Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)

That is completely understandable at two o’clock in the morning. I thank noble Lords for their amendments relating to strategic planning boards. Amendment 135I seeks to ensure that strategic planning boards can be established by the Secretary of State where there is a national park in the strategy area—and I commend the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for moving his amendment so briefly. An SDS strategy area is defined in new Section 12A that the Bill will insert into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 as the area of the strategic planning authority preparing the spatial development strategy. The strategy area includes all local authorities, including local planning authorities. Therefore, the Secretary of State could already use the power in new Section 12B to establish a strategic planning board covering an area with a national park or part of a national park. I hope that this gives him the assurance that he is seeking and that he will be able to withdraw his amendment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for tabling Amendment 136, which would make formal provision for two or more principal authorities to propose that they should form a strategic planning board. I understand the intent behind the amendment, but I do not think that it is necessary, as there is nothing in existing provisions to prevent authorities doing this already. Ultimately, it is for the Secretary of State to decide which authorities should produce their spatial development strategy through a strategic planning board. However, I reassure noble Lords that the Secretary of State may make regulations establishing a strategic planning board only after consulting the proposed constituent authorities of the board, so any principal authority will have a say in the establishment of any board that they are a part of. Amendment 136ZA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, would require provision in strategic planning board regulations about the composition of the strategic planning board and any associated committees to be representative of the authorities that constitute the strategic planning board and their population. I broadly agree with the noble Lord’s aim in the amendment and, in principle, I want to see what he described as fair and legitimate representation on strategic planning boards. However, there are a range of potential scenarios for strategic planning boards. For example, in some cases a strategic planning board could consist of an upper-tier county council, representing a large population, alongside one or two unitary authorities representing much smaller populations. It could be that a balanced representation would simply mean that the larger authority would always get its way. Alternatively, attempts to even out representation could mean that relatively smaller authorities can thwart the will of an authority representing a much larger population. I expect that there will be a wide range of situations, with possibly no two strategic planning boards being alike. In such a circumstance, I feel that it will be better to discuss and agree a resolution for each strategic planning board on an individual basis with the relevant constituent authorities. The regulations needed to establish each strategic planning board will be subject to statutory consultation, as required by Clause 52 of the Bill, which will insert new Section 12B(4) into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Given this explanation, I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.