The noble Baroness need not apologise for using the word ““necessary”” a number of times. The Committee will find itself discussing that word at some length during our proceedings. We understand the intention of the amendment, but the noble Baroness is quite right that we do not think it necessary. She pointed out that paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 provides: "““Anything done by or in relation to the LBRO company which has effect immediately before the day on which section 2 comes into force is, so far as is necessary for continuing its effect … to have effect as if done by or in relation to LBRO””,"
which is the statutory corporation. We believe that the phrase, "““so far as is necessary””,"
captures those matters that are necessary for the LBRO company and those that may be necessary for another party—I know that that is what is behind the noble Baroness’s amendment—that has carried out an action in relation to the LBRO company. That means that, were the LBRO company to establish a training programme, for example, or be subject to court action, those would continue after the company had been dissolved and the statutory LBRO established. I hope that that gives the noble Baroness some comfort in deciding what to do with her amendment.
Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Bach
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 21 January 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
698 c21GC 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 02:31:27 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_436780
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_436780
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_436780