Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 155: 155: Clause 45, page 20, line 35, leave out ““14”” and insert ““7”” The noble Lord said: Although Amendment No. 155 was grouped with the previous amendments, it raises a different point. I shall of course read carefully in Hansard what the noble Baroness said but I am not persuaded by the argument regarding the choice of 14 days rather than seven. This is really the corollary of her defence of the seriousness of the stop notice. If the Government’s position is that regulators will issue a stop notice only for a serious matter, the regulator should be under an obligation, having closed down a business, to ensure that that business is restored to its business activity as quickly as possible once the remedy has been effected. I take the point that tests or third-party inquiries may be required, but if this is a serious matter and—it may be cheeky of me to say so—if the noble Baroness’s friend can give independence to the Bank of England within three days of taking office in 1997, seven days does not seem to be too long to restore to the business its activity when it has remedied the defect. But of course I shall not move the amendment. [Amendment No. 155 not moved.] Clause 45 agreed to. Clauses 46 to 50 agreed to. Clause 51 [Costs recovery]: