does the things that she has said it does. As to why the Government would seek to use these powers, I hope she understands that we will do everything we possibly can—as I am sure the previous Government did—to keep the public safe and protect them from high-harm individuals such as extremists, terrorists, and serious and organised criminals, and that this Government, as was the case with the previous Government, consider that this is an appropriate, necessary and proportionate way in which to do that. I hope that the public and the House will understand why we are progressing in the way that we are. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) made a very thoughtful speech. He has clearly thought about this matter long and hard, and he has done the House a great service with his contribution. I want to reflect briefly on the contribution made by the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse). I enjoy debating these matters with him, and I am genuinely grateful for his contribution. He suggested at one point that he might be an old romantic. I couldn’t possibly comment—but I could possibly say that he has advanced some interesting points. They are not points that the Government agree with, and I hope he does not mind me saying that they are not points that the majority of Members of this House agree with, but he has ensured that this debate has been richer than it would otherwise have been had he not made those contributions. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges that the Government are acting in good faith in order to ensure that we are best placed to keep the country safe. I know that he is not satisfied with the measures that we have brought forward and does not agree with them. That is absolutely his right. I respect his right to make the case in the way that he has, but I would ask him briefly to consider an alternative scenario in which the Government of the day, regardless of their political party, did not put in place the necessary powers to keep the public safe. One can only imagine the criticism that any Government would face, were they not to do that.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention, as I always am, and he is absolutely right that it is necessary to close this particular loophole, and that is the purpose of the Bill. He has raised a very interesting example, and I am grateful to him for saying he is happy for me to come back to him. If he lets me reflect on it further, I will respond to him when I make my concluding remarks at the end of the debate.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. Of all the duties of Government, none matters more than keeping our country safe. It is an awesome task, and one to which we attach the utmost significance, as this House and the public would expect. For people to flourish, they must have confidence that they are safe as they go about their lives. For a society to excel, its values must be protected from harm and its laws upheld. For a nation to thrive, its leaders must be unrelenting in the pursuit of these critical aims. That is why the Prime Minister has made national security a foundation of the plan for change, and it is why we work around the clock with our partners in policing and the security services to keep the United Kingdom and its people safe. In the face of a complex and evolving threat picture, it is essential that we keep the powers, tools and measures available to us under constant review. Where steps are needed to maintain the safety and security of our country, this Government will not hesitate to act. It is with that intention that we have brought forward this Bill, which, although narrow in its scope and intent, is vital to our ongoing efforts to protect the United Kingdom. Before I come to the detail of the Bill, I will provide a little bit of background. The British Nationality Act 1981 provides for the removal of an individual’s British citizenship. This is also known as a deprivation of citizenship. Deprivation is an important and effective tool to maintain public safety and preserve national security. It is used in two different situations: where citizenship has been obtained by fraud, or where deprivation is conducive to the public good, which means that it is in the public interest to deprive a person of British citizenship because of their conduct and/or the threat that they pose to the United Kingdom.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I always enjoy our debates. He says that the Government are moving the goalposts, but does he accept that we are ensuring that we have the same powers to deprive that he had when he was a Home Office Minister?

• 30 Jun 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Again, if the right hon. Gentleman bears with me, I will come to his specific point in a moment, and if he is not satisfied that I have responded adequately then, I am happy to give way again. I will make some progress. Deprivation decisions are made following careful consideration of advice from officials and lawyers, and in accordance with international law. Each case is assessed individually. Decisions to deprive, where it is conducive to the public good, are personally taken by the Home Secretary. The power is used sparingly. It complies with the UN convention on the reduction of statelessness, and always comes with a right of appeal. Turning to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), let me give the House a sense of the frequency with which deprivation powers are used. From 2018 to 2023, on average 12 people a year were deprived of their citizenship where it was conducive to the public good. The available period for fraud-related deprivations is slightly different, but from 2018 to 2022 there were an average of 151 cases per year in that category. Let me turn to the Bill, dealing first with why it is required; I hope this will go some way to responding to the point made by the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse). In a recent case, the Supreme Court decided that, if an appeal against a deprivation decision is successful, the initial deprivation order will have had no effect and the person will be considered as having continued to be a British citizen. This means that people who have been deprived of British citizenship will automatically regain that status before further avenues of appeal have been exhausted by the Home Secretary.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is absolutely right about the point of due process. I can say to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall that these powers are used very sparingly. Each and every individual case is decided on by the Home Secretary. I know that this Home Secretary has—and I am sure previous Home Secretaries have—taken these responsibilities incredibly seriously. Decisions are made carefully, on advice and in accordance with international law, and I am happy to give the hon. Member and others that assurance.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Draft Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) (Threshold Amount) (Amendment) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) (Threshold Amount) (Amendment) Order 2025. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. With your indulgence, before I address the draft order I want to take the opportunity briefly to congratulate the Treasurer of His Majesty’s Household, my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside, on being awarded a knighthood in the recent birthday honours list. It is hugely well deserved recognition of a quarter of a century of service, and I am sure that the whole Committee will join me in congratulating him. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Driving down money laundering is critical to the Government’s key missions to deliver safer streets and economic growth, and I am determined that the Government will do all they can to bring justice to those seeking to wash their illicit funds through the UK. Close working with the private sector is integral to delivering on that objective. As our first line of defence, the private sector plays a fundamental role both in preventing the UK financial system from being exploited for criminal gain and in detecting suspicious activity where it has occurred. I am proud that the UK was one of the first countries to establish a financial crime public-private partnership and has set the international standard in this area. Part of a successful public-private partnership is honestly reviewing what has worked in tackling money laundering and what needs to change for us to be more effective. With that objective in mind, and as part of “Economic Crime Plan 2”, the Government, law enforcement and the private sector have worked together to consider how public-private resource can be better directed to maximise our collective impact against the threat. The draft order is one of the first outputs of that work. It raises the existing financial threshold for two exemptions that apply to principal money laundering offences under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 from £1,000 to £3,000. The uplift in the threshold will enable law enforcement resource to be focused on higher priority reports that provide greater opportunities for asset denial and disruption of criminal activity. It will also free up businesses’ resource to be redirected towards high-value activity that may have a greater impact on the threat. The measure is further expected to reduce the impact on banking customers by reducing instances of legitimate customers being unable to access their accounts, in particular where no further action is taken. The first exemption applies to acts in operation of an account, such as paying expenses, by deposit-taking bodies, which are essentially banks and building societies, and electronic money and payment institutions. The second exemption applies in the instance of a business in the anti-money laundering regulated sector ending a relationship with a customer and paying away any money or property to the customer. This means that for transactions below the threshold, businesses in the anti-money laundering regulatory sector do not need to submit defence against money laundering suspicious activity reports, known as DAML SARs. A DAML SAR is submitted to the National Crime Agency by a person proposing to deal with suspected criminal property, which may make them liable for one of the principal money laundering offences under the Proceeds of Crime Act. By submitting a DAML, a person can avoid committing one of the principal money laundering offences by obtaining consent, or deemed consent, for the act they propose to carry out—for example, a customer’s transaction to pay their mortgage. The DAML provides information to the UK Financial Intelligence Unit housed in the National Crime Agency and prevents the business from carrying out the activity referenced in the request until the UKFIU gives a consent decision or seven working days pass, after which the business can assume that it has consent. In 2023, the threshold was raised to £1,000 due to the rising volume of DAMLs and the regulatory burdens on businesses to submit a DAML SAR, as well as burdens on law enforcement to review and the delay to customers, who must often wait seven days for their transaction to be processed. While the £1,000 threshold has likely contributed to a reduction in DAMLs, evidence shows that the UKFIU continues to receive a large number of low-value DAMLs, only a small proportion of which lead to asset denial opportunities. Between January and December 2024, approximately 23,000 DAMLs relating to transactions between £1,000 and £3,000 were submitted. Of those, only 182 were refused, equating to 0.1% of all assets denied because of DAMLs in that year. To prevent the loss of information, businesses must still submit an information-only suspicious activity report to the UKFIU where they suspect any and all involvement in money laundering. That duty will not be affected by the draft order. Having, I hope, covered the key points, I commend the draft order to the Committee.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Draft Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) (Threshold Amount) (Amendment) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. As a very experienced Member, he will understand that the Home Office is responsible for the Proceeds of Crime Act, and although of course we have conversations with other Departments about other matters, the matter that he mentions is not one that sits within my area of responsibility. No doubt colleagues in the Department that I think he is referring to will listen carefully to his remarks; I am sure that they will be as grateful for them as I am. I am grateful for all the contributions to the debate. SARs intelligence is a critical tool in our ability to identify, disrupt and recover the money that underpins the most serious and organised crime in the UK. Increasing the threshold to reflect the current landscape is an important step as we seek to improve the effectiveness of the anti-money laundering system, prioritise resources, enable greater disruption of criminal activity and prevent criminals from enjoying the proceeds of their illicit activities. Once again, therefore, I commend the draft order to the Committee. Question put and agreed to .

• 17 Jun 2025 · Draft Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) (Threshold Amount) (Amendment) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent, for the constructive way that she has approached the draft order. These are not contentious or party political matters, and it is right that we debate them in that spirit. I am grateful for her support for the measures and I completely agree with her about the importance of ensuring that we target them, and our resource, as effectively as possible. The shadow Minister asked, entirely reasonably, about monitoring and review. As she might remember from her own time working at the Home Office, there are processes in place to ensure that these activities are kept under very close watch. I can assure her that, following on from the work done by the previous Government, we will continue to keep these matters under very close review. Given that I have referenced the previous Government, I want to take the opportunity to commend the right hon. Member for Salisbury for the work that he did and the leadership that he showed in this policy area during his time in government. In particular, I thank him for his work to introduce the economic crime levy. I am sure that he knows this, but it is worth repeating that the levy raises around £100 million per year from the anti-money laundering sector, and it has provided extremely valuable and long-term, sustainable resource for funding measures to tackle money laundering. I am grateful to him for the work that he did in government. I reiterate in response to the shadow Minister that we will monitor these matters on a regular basis. She will understand why I will not say too much about the technical detail of the work that is done to spot suspicious activity that falls beneath the threshold, but I am sure that she will remember from her time in the Home Office that there are mechanisms in place that seek to prevent people from bending or breaking the rules by behaving in a certain way in relation to transactions below the threshold. I think that she knows what I am referring to. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent West raised an important point, but I am struggling to remember precisely what it was. Perhaps he will briefly remind me.