Health and Social Care Bill — Should Secretary of State for Health "Secure" or "Provide or Secure" Services — 7 Sep 2011 at 18:00

Grahame Morris MP, Easington voted for a law saying the Secretary of State must "provide or secure" rather than just "secure" the provision of services under the Health and Social Care Bill.

The majority of MPs voted for a law saying the Secretary of State must secure rather than provide or secure the provision of services under the Health and Social Care Bill. If there is any substantive change in meaning between the two versions has been subject to debate.

MPs were considering the Health and Social Care Bill[1]. This vote was on an amendment[2][3] put forward by Owen Smith MP which read:

  • page 2, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
  • (2) The Secretary of State must for that purpose provide or secure the provision of services in accordance with this Act.’.

This would have affected clause 1 of the Bill[4] which is titled "Secretary of State’s duty to promote comprehensive health service"; the text in the amendment would have replaced what was originally present in subsection 2, which was:

  • For that purpose, the Secretary of State must exercise the functions conferred by this Act so as to secure that services are provided in accordance with this Act.

The amendment sought to restore language seen in Section 1(1) of the National Health Service Act of 1946[5] and Section 1(1) of the National Health Service Act 2006.[6]

During consideration in committee Grahame Morris MP (Easington, Labour) explained his concern about the clause in the Bill[4] and why he preferred the version proposed by the amendment (and seen in the 1946 Act)[7]:

  • Our concerns about the clause, voiced in the original Committee, were that the Secretary of State sought to reduce the accountability of his role in the delivery of health services.

==

Debate in Parliament | Source |

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
Alliance0 10100.0%
Con273 (+1 tell) 0089.5%
DUP0 6075.0%
Green0 10100.0%
Ind0 10100.0%
Lab0 231 (+2 tell)090.3%
LDem31 (+1 tell) 10073.7%
PC0 30100.0%
SDLP0 2066.7%
Total:304 255088.2%

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
Annette BrookeMid Dorset and North PooleLDemaye
Tim FarronWestmorland and LonsdaleLDemaye
Andrew GeorgeSt IvesLDemaye
Martin HorwoodCheltenhamLDemaye
Julian HuppertCambridgeLDemaye
Stephen LloydEastbourneLDemaye
John PughSouthportLDemaye
Dan RogersonNorth CornwallLDemaye
Adrian SandersTorbayLDemaye
David WardBradford EastLDemaye

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