National Health Service — Health Spending and Rationing by Cost — 16 Jul 2012 at 19:20

Dominic Grieve MP, Beaconsfield voted against asking the Government to take action to prevent rationing by cost in the NHS and against calling on the Government to honour its pledge to increase health spending in real terms each year.

The majority of MPs voted against asking the Government to take action to prevent rationing by cost in the NHS and against calling on the Government to honour its pledge to increase health spending in real terms each year.

The rejected motion read:

  • That this House
  • regrets the growing gap between Ministers’ statements and what is happening in the NHS;
  • notes mounting evidence of rationing of treatments and services by cost, despite Ministers’ claims to have prevented it;
  • further regrets the increasing number of cost-driven reconfigurations of hospital services, despite the Coalition Agreement’s promise of a moratorium on changes to hospital services;
  • further notes growing private sector involvement in both the commissioning and provision of NHS services, contradicting Ministers’ claims that the NHS reorganisation would not increase levels of privatisation;
  • recognises that, according to the Government’s Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses figures, actual Government spending on the NHS in 2011-12 fell by £26 million, the second successive real-terms reduction in NHS spending, following a reduction of £766 million in the Government’s first year in office, in breach of the commitment in the Coalition Agreement;
  • believes the Government’s decision to reorganise the NHS has distracted its focus from the financial challenge, with seven out of 10 acute hospital trusts in England missing savings targets in the first half of 2011-12;
  • calls on the Government to take action to prevent rationing by cost in the NHS, based on the evidence presented; and :
  • further calls on the Government to honour pledges on NHS spending in the Coalition Agreement, and the commitment that future savings will be reinvested into the NHS front line, and to return at least half of the underspend to the Department of Health budget.

The coalition agreement[1] stated:

  • We will guarantee that health spending increases in real terms in each year of the Parliament, while recognising the impact this decision will have on other departments.

==

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
Con259 (+2 tell) 0085.3%
DUP0 3037.5%
Lab0 220 (+2 tell)086.4%
LDem44 0077.2%
PC0 30100.0%
SDLP0 2066.7%
Total:303 228084.4%

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