Skip to main content

JUBILEE LINE EXTENSION AND FUTURE OF LONDON'S DOCKLANDS

EDM (Early Day Motion) 436: tabled on 06 July 1992

Tabled in the 1992-93 session.

This motion has been signed by 26 Members. It has received 2 amendments.

As this motion is using historical data, we may not have the record of the original ordering, in which case signatories are listed alphabetically.

Amendments to this motion

There have been 2 amendments submitted to this motion.

View details of the amendments

Motion text

That this House believes that the proposed extension to the Jubilee Line is vitally important for the future competitiveness of London; recognises that it is critical to the success of Docklands; furthermore, notes that it is needed to continue the regeneration of South and East London; recognises that it will provide an essential link to the proposed Channel Tunnel Rail Link at Stratford; and believes that all parties involved in the project should reach an agreement on the financing of the extension as soon as possible to ensure that construction is not delayed any longer.

The first 6 Members who have signed to support the motion are the sponsors. The primary sponsor is generally the person who tabled the motion and has responsibility for it. The date shown is when the Member signed the motion.

In addition to the sponsors, the following Members have signed to support the motion.

There are no withdrawn signatures for this motion.

After a motion has been tabled, other Members can table amendments to it. Amendments to this motion are shown below.

JUBILEE LINE EXTENSION AND FUTURE OF LONDON'S DOCKLANDS (Amendment 1)
at end add 'always bearing in mind that the existence of the line conveys a benefit to the owners of Canary Wharf alone estimated at up to ú1 billion, and that the taxpayer thus has a right to expect the developer contribution originally agreed with Olympia and York.'.
Conservative, Finchley
3
signatures
EDM 436A1: tabled on 7 July 1992
JUBILEE LINE EXTENSION AND FUTURE OF LONDON'S DOCKLANDS (Amendment 2)
leave out from 'House'to end and add 'demands a full, urgent and detailed account of all infrastructure spending in the Docklands and how the benefits of such spending compare with public investment levels elsewhere in the UK.'
Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan
1
signature
EDM 436A2: tabled on 24 September 1992