Proceeding contribution from Greg Knight (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 17 January 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill.
Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill
I agree with my hon. Friend's argument, but does he accept that his amendment No. 7 is not ideal because it is only permissive, which would enable a Minister to ignore his argument? Does he accept that amendment No. 4 provides a far better way of dealing with the matter because it directs the Minister in what to do?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 470 c1133
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Assets Channel tunnel High Speed 1 line Fees and charges High speed trains Railway stations Railways Railway network St Pancras Station Office of Rail Regulation Waterloo Station
- Legislation
- Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-16 00:18:04 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_435918
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_435918
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_435918