division_name: Railways Bill
motion: <p class="" pid="a.917.3/1" pwmotiontext="yes">I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.</p>
  
  <p class="" pid="a.917.3/2" pwmotiontext="yes">The White Paper, "The Future of Rail", which I published in July this year, set out new proposals for reorganising the structure of Britain's railways. The Bill takes forward the legislative elements to implement that White Paper to simplify and restructure the railways and put right many of the problems caused by a botched privatisation 10 years ago.</p>
  
  <p class="" pid="a.931.0/1" pwmotiontext="yes">I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a.931.0/2" pwmotiontext="yes">"this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Railways Bill because it increases the extent to which politicians and civil servants interfere in the running of the railways; gives the Mayor of London power over train services which begin or end beyond the boundaries of the Greater London Authority; perpetuates instability in the rail industry with regard to franchising; fails to encourage additional private investment; offers nothing to improve conditions for passengers and the travelling public; and exposes the Government's continuing disarray over the strategic direction of the industry."</p>
  
  <p pid="a.1004.2/1" pwmotiontext="yes"><i>Question put,</i> That the amendment be made:&#8212;</p>
  
  <p pid="a.1004.2/2" pwmotiontext="yes"><i>The House divided:</i> Ayes 124, Noes 321.</p>