Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Stephen Hammond (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 13 December 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Crossrail Bill.


Crossrail Bill

I listened carefully to what the Minister said, and I am discovering that life in opposition is all about small victories. He considers that my amendment has some merit, and I am grateful for that—and for the fact that he and the ladies and gentlemen who at times provide him with divine inspiration have tabled Government amendment No. 1. That is a small victory for the Opposition. Anyone who attended the Public Bill Committee will have heard what the Minister said about amendment No. 5 before—almost verbatim, in fact—but I still have the same problem with this part of the Bill. The Minister said that the ORR has a history of open consultation, and that it can decide whom to consult. If so, why should it not be obliged to consult those whom it considers appropriate? That would be fair and sensible, and it should be included in the Bill. I remain unconvinced by the Minister’s argument that there is no need to include in the Bill the obligation on the ORR that amendment No. 5 would impose, just as he is not convinced that Government amendment No. 1 is necessary. Even so, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 5. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
469 c546 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Access Disclosure of information Compensation Compulsory purchase Construction Elizabeth line Crossrail Finance Land Environment Infrastructure Freight Planning permission Railway stations Railways Railway network Reading (Berkshire) Underground railways Regeneration Woolwich Maidenhead Office of Rail Regulation
Legislation
Crossrail Bill 2004/05 to 2005-06 to 2006-07 to 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk