National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill — 20 Nov 2001 at 21:44
John Prescott MP, Kingston upon Hull East voted with the majority (No).
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill implements commitments in the national health service plan that was published in our manifesto for the general election. That election presented people with a fundamental choice. For many, it came down to a choice between short-term tax cuts and investment in public services. I am thankful that the British public chose the latter. It was the right choice for Britain, and a choice that the Labour party made.
I beg to move, To leave out from 'That' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'this House declines to give a Second Reading to the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill because it is irrelevant in the face of a worsening health care crisis; will lead to increased bureaucracy; increases political interference by augmenting the role of the Secretary of State; fails to deal with the downward spiral of morale afflicting health professionals; imposes unnecessary structural change which will further detract from patient care; and abolishes the community health councils, which have served the interests of patients and communities.'
Question put, That the amendment be made:-
The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 320.
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.
|Party||Majority (No)||Minority (Aye)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||0||141 (+2 tell)||0||87.2%|
|Lab||311 (+2 tell)||0||0||76.3%|