Oddly enough, I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman on his point that good transport schemes should carry with them a strong element of regeneration. However, we do ourselves a disservice if we ignore the fact that the original Conservative desire to have no public money in the scheme got us into an absurd situation. Although it was perfectly clear that the economic advantages were fairly marginal, when the line was about to go bankrupt it was forced to come to the Department. To say now to the Department, ““You are not doing the things that you were not expected to do in the first place, and you have managed to recoup only with considerable difficulty,”” seems mildly unfair—and I am never unfair to the Department for Transport.
Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Gwyneth Dunwoody
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 20 November 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
467 c1144 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 01:52:51 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_423202
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_423202
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_423202