Representation of the People Bill

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd November 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I bow to my noble friend’s greater knowledge. I was referring to national ballots. I understand that for rat-catcher, county sheriff and other roles there will be local differences, but, for the election of, for instance, a governor or members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, they are generally the same.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I apologise that I was not able to attend Second Reading, but my noble friend Lady Smith of Llanfaes contributed on behalf of Plaid Cymru, and I hope she will continue doing so as effectively.

I oppose the thrust of this group of amendments—which is hardly a surprise to anybody. I do not believe that we are a single nation state. We are not. We are a multi-nation state. While I acknowledge that there is a valid argument that an election to any chamber of government should be on a uniform, consistent franchise basis throughout the area covered by that chamber, there surely can be no valid reason for Westminster to tell Wales or Scotland that we cannot, in our devolved Parliaments, allow our young people to vote at 16 because it does not happen to suit Westminster. Devolution exists to allow us to do things differently in the nations of Wales and Scotland. Indeed, if Westminster acts to take the vote from young people in Wales and Scotland, I cannot imagine a stronger lever to drive those two countries towards independence. I invite the Committee to think very carefully before doing so.

Our experience in this regard in Wales in last May’s election was wholly positive. The degree of interest amongst young people was impressive. I saw it for myself in canvassing during the election, in talking to young people in my home community and to friends of my grandchildren in other parts of Wales, and while acting as a booth agent for Plaid Cymru on voting day in my home village. The turnout in May’s election in Wales was the highest in any devolved election in Wales. Yes, it was a bit over 50%, and we are going to ask why it was not higher in previous elections, but it was a step in the right direction in getting young people involved. It involved not only young people but, very often, their parents, who got to understand what was going on and perhaps participated, whereas in the past they had not done so. There also exists in Wales the Welsh Youth Parliament, a highly respected body which helps the development of young people’s political thinking on an all-Wales level.

Further, the PR system in Wales ensured multi-party voices in our Senedd, which must be a good thing for democracy. I point out that, if we had suffered a simple first past the post system in our present Senedd, and voting patterns were the same as they were in May, the 96 seats would today have given Plaid 66 and Remain 30. I suggest that, in Wales, we have a sensible system that respects multi-party democracy.

The logic of these amendments is based on the assumption that we live in a nation state. We do not. That is why we have developed into the system that we have today, and we should respect the principles on which devolution was founded.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I am very much opposed to a system other than first past the post, but it seems peculiar that we have a devolved system and then we are to say that people in the devolved Administrations cannot decide how they choose their Government. I find that a very odd argument. The fact of the matter is that Wales has an odd system of election. It is not one that I would campaign for, but the Welsh have decided that it is the one they want. I find it out of all proportion with the world we live in today. We are a country made up of a number of countries. Yes, of course, we are the United Kingdom, but the Welsh—and I speak as someone who had a Welsh-speaking father—are different from much of the rest.

However, where one party tends dominate election after election, there cannot be anything but the suspicion, at least, that that party will use its dominant power—to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in another context—to fiddle the constitution.

Finally, this is important not just for transparency but consistency. The Government, in their Explanatory Notes, refer to the importance of consistency as one of the reasons for this Bill. If we are to be consistent, we should ensure that the franchise is consistent across the country.

National Infrastructure Projects: Devolution

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

This Government have instigated the building of a whole new set of reservoirs, when the party opposite did nothing on that for 14 years. We are very cognisant of the issues around water. I know that the noble Lord lives in the same part of the country that I do, where there is a water shortage. The way to tackle this is through the delivery of the infrastructure that will support the housing delivery, which is exactly what we are setting about to do, making sure that, where decisions are taken nationally, they have local input so that the national decision-maker can take account of local circumstances.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

Will the Minister raise with her Treasury colleagues the perverse way in which the funding of infrastructure projects in England that should generate Barnett consequential payments to Wales fails to do so? For example, the Oxford to Cambridge rail project was designated as being directly beneficial to Wales and so avoided any appropriate Barnett payment. Please can this system be reviewed to avoid such ludicrous situations?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I do not want to comment specifically on the issues around the Oxford-Cambridge rail link, but that part of the country generates wealth that benefits not only England but the devolved Administrations. So, if the wealth that is generated is shared across the United Kingdom, that would be the case. However, I will respond in more detail to the question on the Barnett formula.

UK Domestic Visitor Levy

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I have much sympathy with the noble Lord’s point. We have consulted on whether and how to extend the power to local leaders with similar geographic footprints and powers relating to transport skills and strategic planning, such as the leaders of the foundation strategic authorities. We will look at the responses to that and I will be able to inform the House in due course.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, can the Minister clarify that the scheme that she is talking about would be applicable to England and not to Wales? That must be the case for two reasons: first, there is a facility in Wales for having these sorts of charges; and, secondly, elected mayors to take this forward do not exist.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My understanding is that this system is for English mayors.

National Plan to End Homelessness

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Two pieces of work are going on here around the homelessness strategy and the child poverty strategy. Having set up a Housing First scheme in my local authority when I was a council leader, I know it is very important that you do not tackle just one issue. The roof over the head is key but so is support for complex needs. That is why homelessness is such a complex issue—you have to tackle the underlying issues. Those issues can be drug and alcohol abuse, poor mental health, financial capacity, chaotic lifestyles or any combination of those factors. All these things have to be worked on at the same time, which is why it is crucial that we have the interministerial working group. It is working across departments to tackle all these issues together so that we can make a real impact on homelessness.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, homelessness is a scandal in all parts of these islands. Is there not more scope for taking unused or underutilised buildings within local or central government and using the capital value of them to release the funds necessary to modify them and find an urgent answer to a problem that, at Christmastime, we should all be aware of?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord about the scandal of homelessness. That is exacerbated in the wintertime. Of course, we want to see both more homes and more buildings generally brought back into use. The Government’s strategy on delivering more housing is looking at this from a number of different angles. Local authorities already have a wide range of powers available to help tackle long-term empty homes. We are committed to empowering their use. We outlined in the English devolution White Paper the intent to strengthen the ability to take over the management of empty homes. We will review how effectively social housing providers use their properties. This is really important. There can be nothing more demoralising if you have not got anywhere to live than to walk along streets and see empty homes. We have to tackle this; we were left with an absolute crisis and this Government are determined to make a real difference in this area.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Banner (Con)]

My Lords, as I said in Committee, there is a compelling and universally acknowledged need for a legislative solution to address the difficulties that large, multi-phase development projects face in the light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Hillside Parks case. This is a technical issue of such fundamental importance that—dare I say it?—it should not be being debated at this time of the evening. The Supreme Court held in Hillside that where there were one or more overlapping permissions relating to the same site, the implementation of the later permission could jeopardise the ability to rely on the earlier permission, even when the later permission was designed and granted on the basis that it would operate in conjunction with the earlier permission. I make no criticism of the Supreme Court’s analysis of the existing legal position, but it is a deeply unsatisfactory position that is recognised as such by everybody in the development sector.

Large multi-stage developments almost always evolve during their build-out, which typically takes several years and sometimes decades. For example, in a large urban regeneration scheme the site-wide permission might envisage offices coming forward on one of the later phases, only for there to be no demand for new offices by the time we get to that phase because of a change in working patterns due, say, to Covid. Reapplying for planning permission for the whole development is impractical for a variety of reasons, such as the need to re-appraise the whole scheme—even the bits that are already built and the bits that are not proposed to be changed—new ecological surveys, new environmental assessment, reassessment of Section 106 contributions, et cetera. This is all incredibly cumbersome and can take years.

It has therefore long been industry practice for developers in this situation to make a localised application, typically called a standalone or drop-in planning permission, seeking the local planning authority’s consent to change one aspect of development—for example, in the illustration that I gave, swapping out the offices for a hotel. The hotel would then come forward under the drop-in permission and the rest of the development would continue to be built out under the original site-wide permission.

The effect of the Supreme Court’s judgment is to introduce very considerable risk and uncertainty in such circumstances because it can mean that implementing the drop-in on the focused area where it is intended to take effect can invalidate the site-wide permission, even though the drop-in has been granted on the basis that it would operate as an amendment to the original scheme. As I explained in Committee, this issue affects huge numbers of developments across the country. While there are sometimes workarounds, they are incomplete, risky, costly, time-consuming and cumbersome.

I know from what was said in Committee and from discussions that the Government accept the principle of a legislative solution to Hillside. It is a no-brainer. They have indicated that officials have expressed some concern with the wording of my original Amendment 105, although they have not articulated what that concern is. This is despite the amendment being drafted largely by Catherine Howard, a partner at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer who is now the Chancellor’s planning adviser. As a result, I tabled a new amendment, Amendment 113, which seeks to confer an enabling power on the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to deal with this issue. The regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure to avoid any concerns about lack of parliamentary scrutiny over the final form of words. It would enshrine the principle, which everybody accepts, and leave the wording to be worked out later with parliamentary scrutiny. What is not to like about that? The two have been packaged together, so one vote will resolve the two.

There has been ongoing engagement with the Minister and her colleagues on this issue, but the Government’s stance has been to say that they will work towards a future legislative solution and in the meantime bring into effect Section 73B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 under the last Government’s Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. That is simply not good enough. Addressing Hillside is the single most pressing unresolved issue that the development sector would like to see resolved by this Bill. Speaking as somebody who works day to day in the planning and development sector, this is the amendment everybody is watching. There are people here in this Chamber tonight watching, and people watching online. This is the one that matters.

Section 73B is no panacea; it is far from that. It would allow only quite limited amendments to planning permissions. Its scope is narrow, and it would assist in no more than a third of cases currently affected by Hillside. More is needed. In saying that it will be looked at in a future legislative solution—whenever that would be—beyond Section 73B, the Government clearly accept that further legislation beyond Section 73B is required; otherwise, they would stop at that. No, we are told that it will be looked at in the future—but just not now. An enabling provision would allow for the detailed drafting to be worked up. Therefore, any concerns about the drafting of Amendment 105 do not affect the principle of these amendments.

This is the second piece of planning legislation since the Supreme Court’s judgment in 2022. There was LURA in 2023, and my noble friend Lord Lansley, whose name is also on this amendment, sought to persuade the House on that occasion that a fuller amendment to deal with Hillside should be brought forward. The industry expects Parliament to step up on this second time of asking and not kick the can down the road again. The industry also expects proper consideration of this amendment. It is a late hour, and about 15% of the House is here right now. I respectfully invite the Minister to provide an assurance that we can bring this back at Third Reading as an alternative to a Division at this late hour, when many people who have a legitimate interest in this matter are not able to be here. Mañana is not an option: we need to do much better than that. Unless I have the assurance that I request, I am inclined to test the opinion of the House, despite this late hour.

I beg to move.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly on this, because the Hillside case arose in Merioneth in 1967, where I happened to be the parliamentary candidate in the 1970 election. I remember the considerable controversy there was about the application for 400 houses to be built in the vicinity of Aberdyfi, a scheme that was totally out of proportion to the nature of the community and the village there. It is not surprising that the thing did not go ahead, and it should not have gone ahead.

I assume that what the noble Lord who moved this amendment is seeking is clarity for the sake of the development industry for the future, not any revisiting of the Hillside case itself. In fact, what happened there was that some 41 houses were built, but the rest of the 400 houses were not pursued. The 41 houses that were built were built to planning specifications different to those that had been in the original case. In other words, there were all sorts of complications arising in the Hillside case.

There is also the fact that the Welsh Senedd has powers over planning and has its own rules in the 2015 legislation that it brought through, which brings another dimension in. Therefore, all I seek tonight is to know that, in moving this amendment, the intention is not to be revisiting the Aberdyfi case, which would cause an outrage, but rather to get clarity in the light of the court case, which, of course, I perfectly well understand.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, in the early 1970s when I was a very young barrister practising from chambers in Chester, I had the good fortune to do a lot of planning cases around north Wales and Cheshire. I have not done anything like the number of planning cases done by the very distinguished noble Lord, Lord Banner, but I remember them well and I would have been with the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, personally, in being totally opposed to the Hillside development. However, these amendments are not about the Hillside development; they are about a legal principle that emerged in connection with the Hillside development.

In his speech in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Banner, enjoyed a moment of self-sacrifice characteristic of his profession and mine when he revealed that, if these amendments were passed, they would actually remove a very large amount of work from him. He is very distinguished, but he is not the only planning Silk in the country by any means, and he told your Lordships that, between 2022 and 2025, he had written between 200 and 300 opinions on this principle. Many barristers do not write such a number of opinions in the whole of their careers on a whole range of subjects. So it illustrates, because there are many other planning Silks, that this has become an enormously difficult and challenging issue. The noble Lord gave the example of what could have been extremely disruptive to the Liverpool Waters development, which is where the new Everton football stadium is.

I must say that I am very surprised that the Government have not come forward at this stage with an amendment of their own to deal with this situation, because if they do not deal with this now, then they are looking a gift horse in the mouth in the form of, particularly, the second of these amendments, which was drafted to meet whatever objections there were—not very well explained—in relation to Amendment 105.

Hillside has to be dealt with as soon as possible because it is reducing the pace of growth, it is resulting in fewer homes, it is reducing urban quality and it is diminishing neighbourhoods. To refuse to accept these amendments or give an undertaking before the end of Report to produce their own amendment to deal with this issue seems to me to fly in the face of government policy for growth, and I do not begin to understand why. For reasons that were given just now by the noble Lord, using other and existing legislation just will not do the trick.

The Government having accepted the principle of a legislative solution to Hillside, and having been given one that is an improvement even upon Amendment 105, the original version, that the noble Lord said was drafted by the Chancellor’s own planning adviser, it seems to me that this is a total no-brainer. We should not have to vote on this. We should not be here at 11 o’clock discussing this; it should be resolved, and it could be resolved with the assent of the whole House.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

I beg to move Amendment 5 and hope that, when the time comes, I can move Amendments 6 and 7. I am grateful to the Minister for accepting them.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I intervene very briefly. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, rightly pointed out, many of these matters were not dealt with in Committee, but they are arising now. The Minister referred to Capel Celyn and the controversy that arose in Wales with regard to what was known as the Tryweryn Valley scheme on that occasion. I would be grateful for some clarification as to whether the amendments being moved have any bearing whatever on the powers of Senedd Cymru to come to a determination on schemes in Wales—schemes that may be put forward by providers from outside Wales but which are located in Wales. Does Senedd Cymru have the powers, which it has always believed that it should have, to decide on schemes that may be regarded in Wales as being of national significance?

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this group of amendments and for the very helpful meeting that we had last week, particularly when we covered the role of smaller reservoirs. I said to the Minister then that, while I shall not stand against the creation of large reservoirs, I have some concerns about them. They are not always particularly efficient. Given the weather that we have had in successive summers with their intense heat, they can be inefficient as the water can evaporate quickly, as we have seen in north Yorkshire, where I think a hosepipe ban is still in place.

I do not know how many noble Lords remember the wonderful David Bellamy, who made his name when he was a professor of botany at the University of Durham—I see a number of alumni in the Chamber this afternoon. He was particularly concerned when a reservoir was due to be constructed at Cow Green in upper Teesdale, where I grew up, in the Pennines. The significance was that blue gentians grow in only some parts of the country, outside the immediate alpine regions of Austria and Switzerland, and upper Teesdale was one of them. We were all particularly grateful to Professor Bellamy at the time, as he spoke passionately against the need for creating such a reservoir.

That massive reservoir has meant that what was the highest waterfall in England at the time now has only one waterfall, in most cases, rather than the two, which were spectacular to see when the River Tees was in spate. It was not just about the tragic loss of a number of farms, which were flooded with the construction of the reservoir; it was the fact that the water was never actually needed. It would be helpful to understand how, in the process of these planning applications for nationally significant infrastructure projects, the need is felt to be so great at one stage—but then, when they are constructed, the water is never actually used.

There are alternatives to large reservoirs. We were asked to create a large reservoir for the “Slowing the Flow” project in Pickering, to prevent that town flooding to the extent that it had. I think that it was three times in 10 years but it may have been longer, perhaps over 20 years. Since it was deemed to be unaffordable to build the large reservoir required, a smaller reservoir was created along with other schemes, such as planting trees and creating smaller dams to soak up the water, which have proved extremely effective to date. Since the creation of the smaller reservoir, Pickering has no longer flooded.

Yorkshire Water also introduced a multimillion-pound project to transfer water from the water-plenty parts to the water-stressed part of the region. We now have the technology to do that across water regions. I hope that the Government may also look at that, rather than just considering the easy option of building a mega-reservoir.

My amendment looks at the deregulation of low-hazard reservoirs and the case for smaller reservoirs. It was pleasing to hear what the Minister said as she set that out. I am sure she is also aware of the recommendations set out in 2019, some six years ago, following the Toddbrook and Whaley Bridge dam safety incident. My concern is that there is no sense of urgency and we have not seen anything happen since 2019 as regards a revision of the Reservoirs Act 1975. Currently, I understand that they are looking at not just amending that Act, which was the particular genesis of Amendment 56—the previous Government and I think this Government are probably pursuing that thinking. It would be good to have it on the record this afternoon that the Government’s intention is to replace the Reservoirs Act and to bring into effect the Balmforth recommendations, which were made as far back as 2019.

There are many pressing reasons for smaller reservoirs, both on farms and on sports clubs such as golf clubs. In the particular case of small farms, an excellent article recently in Farmers Weekly showed that because of the increasing water stress and water shortage owing to climate change, the many competing claims that farmers are finding, and the fact that water abstraction is to be curtailed in the future, it is particularly concerning that:

“Food is not seen as a public good when it comes to securing water supplies”.


If farmers face losing abstraction licences in April next year, this is a source of great concern to them. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on applications for smaller reservoirs on farms or on golf clubs, for the reasons that I have set out. For these reasons, I would still like to consider either testing the opinion of the House on Amendment 56 or bringing it back at Third Reading.

High-rise Buildings: Safety Remediation

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is quite right to raise the issue of insurance premiums. Work has been going on to reduce those premiums for leaseholders. We have seen improvements for leaseholders who previously found themselves unable to sell or remortgage their homes, but we remain vigilant and will continue to hold the 10 major lenders to account, following their commitment to lend on properties even if the remediation is not yet complete.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to a family interest in a high-rise flat. Does the Minister accept that it is a matter not just of getting an agreement to starting dates on these schemes of remediation but of completion dates? Many schemes seem to be dragging on and on, and there will not be satisfaction in terms of safety reassurance or saleability until there is a much more stringent approach to the completion date of this necessary work.

Car Parking Companies

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

That was some of the worst practice that we have seen, and there has been a lot of media interest in this. I see, as probably we all do, people wrestling to download apps when there is no wifi, so that they can pay their parking charges. Both private parking trade associations have recognised this as an issue. They have worked collaboratively to take immediate steps to ensure that motorists no longer receive parking charges in that kind of scenario. This came into effect at the start of February. We welcome those steps taken by the industry, but there is still more to do.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, in her consultation, will the Minister ensure that she links up with the devolved Government in Cardiff? Many of these companies operate in England and in Wales. In Wales, some of the regulations may vary and they take no notice of them. Can she include that in any consultation?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I hope that anybody in Wales who is interested in this will contribute to the consultation. We want much better practice in these arrangements, across the United Kingdom. Any contributions to the consultation will be welcome.

Voter Registration and Participation

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes an interesting point and I have had the great pleasure of working with him on various SIs and, in particular, on the Elections Act 2022. The Government will explore all options to ensure that we increase voter participation. We believe that, by building a strong foundation of democratic participation among young people, we will establish voting habits that continue as they grow older. It is about delivering long-lasting, positive consequences for our democracy and building an informed and engaged electorate for the future. In the meantime, we are working on these issues and will bring proposals to the House.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, on voter participation, does the Minister recognise that a gross disservice to democracy has been perpetrated by all political parties—I am afraid I include my own—that base their election canvassing on so-called voter modelling algorithms and social profiling? They aim at getting only identified party supporters to turn out and leaving other voters undisturbed. Is it any surprise that there is a cynicism towards politics? Will the Government give serious consideration to adopting the STV system, in which every vote counts, to encourage inclusivity in our democratic processes?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, there was a lot stacked in the noble Lord’s question, but he makes an interesting point. I single out that turnout at the 2024 general election was 59.7%, which was the lowest since 2001. It was 7.6 percentage points lower than in 2019, so there is an issue with increasing voter participation but also an apathy with politics. The Prime Minister was very determined, as he started his premiership, to make sure that we reach out across all parts of our electoral system to ensure that people feel confident to get involved and participate in the system.

Affordable Housing: Supply

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I shall say a few words in the gap. I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton; he has brought some passion to this debate, and rightly so. I identify with that passion, having just read in the book This Boy by Alan Johnson, a former Labour Minister in the previous Labour Government, about the way he and his sister fought to secure a place to live after they lost their mother in the 1950s in London. Going back to that would be a disgrace, and we have to ensure that that never happens.

I warmly congratulate my noble friend—it is nice to be able to say “my noble friend” in the narrow rather than broad sense in this Chamber—on a memorable maiden speech; llongyfarchiadau. I hope she will inspire many more of her generation, across party-political boundaries, to follow her lead and find a way to get their voice heard in this Chamber. We need a spectrum that includes all the ages that can participate and educate us.

I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, for facilitating this short debate and particularly for his reference to my constituency predecessor David Lloyd George. The fight for social justice ran through the early decades of the century, as in the 1950s and 1960s and indeed in the last century, and we obviously have to grasp it again.

I first entered Parliament 50 years ago, as my noble friend graphically described, and housing remains a pressing issue, particularly for young people, so it is good to have a persuasive voice for them in this Chamber, one who can speak effectively for the needs of Wales and of course for Plaid Cymru. I am glad to welcome my noble friend Lady Smith of Llanfaes to her place in this Chamber. I congratulate her again on her maiden speech and hope that we hear much more from her on these social issues, as well as the battle facing us in Wales.