Planning Bill

moved Amendment No. 19: 19: Schedule 1, page 147, line 13, leave out ““must be”” and insert ““is”” The noble Baroness said: I think that I can be fairly swift with the amendments. They are technical and relate to provisions in the Bill concerning the application of the commission’s seal and execution of contracts and instruments. The first amendment changes the wording of paragraph 23(1) of Schedule 1 in line with current drafting practice relating to the authentification of seals. The provision was meant to set out the method of authentification that is necessary and sufficient. It was not intended to require a specific person to authenticate every application of every seal, but that is what the words ““must be authenticated”” in paragraph 23(1) suggest. Therefore, ““is”” is being substituted for ““must be”” to avoid anyone being misled. The second amendment removes paragraph 23(2) from Schedule 1. That provides that a contract or instrument which, if entered into or executed by an individual, would not need to be under seal may be entered into or executed on behalf of the commission by any person who has been authorised by the commission for this purpose. As a result of the Corporate Bodies’ Contracts Act 1960 and the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, that sort of old common form provision is unnecessary in Acts other than those extending to Northern Ireland. With that explanation, I hope that the Committee will permit me to make those changes to the Bill. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.