Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Pickles (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 12 January 2006. It occurred during Legislative debate on Crossrail Bill.


Crossrail Bill [Instruction No. 2]

I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that it was not in the context of Liverpool Street. His understanding of the situation was my understanding of the situation, with regard to the advice on Shenfield. However, in that debate, he told me that my worries were groundless. He clearly differentiated between the principle of the Bill and the proposed route. He said that that the instruction went further than dealing only with the principle, and that it suggested the route. He referred to the terminus as being part of the route. All I need is for my constituents to petition, as they have done, and for the Committee to hear those petitions, which it will do, so that they get a fair hearing. I then need the Committee to be able to make a recommendation to the House as to whether the terminus should be at Shenfield, Stratford or somewhere else, so that the House can decide on the matter. Having been given an assurance by the right hon. Gentleman in July, I do not now want my constituents to be prevented from having a fair hearing. Nor do I want the Select Committee to be prevented from making such a recommendation because it has been placed in a legal straitjacket by the House.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
441 c457 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Compulsory purchase Costs Construction Elizabeth line Crossrail Land Legislative process Environment Greater London Freight Powers Property transfer Planning Railway stations Railways Railway network Reading (Berkshire) Underground railways Tunnels Civil engineering Maidenhead Ebbsfleet International Station Petitions
Legislation
Crossrail Bill 2004/05 to 2005-06 to 2006-07 to 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk