division_name: Railways Bill
motion: <p>Order for Second Reading read. 
  <p>
   I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  <p> 
  
   A year ago we published a new integrated policy. Ours is a transport policy, not just a policy for roads, which appears to be the policy of new Conservatism after the debate last week. Our aim is to improve choice. We want people to have greater choice, rather than a greater dependence on their cars. That means providing a better, more reliable public transport alternative.
  <p> 
  
   The Bill is about providing a more punctual, reliable, accountable railway system as part of an integrated transport system.  [Interruption.]  The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is still making silly remarks. I should have thought that he had had enough of that this weekend.
  <p>
   I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  <p> 
   
    "this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Railways Bill because the introduction of this Bill now, when it will inevitably fall due to lack of legislative time and will have to be reintroduced in the next Session, is not the best use of the time of this House and represents a new definition of pre-legislative scrutiny which the Government is using as a way of side-stepping its own decision-making responsibilities and covering its doubts and internal divisions about the wisdom of the measures which the Bill contains."
  <p>
  That is the kernel of our case--the power is a very wide-ranging one, allowing the backdoor--or frontdoor--renationalisation of the railways, should the Secretary of State be so inclined, and should he be able to persuade the Prime Minister and the Treasury of the need to do so.
  <p>Question put,  That the amendment be made:--
  <p>The House divided:  Ayes 123, Noes 330.
  