Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 7: 7: Schedule 2, page 40, line 4, after ““necessary”” insert ““(whether to LBRO or any other party)”” The noble Baroness said: Schedule 2 is about replacing the company that already exists with LBRO as trailed by the Bill. Paragraph 4 deals with continuity between the existing company and the future organisation and provides that anything done up to the point of handover is, "““so far as is necessary for continuing its effect””," to be regarded as still effective. I am almost certainly going to be told that it is not necessary to qualify ““necessary””, but I wonder why it is necessary to say this at all, or to put it in this way. Why not simply say that everything done before the handover continues to have effect? I am sorry to keep using the word, but why is it necessary to consider whether everything that has been done should be put into a category of necessary or not necessary? When I started to think about that, I thought that those who are considering this will probably see it from the LBRO’s point of view, whereas there are others who will have an interest. That was what led to my amendment. I beg to move.