General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Paula Barker

† Asser, James (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)

Brown Fuller, Jess (Chichester) (LD)

† Collier, Jacob (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)

† Costigan, Deirdre (Lord Commissioner of His Majesty's Treasury)

† Francis, Daniel (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)

† Goldman, Marie (Chelmsford) (LD)

† Long Bailey, Rebecca (Salford) (Lab)

† Madders, Justin (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)

† Mullan, Dr Kieran (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)

† Obese Jecty, Ben (Huntingdon) (Con)

† Powell, Joe (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)

† Quigley, Richard (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)

† Richards, Jake (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice)

† Smith, Jeff (Manchester Withington) (Lab)

† Tugendhat, Tom (Tonbridge) (Con)

† White, Jo (Bassetlaw) (Lab)

† Wood, Mike (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)

George James, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 1 July 2026

[Paula Barker in the Chair]

Draft Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Anti social Behaviour and Prevention and Investigation Measures) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2026

I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Anti social Behaviour and Prevention and Investigation Measures) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. The statutory instrument makes a series of technical but important amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 and associated regulations. Its purpose is to ensure that legal aid legislation remains consistent and aligned with wider changes to the law around anti social behaviour orders and national security measures.

The instrument makes changes in three main areas. First, it updates the scope of civil legal aid to reflect the reforms to measures tackling anti social behaviour introduced by the Crime and Policing Act 2026. Secondly, it clarifies the legal aid framework for terrorism prevention and investigation measures, otherwise known as TPIMs. Thirdly, it aligns the legal aid framework for state threats prevention and investigation measures, or STPIMs, with the framework for TPIMs. Taken together, the changes ensure that legal aid will continue to support the vital principle of access to justice while maintaining a coherent and accessible system.

I will briefly discuss each of the main changes, starting with measures that tackle anti social behaviour. The Crime and Policing Act 2026 introduced respect orders, youth injunctions and housing injunctions. Those measures replace or reform much of the existing anti social behaviour injunction regime. Civil legal aid is already available for current anti social behaviour injunctions. The instrument simply ensures that legal aid continues to be available for the new orders and injunctions.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. On the application of ASBIs, I noted in the equalities statement that according to a Department for Work and Pensions survey, in 2022-23, around 66% of those receiving legal aid had a disability. Some 40% had a mental health condition, and around 10% had some kind of learning disability. Those figures seem alarmingly large. I wonder whether the Minister has any thoughts on that, or perhaps he could go away and look into it.

That is certainly something we can look into. As my hon. Friend knows from his previous life before becoming a parliamentarian, legal aid is vital for access to justice, especially for those vulnerable groups. Although we are talking about antisocial behaviour measures and terrorism prevention orders, that still applies across the civil and criminal order regime. He is absolutely right, and I will make sure that the relevant Minister comes back to him with the details in due course.

Civil behaviour orders can have significant consequences for those subject to them, which is why legal aid access is so important. The change will make sure that individuals facing an order can continue to access civil legal aid, subject to the usual means and merits tests.

I turn to the amendments relating to national security. TPIMs are civil measures imposed by the Home Secretary to prevent an individual’s involvement in terrorism related activities. STPIMs are a parallel regime designed to prevent and disrupt hostile state threat activity. Both place significant restrictions on an individual’s daily life, including where they can go, who they can meet and who they can speak to.

Given the seriousness of those powers, it is right that the legal aid framework around them is coherent, clear and fair. Civil legal aid is already available for those who are subject to TPIMs and STPIMs, and that will not change. The instrument ensures consistency in legal aid availability for those two measures and fixes some ambiguities in the current drafting.

Legal aid is already available for TPIM cases, but the legislative framework is complex and has some ambiguity. The instrument clarifies the position and ensures that the legislation matches how the scheme already operates in practice. It confirms that legal aid is not subject to a means test, ensuring that individuals can obtain immediate access to legal advice to understand the restrictions on their rights, regardless of their finances. However, legal representation for proceedings is means tested. That reflects the fact that TPIM proceedings are treated for legal aid purposes as judicial review cases. As with all JR proceedings, the legal aid means test applies. Finally, the instrument aligns the legal aid framework for STPIMs with the framework already in place for TPIMs.

The amendments to national security measures do not change the underlying legal aid policy. Instead, they ensure that legislation reflects how legal aid operates in practice, and that there is a consistent approach across the two comparable national security measures. To conclude, this statutory instrument will help to maintain a coherent and effective legal aid framework. It ensures that legal aid continues to be available as anti social behaviour powers are reformed, clarifies the position in relation to TPIMs and ensures consistency with STPIMs. The changes provide greater clarity, support access to justice and ensure that the legal aid system continues to operate fairly and consistently. I commend the statutory instrument to the Committee.

It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of the official Opposition in support of this statutory instrument. Over a million anti social behaviour incidents are recorded by the police every single year in England and Wales. That is not a statistic that should wash over us; behind every one of those incidents is a pensioner who is afraid to walk to the corner shop, a shopkeeper who has been harassed and threatened, or a community that has been slowly ground down.

When the Government brought forward the Crime and Policing Act, we supported the creation of respect orders; in fact, we wanted them to go further. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) tabled amendments in Committee that would have lowered the age of eligibility from 18 to 16. We argued for a fine on a second order, for a maximum prison term of five years for repeated breaches and for those who receive repeated orders to be deprioritised on social housing lists. The Government did not accept all those amendments; I still think they were right and the legislation would have been stronger, but we are where we are, and what matters now is that the respect order regime works as intended and in line with our other measures.

What makes respect orders different from what came before is simple: a breach is now a criminal offence and police can arrest immediately. There are no more long waits for civil contempt proceedings and no more watching someone breach their order again and again with no immediate consequences; when someone is made subject to a respect order, they face serious consequences if they breach it. Their liberty is at stake, and it is right that people in that position can access legal advice in line with our criminal norms, not because we are soft on anti social behaviour, but because a fair system is a stronger system, and an order made appropriately with appropriate legal process is an order that will stick.

This instrument, as the Minister explained, extends the legal framework for access to criminal aid not just to respect orders but to youth injunctions and housing injunctions under the Crime and Policing Act. We support that. Young people facing injunctions and residents facing housing injunctions deserve clarity on their rights. Although the position of the official Opposition is to support the SI, where we feel the intent and the legal aid provision are right, the Government must ensure that the police and court can handle what follows in the operation of these orders. Those of us who have been involved in policing and politics have heard various iterations of attempts to get anti social behaviour under control over various Governments and many decades, and this is just the latest version of it. We need something that will work; communities across this country are tired of tolerating anti social behaviour. Respect orders can be part of the answer, and the official Opposition will keep pressing to ensure that they are delivered as intended.

Briefly, the Liberal Democrats are supportive of this statutory instrument. We wanted to make the case that having fairness in the system through legal means is all very well, but the problem is that if there are not enough duty providers to provide legal advice, it is almost pointless; we are not actually serving justice because we are not allowing people to get the support that they need, even though they are legally entitled to it. We need to ensure that the wider system is fair and that people have the ability to access the support that they are legally entitled to.

I am grateful for hon. Members’ contributions. I appreciate the uncharacteristically constructive tone from the official Opposition—there was a party political barb in there, but none the less, it was a welcome contribution. I greatly respect the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle’s previous career in the police; I know he comes to these issues with some expertise. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chelmsford, is absolutely right: there is no point having access to legal aid if there are no legal aid lawyers. The Government have taken huge steps to try to ensure that there are no legal aid deserts, including a huge upgrade in legal aid investment, but there is a lot more work to be done, and we will get on and do that. With that, I commend the statutory instrument to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee rose.

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: † Clive Efford

† Butler, Dawn (Brent East) (Lab)

Coleman, Ben (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)

Cooper, Daisy (St Albans) (LD)

† Davies, Gareth (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)

† Fortune, Peter (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)

† Gilbert, Tracy (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)

Haigh, Louise (Sheffield Heeley) (Lab)

† Hinchliff, Chris (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)

† Hughes, Claire (Bangor Aberconwy)

† Irons, Natasha (Croydon East) (Lab)

† Jones, Gerald (Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare) (Lab)

† Lewin, Andrew (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)

† MacNae, Andy (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)

† McDougall, Blair (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Business and Trade)

† Paul, Rebecca (Reigate) (Con)

† Reynolds, Mr Joshua (Maidenhead) (LD)

† Wright, Sir Jeremy (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)

Jonathan Finlay, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Seventh Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 1 July 2026

[Clive Efford in the Chair]

Draft Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) and Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Company Law) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) and Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Company Law) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

These regulations, which were laid in draft before this House on 1 June 2026, make targeted and technical amendments to strengthen the transparency and operation of the register of overseas entities, which I will refer to as the ROE or the register from here. They also correct a separate technical issue relating to limited liability partnerships, or LLPs.

Hon. Members will be aware that the ROE was introduced in 2022 as part of the Government’s efforts to increase transparency in land ownership and combat economic crime. It is a public register maintained by Companies House that requires overseas entities that own or acquire land in the United Kingdom to disclose information about their beneficial owners or managing officers.

The register plays an important role in shedding light on complex ownership structures and in supporting action against illicit activity. Information on the register has been used by law enforcement, journalists and other parties examining corruption, money laundering and assets held by sanctioned individuals.

Appropriate safeguards are in place through a protection regime that includes the ability to apply to Companies House to have a home address removed from the register. As part of the application, individuals are required to provide supporting evidence to confirm that the address on the register is indeed their residential address. However, in most cases, the registrar is able to identify and verify that information internally. Furthermore, there is currently no requirement for applicants to provide a replacement correspondence address. This results in a gap in the information available on the public register.

I agree with the principles put forward in the regulations, but I am a little concerned about the regulations allowing overseas beneficial owners to suppress their residential address. Could the Minister reassure us on how the Government will prevent dirty money from flowing into the UK?

Yes, I will come on to that. The hon. Gentleman will hopefully find reassurance shortly that that information will still be gathered.

Part 2 of these regulations streamlines the application process; applicants will no longer be required to provide supporting evidence when applying to remove a home address that appears on the public ROE. This removes an unnecessary administrative burden for applicants. The regulations also introduce a requirement for applicants to provide a replacement service address to be displayed on the public register, except in very limited circumstances. Taken together, these changes bring the ROE protection regime more closely in line with the approach taken with UK companies.

Part 3 of the regulations includes changes to the ROE’s trust disclosure service, which enables members of the public to apply to Companies House to access unpublished trust information held on the register. Under the current application process, individuals must provide their own details, as well as the overseas entity’s name and ID number. These details relating to the entity are publicly available on the register. However, applicants must also provide the name of the trust that they are requesting information on. The name of the trust is not publicly available on the register, and many applicants are therefore unlikely to have this information, which leads to rejected applications.

In addition, where an application relates to trust information involving a person under the age of 18, the applicant must demonstrate a legitimate interest. This is demonstrated by evidencing that the applicant is investigating money laundering, tax evasion, terrorist financing or sanctions breaches. However, currently, when that is not demonstrated, all associated trust information is withheld, including information relating to adults, so those requirements can act as a barrier to accessing trust information and limit the effectiveness of the service.

The instrument therefore makes two targeted changes to the trust disclosure service to improve public access while maintaining appropriate safeguards. First, it removes the requirement for all applicants to provide the name of the trust when requesting access to trust information. This addresses a key barrier for making a successful application.

Secondly, the instrument makes a further change where trust information involves a person under the age of 18. Where legitimate interest is not demonstrated, the regulations enable Companies House to disclose trust information related to any individual over 18 years old. This ensures that access to information is not unnecessarily restricted because an individual under 18 years old is associated with the trust. Access to trust information relating to those aged under 18 will continue to require a legitimate interest. Together these changes improve the transparency of trust information on the register and enable more effective scrutiny while maintaining appropriate protection for minors.

Finally, part 4 of the instrument makes a limited and technical correction to the LLP framework. The requirement to provide additional address information in certain circumstances was inadvertently introduced ahead of schedule. The instrument therefore removes the requirement for LLPs to provide additional address information. However, this requirement will be reinstated once appropriate systems are in place to collect the information for companies and LLPs, and work is ongoing to achieve that. In the meantime, other address information is available on the public register for all LLPs.

Taken together, these measures improve the transparency and practical operation of the ROE while resolving a small but necessary technical issue relating to LLPs. I commend the draft regulations to the House.

It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee and to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford, and of course to see the Minister. I refer Committee members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, particularly my prior career in asset management, which involves some of the structures we are debating today.

I thank the Minister for providing such a thorough and clear explanation of the Government’s intentions with the regulations before us today. Whenever we debate regulations, we should always remember that it is essentially a balancing act—in this case between privacy in business and ensuring fairness, governance and transparency. Those aims are not mutually exclusive. It is our job to ensure that we get that balance right as often as we can.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister. First, he said that the regulations remove the requirement to provide trust names for applications looking to access unpublished information through the trust disclosure service. Paragraph 5.3 of the explanatory memorandum states that that is because many applicants have been found “unlikely to have this information”, resulting in their request being rejected. The Minister said that just moments ago. Can he therefore tell us how many applications have been made to the trust disclosure service since it was launched in August 2025? How many were rejected for that reason? That would help us understand the basis for the regulatory changes today.

By lowering the bar for applications and applicants, Withers law firm has warned that the change could open the door to speculative fishing expeditions. The Minister will be aware of that challenge from Withers, so I wonder what his response is to that specific challenge and concern.

Secondly, the regulations seek to introduce a requirement in most cases for the provision of a replacement address for individuals who submit a suppression application to remove their home address from the register of overseas entities. Can the Minister clarify whether those who have already successfully secured suppression of their home address from the public register will now be required to provide a replacement address, and whether it will be retrospective? If so, will they be informed, how will they be informed and what is the timeline for that information to be provided?

Finally, on the measures relating to LLPs, which the Minister discussed at the end of his remarks, page 3 of the explanatory memorandum states that these regulations are required because legislation was brought forward and passed in error by the Government last year, before adequate “Companies House systems had been developed”.

I understand that the Government intend to bring the service requirement back, so when does the Minister expect Companies House to have the systems up and running so that they can process what they originally intended to last year? When will the reinstating regulations be laid before the House?

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. Tackling economic crime and financial secrecy is vital for our economic and national security. The registration of overseas entities is an important step in improving ownership transparency, and we welcome any measures that make it work better in practice.

However, I note with concern the temporary removal of the LLP address reporting requirements. The Government have stated that the reason is that Companies House systems are not yet equipped to receive and process that information, but that raises broader questions about pace and resourcing in Companies House more generally. We have known for a significant period of time that it has been underperforming, under resourced and not doing what it should be in the appropriate manner. Having some transparency and clarity from the Minister would be beneficial.

The Government must set out a clear and binding timetable for when the LLP reporting requirements will be reinstated, and ensure that Companies House receives the investment that it needs to deliver the reforms that Parliament has already passed. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that.

I thank both Front Benchers for their constructive and helpful questions. They both eloquently set out why this matters.

Turning to their specific questions, as of June, 29 applications had been received. Of those, nine were successful, 19 were rejected and one is currently being considered. With regards to worries about the abuse of trust in the service, we recognise the risks associated with trust structures, partly because their anonymity makes assets easier to hide. The Government also recognise the important role that law enforcement and the public can play in helping to mitigate those risks through greater transparency.

Access to trust information is subject to a £55 fee per overseas entry. That creates a deterrent for the type of misuse that the shadow Minister was worried about. When the original draft instrument was laid, as was said before, the structures were in place in Companies House for the recording of that information. Hon. Members on all sides of the House will recognise—not least because of the huge volume of economic crime legislation that has been passed in this place—that there are very heavy burdens on Companies House, as was said by the hon. Member for Maidenhead, and many systems that must be in place. I cannot give a precise date at the moment, but Companies House is working at pace on that.

On the question of looking backwards, the regulations do not have a retrospective impact. I would point to the review that is being undertaken by Dame Margaret Hodge, which looks at the wider issue of economic crime and our approach to transparency. Having responded to those questions, I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee rose.

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: † Carolyn Harris

† Asato, Jess (Lowestoft) (Lab)

† Bance, Antonia (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)

† Bedford, Mr Peter (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)

† Campbell, Juliet (Broxtowe) (Lab)

Chadwick, David (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)

† Cross, Harriet (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)

† Davies, Mims (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)

† Edwards, Sarah (Tamworth) (Lab)

† Fenton Glynn, Josh (Calder Valley) (Lab)

† Fortune, Peter (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)

† German, Gill (Clwyd North) (Lab)

† Hughes, Claire (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Wales)

† MacDonald, Mr Angus (Inverness, Skye and West Ross shire) (LD)

† McDonald, Andy (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)

† McMorrin, Anna (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Wales)

† Myer, Luke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)

† Yasin, Mohammad (Bedford) (Lab)

Sara Elkhawad, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Eighth Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 1 July 2026

[Carolyn Harris in the Chair]

Draft Government of Wales Act 2006 (Increase of Capital Borrowing Limits) Order 2026

I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Government of Wales Act 2006 (Increase of Capital Borrowing Limits) Order 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this draft order today. The Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to work in partnership with the Welsh Government to ensure that the Welsh fiscal framework delivers value for money.

It was as a result of joint working between both Governments that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced, as part of the autumn Budget last year, some fiscal flexibilities for the Welsh Government’s budget to enable them to better support businesses and public services in Wales. That included increasing the Welsh Government’s annual and cumulative capital borrowing limits, their overall reserve limit and their annual RDEL and CDEL drawdown limits by 10% this year. From next year, each of those limits will be uprated annually in line with inflation.

Only one of those limits has a legislative basis: the Welsh Government’s cumulative capital borrowing limit. Section 122A(1) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 currently sets this limit at £1 billion. Section 122A(2) of that Act enables the Secretary of State to vary this limit with the consent of the Treasury. The order before the Committee this afternoon, made under section 122A(2), will increase the Welsh Government’s cumulative capital borrowing limit by £100 million, in line with that autumn Budget commitment.

The Welsh Government remain accountable to the Senedd for how they use these increased borrowing powers. The Wales Office will bring forward further orders annually to further increase this limit in line with inflation, as is the current process in respect of the Scottish Government’s borrowing limits.

In summary, this order will increase the Welsh Government’s cumulative capital borrowing limit to £1.1 billion, in line with the commitment made at the autumn Budget last year. The changes to the fiscal framework, together with additional funding through Barnett consequentials and the largest settlement in the history of devolution, mean that the UK Government are providing the Welsh Government with nearly £6.5 billion in additional spending power.

What impact assessment has been done to look at the Welsh Government’s ability to service the additional borrowing?

To be clear, that accountability is with the Senedd; its Members will be holding the Welsh Government to account. I commend this draft order to the Committee.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mrs Harris, and a privilege to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition on a subject that could hardly be more timely and important.

There are a few issues; I am conscious that I am delaying people on a warm afternoon, with football around the corner for some, but I think that they deserve our attention. It would be very easy for me to stand here this afternoon and dismiss any debate outright, and for hon. Members to just wave this order through without looking more broadly—although I am impressed with the Minister’s speed in opening this debate; it is clear she is going in one direction. Parliament’s responsibility is not simply to approve; it is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill pointed out, to provide real scrutiny.

Nobody disputes that Wales needs further investment on the ground, but after 27 years of Labour in the Senedd wasting money on schemes that have produced very little in the way of value or outcomes for communities, it is important that we question whether just increasing the Welsh Government’s borrowing limit is the right way to achieve change on the ground, and whether the case that has been brought forward is truly convincing.

In my shadow ministerial role, I have the joy of travelling the length and breadth of Wales—as you know, Mrs Harris, because I am often in your constituency area—and that gives me the opportunity to meet people from across businesses, sectors and communities. It greatly pains me that despite more money, support and local devolution and decision making, there is a continuing sense of deprivation, dilapidation and deterioration, particularly around infrastructure, that is hitting communities too hard, and a sense that what has long been promised through investment and devolution into the Welsh Government has simply not landed on the ground.

The Brynglas tunnels, for example, have descended into being a continued stranglehold on the economies of Newport, Monmouthshire, Cardiff and Swansea. How has the M4 been improved? It simply has not. Unemployment in Wales has hit the highest levels in the whole United Kingdom and is continuing to dash young people’s aspirations. It pains me that too many young people feel they need to leave Wales to find the opportunities that they want. Everyone, including me, knows somebody in Wales who is waiting in pain and in vain on never ending Welsh NHS waiting lists. Despite ongoing promises of change and of better days ahead from the Senedd, that has not changed.

Both Plaid and Labour have sounded like broken records in claiming that they do not have the money to fix Wales’s problems, but the truth is that the Welsh Government have benefited from substantial funding increases for years, so what has happened? In 2021 alone, the then Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), announced that the Welsh block grant would rise to around £18 billion a year—an increase of roughly £2.5 billion a year. That naturally raises three important questions, which are pertinent to think about this afternoon. First, if additional funding has been made available, why have so many structural problems remained unresolved since 1999? Secondly, before the Government agree to increase the level of borrowing, should Ministers in the Wales Office not ask how the previous resources have been prioritised?

Thirdly, what have the actual outcomes been? For too long, the Welsh Government, who were aided and abetted by—let’s be honest—the Labour enablers Plaid Cymru, decided to prioritise the wrong thing. Under the then Labour Welsh Government, more than £100 million of taxpayers’ money was spent on expanding the size of the Senedd with 36 more politicians, and more than £150 million was spent on developing plans for building the M4 relief road, which was cancelled abruptly. Tens of millions were spent on imposing the 20 mph speed limit, which is increasing journey times and creating wider economic costs. Other previous wasteful spending projects at the Senedd include setting up embassies all over the world, the failed Circuit of Wales project and tree planting in Uganda—all of which have cost taxpayers money.

If a decision is made today to increase the Welsh Government’s borrowing powers, it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that the money is not misappropriated again into pursuing Plaid Cymru’s ultimate goal of breaking up our country and setting up an independent country. At a time of wider geopolitical tensions, we need to be serious: we are better together.

To attract more investment into Wales, I encourage the Plaid Cymru Welsh Government to heed the Conservative and Unionist party’s ideals: to get on and build the M4 relief road, to abolish business rates for small and medium sized businesses, to scrap stamp duty in Wales and to scrap glass from the deposit return scheme. Those things, alongside public borrowing, will make a difference, but more public borrowing today is not an end in itself; it must be justified with a clear and credible plan. There are Committee members whose constituents will be directly affected by this measure, so we should be mindful of where the money is going and whether it is making a difference to the people of Wales.

Devolution cannot be a one way road. We cannot devolve powers and hand over more money only for it to be wasted on pointless schemes and for the people of Wales not to see change. We can no longer afford to devolve powers and increase borrowing while hoping for the best—hoping that the people of Wales will get more. They deserve so much more than that; it is about changing lives and supporting people.

How did the Government come to the figure of a 10% increase? I think the Minister covered that to a degree in her opening speech. What will the change of Government and what is going on in the Senedd mean for this important capital funding—taxpayers’ money? What justification have the Welsh Government provided for increasing the grant, and how will they show the impact? I understand from the Minister’s speech that she is comfortable with this being devolved to the Senedd, but we should be holding those 96 politicians to account. I look forward to the Minister’s kind response. If there is anything that she cannot comment on this afternoon, I will be happy to see it in writing.

I do not have anything to add.

I was prepared to allow you to speak because the Liberal Democrat Wales spokesperson is not here, but I call the Minister to wind up.

I thank the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield for her contribution. The draft order delivers the Government’s autumn Budget commitment to increase the Welsh Government’s cumulative borrowing limit by 10%. I mentioned in my opening remarks how we got to that.

To be clear, this order gives the Welsh Government additional flexibility to manage their own budget; it does not change the overall funding settlement or the Barnett formula. It was agreed at the last Budget and announced by the Chancellor then. The Welsh Government are accountable to the Senedd for how they use these borrowing powers. From Westminster, we will be looking to our colleagues in the Senedd to scrutinise how the Welsh Government use the additional powers.

The Welsh Government are accountable for ensuring that this extra borrowing—indeed, the whole borrowing—delivers value for money for the people of Wales and all our constituents. I am very proud to be part of a UK Labour Government who have delivered the biggest settlement in the history of devolution. It will be a game changer, and it will make a difference to people on the ground.

I am aware that many Members are trying to get to the football. If there is anything further that the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield would like to raise, I am very willing to have that conversation, but it is the Senedd that scrutinises the Welsh Government. I am proud of the UK Labour Government’s work in enhancing these powers.

I thank the Minister for giving way; she is being very generous to us all. I just want to reiterate the point about accountability. Between the announcement of this measure in the autumn Budget, and its publication on 2 June and the Minister’s presenting it today, the process, group of people and focus in the Senedd have changed. People’s feelings about the lack of accountability and openness, and about the wanton spending of other people’s money, are very acute when they are finding the cost of living so challenging. I offer to work with her if these powers are granted—we will not divide the Committee today—to make sure that we all keep watch equally that they do change lives on the ground, and we are willing to roll up our sleeves if we see that the money is being used wastefully and lives are not changing.

I thank the shadow Minister for her comments. Absolutely; this is about ensuring that all the people of Wales feel the value of these additional spending and borrowing powers. Equally, this Labour Government are proud to ensure that the huge devolution settlement is felt by the people of Wales and in the communities of Wales, not just in one part of the country but across the whole of Wales. As a Wales Office Minister, I am committed to working with my counterparts in the Welsh Government, and with colleagues right across the House, to make sure that happens.

I thank the shadow Minister for her productive approach to the debate, and I am grateful for the way in which the UK and Welsh Governments have worked together very closely to produce the draft order. I commend it to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee rose.

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Pete Wishart

† Athwal, Jas (Ilford South) (Lab)

† Bool, Sarah (South Northamptonshire) (Con)

Brown Fuller, Jess (Chichester) (LD)

Dixon, Anna (Shipley) (Lab)

Foody, Emma (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co op)

† Jones, Sarah (Minister for Policing and Crime)

† Kearns, Alicia (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)

† Lam, Katie (Weald of Kent) (Con)

† McIntyre, Alex (Gloucester) (Lab)

Maguire, Ben (North Cornwall) (LD)

† Mayer, Alex (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)

Midgley, Anneliese (Knowsley) (Lab)

† Mishra, Navendu (Stockport) (Lab)

† Robertson, Dave (Lichfield) (Lab)

† Taylor, David (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)

† Thompson, Adam (Erewash) (Lab)

Williamson, Sir Gavin (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)

Tom Bailey, Anne Marie Griffiths, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

The following also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(2):

Botterill, Jade (Lord Commissioner of His Majesty’s Treasury)

Law, Noah (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)

Ninth Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 1 July 2026

[Pete Wishart in the Chair]

Draft Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2026

I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. The draft order seeks to amend the definition of “ninja sword” in the list of prohibited offensive weapons by amending the definition contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988. I will briefly set out the context.

The existing legislation, which bans ninja swords, followed a manifesto commitment to respond to the tireless campaigning by the family of Ronan Kanda, who was just 16 when he was fatally stabbed in 2022 by a person using a ninja sword. In 2024, the Government ran a public consultation on the proposed definition of a ninja sword in order to ban the weapons, in line with our aim to halve knife crime within a decade. The consultation sought views from the public and interested stakeholders on a draft definition of a ninja sword.

Ninja swords are defined as a bladed article with a blade between 14 inches and 24 inches in length, with one straight cutting edge and a tanto style point. That length was chosen in order to exclude knives and tools designed for legitimate purposes, such as many kitchen knives and other types of knives. In order to be within scope of the ban, the article should also have the features described in paragraph 1(u) of the schedule to the 1988 order, namely: a “primary…cutting edge”, a “secondary…cutting edge” and a “blunt spine”, with either a “tanto style point” or a “reversed tanto style point”. Those terms are further defined in the detail of the legislation. We introduced legislation following analysis of the consultation responses, and ninja swords became prohibited from 1 August 2025.

However, the Government recently became aware that the wording of the legislation does not correctly describe the length of the secondary straight cutting edge of a ninja sword, as was intended. The draft order therefore seeks to rectify that and align the legislation with the original intention. To be clear, this amendment is a technical clarification to existing secondary legislation banning ninja swords. Although the amendment to the definition widens the scope of the existing wording, it does not introduce new offences, bring any ninja swords out of scope, or impose additional requirements on the public.

Under section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, it is an offence to possess, import, manufacture, sell, hire, offer for sale or hire, expose or possess for the purposes of sale or hire a weapon specified in an order made under that section. The legislation contains a detailed description of the tanto style or reversed tanto style point of the sword. The legislation states that “a secondary straight cutting edge is a cutting edge…which forms an angle with the primary straight cutting edge and the spine, and…is no more than 5% longer or shorter than the width of the blade immediately after the handle.”

The reference to the 5% is incorrect and limits the scope of what size of tip falls under the legislation.

We therefore propose to use the order making powers under section 141(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to amend the definition to: “a secondary straight cutting edge is a cutting edge…which forms an angle with the primary straight cutting edge and the spine, and…is no more than 105% longer than the width of the blade immediately after the handle.”

That correction will allow the legislation to function as intended and remove any ambiguity about which swords fall within scope of the definition. We have also included an additional diagram in the explanatory note to make the definition easier to understand—it certainly helped me, and it may be useful for Members.

To conclude, the Government are determined to stop dangerous weapons getting into the wrong hands, and this clarification will assist the police in exercising their powers to prevent violence and keep the public safe. I commend the draft order to the Committee.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart.

Far too many lives are still being tragically cut short by offences involving knives and other bladed weapons. I pay tribute to the family of Ronan Kanda, who fought so bravely after their son’s future was stolen by thugs who used fake ID to order a zombie knife off the internet, collected it from the post office that same day, and then brutally murdered him. His family have campaigned tirelessly in his memory to secure stronger laws, and they deserve enormous credit for their determination.

It was for precisely those reasons and those horrors that the previous Conservative Government introduced legislation to ban zombie knives and machetes, building on our 2016 ban, and banned cyclone knives in 2019. Those are incredibly dangerous weapons, and there is no legitimate reason for them to be available for purchase. However, it is frustrating that must reopen this legislation because the Government did not get it right first time and proceeded with an error in the previous instrument. As the Minister set out, the instrument used the figure of 5% in relation to the secondary cutting edge, when it should have been 105%.

That is frustrating, not least because the Conservatives raised that exact question in Committee in the House of Commons and in the Lords. We said that the drafting was overly narrow and would not catch the weapons that it needed to. We were dismissed in the House of Lords and in the Commons. The Minister in the Lords went so far as to state that “the order before the Committee is very specific and tightly defined.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 June 2025; Vol. 846, c. GC112.] Against that backdrop, can the Minister confirm that the wording before the Committee is now correct, and will she set out what impact, if any, the previous drafting error had in practice? Will we move forward and work together to keep dangerous knives and weapons off our streets? We must protect our children and save lives.

I associate myself with the hon. Lady’s remarks about Ronan Kanda’s family and their tireless campaigning. We are very grateful to Ronan’s mother and sister for being part of our coalition to tackle knife crime. They give their time freely and generously, and we spend lots of time listening to what they have to say. They are pushing us, as they should, to go further in tackling knife crime. Their work has led us to consulting on a licence regime for knife sales—we are working through that at the moment—and they keep pushing us to do more. We have had some success, with a 10% fall in knife crime and a 27% fall in knife murders, but we have a long way to go.

To reassure the hon. Lady, we understand there have been no cases in which the legislation has impacted on any outcome. We have talked to the police about it and sought to rectify the error that was made as soon as we could. In no case has somebody not ended up going to court because of this problem. We are right to fix it as soon as discovering it, and that is what we are doing. I hope that the Committee is reassured that we are doing the right thing as quickly as we can, and that we will continue to bear down on knife crime.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee rose.