Proceeding contribution from Peter Luff (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 19 July 2005. It occurred during Debate on Business of the House.
Business of the House
I am always suspicious of business motions, particularly no explanation is offered for them. I hoped that at least a brief explanation would be forthcoming. I am concerned, because an earlier business motion, to which, I freely admit, I did not pay sufficient attention, precluded the amendment of instructions to the Crossrail Bill Committee. Paragraph (b)(i) of the Government instruction is particularly offensive, as it prevents the Committee from considering extensions beyond Maidenhead to Reading. An earlier business motion limited the powers of the House to provide effective scrutiny of the Bill, and I am now concerned about the implications of the present business motion. The Government owe us at least an explanation of the need for it.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 436 c1115
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Legislation
- Crossrail Bill 2004/05 to 2005-06 to 2006-07 to 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 11:20:39 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_281128
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_281128
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_281128