Sure, but I was asking the Minister whether he had evidence. I was not proposing to adduce evidence from Atlanta. In fact, I am sure that he could tell lots of horror stories about Atlanta, and I am a bit surprised that he has not, although I am not necessarily inviting him to. But it seems odd that he mentions one big case in Ansett, which was going through all kinds of commercial problems at the time in any event. I am not sure that it is a very good example. But I look forward to receiving from the Minister further and better particulars of that case, as they say in the law, which I am sure will allow us to make a better informed judgment about it. At the moment, the jury is definitely out and I certainly propose to bring the matter back on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Greater London Authority: powers]:
[Amendments Nos. 77 to 80 not moved.]
Clause 34 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 81 not moved.]
Clause 35 [Section 34: supplemental]:
London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Clement-Jones
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 15 February 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
678 c412-3GC Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:31:23 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_301832
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_301832
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_301832