Health and Social Care Bill — 10 Jan 2001

Patrick McLoughlin MP, West Derbyshire voted in the minority (Aye).

Question again proposed , That the amendment be made.

to extend the concept of fair shares.

the health services in North and Mid-Hampshire both modern and affordable.

There are 4,386 people on out-patient waiting lists locally, compared with 1,212 people in March 1998 (the first year that figures were collected).

The National Funding Formula for Health Authorities is at the heart of the problem. This is a challenge for central Government.

We find a contradiction between the aspirations of central Government and the reality for the local health economy.

We regret seeing cuts, albeit with limited improvements in efficiencies when, nationally, the country seems awash with health spending.

The panel deplores the scale of political interference in seeking a solution to the Authority's financial problems.

Yet the reality for many councils is still one of having to make very difficult choices between cuts in services and double figure council tax rises.

may not continue to hold office after he reaches the age of 70.

proposals in the Bill will discriminate against older people who qualify for personal care but not nursing care.

Does he agree with that view?

Within the service there is the impression of "management by cascading paper", of ideas and instructions being passed down from above. The dead hand of bureaucracy seems to stifle imagination and flair and obscure responsibility.

unanswered questions and lost opportunities to improve the welfare and rights of older, disabled and mentally infirm people. Above all, it will mean that hundreds of thousands of older people will have to pay for the essential help they need to live their daily lives, including dressing, meals and bathing.

The Government is continuing to dodge the issue of principle--that personal as well as nursing care should be free.

Patients with equal clinical needs must have equal access to high quality GP services, so the BMA shares the Government's aim for there to be an equitable distribution of family doctors. Inequalities have been drastically reduced over the past 52 years as a direct result of the operation and influence of the Medical Practices Committee.

The NHS will shape its services around the needs and preferences of individual patients--

their families and their carers.

This patient-centred thing is good. It makes you do things differently.

So often people come to surgery telling me all about their condition because they've researched it off the internet.

aware that there is bitter opposition, which is why the proposals are being consulted on . . . It is precisely because we want to consult that we have issued the health plan. We will report back to the House in due course on the consultation.--[ Official Report , 15 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 937.]

Following your question in the House regarding the abolition of Community Health Councils, I thought it would be helpful if I clarified the nature of the consultation on which we are currently engaged . . . Our proposals mean that Community Health Councils are to be abolished, subject to legislation.

This better describes the consultation I alluded to in my answer during Prime Minister's Question time.

I should remind you that the jobs of all CHC staff were put at risk following the announcement of the abolition of CHCs over the internet and without prior consultation on 27th July. It is now mid-November and the Secretary of State is refusing to discuss the legitimate concerns of CHC staff with either their Unions or in individual correspondence. He has refused to make an announcement on TUPE transfers or on clearing house arrangements. These are not the actions that one would expect of the NHS as a responsible employer and they do not sit well with Mr. Milburn's recent speech on improving the working lives of people who work in the NHS.

I find it difficult to understand the motivation for this behaviour and it simply adds credence to Dr. Liam Fox . . . I am extremely concerned about the effect this situation is having on my staff and colleagues. I feel that whatever the experience individual politicians have been of their local Community Health Councils, they should recognise that CHC staff . . . many with long service . . . deserve to be treated decently.

The NHS in the regions has been ordered to undertake rapid consultation on the Plan. We went to a meeting on 12 December when we were "reliably" told by the NHS Executive that the second reading of the Health and Social Care Bill would be in February. Yesterday, the day before the Christmas break was to start, we were informed it will be on 10 January. This makes the rushed consultation exercise an absolute farce. The government has again got its timing just right to achieve maximum gloom for CHC staff.

I am sorry to hear of the proposed demise of the CHC. I feel that the proposed five agencies will not be in the patients' interest . . . The council needs to be independent, not involving the trust in any way. The CHC was helpful to me in my complaint against

the CHC did a pretty good job. The proposed new council sounds like just another quango to me.

reflects the view of ordinary folks

The multiplicity of Ministers in the present government should, I feel, have in each of their offices a large notice--"If it ain't broke don't fix it". They seem unable to resist the temptation to change things and the changes they make are of doubtful value and usually cost more!

Many older people and their relatives have received support from Community Health Councils . . . , which they value for their independent perspective.

The NHS Plan exists to help re-elect the Government, not to save the NHS.

the plan promises the earth, but will not deliver.

no one will be denied the drugs that they need.--[ Official Report , 30 June 1998; Vol. 315, c. 143.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:--

The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 352.

Historical Hansard | Online Hansard |

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Con0 125 (+2 tell)079.4%
Lab317 (+2 tell) 0076.5%
LDem33 0070.2%
PC2 0050.0%
UUP0 3033.3%
Total:352 128076.0%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
no rebellions

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

There are lots of plans afoot, including extensive redevelopment of the site and plans for new functionality. To keep up with what's happening, please check out the blog. We're working on updating all the contact details throughout the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Advertisement - Helping keeping PublicWhip alive