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 have said already that I think the 1996 Act was a fine piece of legislation from a fine Government, but it is not true that all pieces of fine legislation cannot be improved later by the scrutiny of the House. I listened carefully to what the Minister said. I have no wish to incur the cost of setting up another hybrid Bill Committee to consider any extension to the route; that was not the purpose of my amendments. My purpose was to ensure that we were as certain as we could be that if different procedures applied to different parts of the Crossrail route, and that route was extended, there was no real possibility of a successful legal challenge. The Minister rightly said that he could not be certain that he would not be subject to a legal challenge, although it might fail. I was reassured that he has clearly taken good advice. He is happy to tell the House that he is convinced that although differing regimes would apply to different parts of the route, an extension can be built under the Transport and Works Act, and there is no reasonable prospect of a successful challenge. That was the reassurance I sought, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
469 c550 
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