NHS Funding — Call on Ministers to Reflect Official Spending Statistics When Speaking About Health Spending — 12 Dec 2012 at 16:53

Anna Soubry MP, Broxtowe voted against asking ministers to reflect the official treasury spending statistics when making public statements on health spending.

The majority of MPs voted against asking ministers to reflect the official treasury spending statistics when making public statements on health spending.

The text of the rejected motion which was the subject of the vote stated:

  • That this House
  • notes with concern the letter of 4 December 2012 from the Chair of the UK Statistics Authority, Andrew Dilnot CBE, to the Secretary of State for Health concerning public expenditure on health[1],
  • further notes Mr Dilnot’s statement that expenditure on the NHS in real terms was lower in 2011-12 than it was in 2009-10; and
  • calls on Ministers to reflect this position in their public statements

The letter refers to a statement made by Jeremy Hunt MP (The Secretary of State for Health; South West Surrey, Conservative) in the House of Commons on the 23rd of October 2012[2]:

  • "Real-terms spending on the NHS has increased across the country,"

and a statement made on Conservative website:

  • "we have increased the NHS budget in real terms in each of the last two years"

(A similar statement: "We have increased NHS spending in real terms since 2010-11 and will continue doing so." was on the Conservative party website on 20 January 2013[3] and is still there as of January 2014[4].)

The letter cites the Treasury publication Public Spending Statistics from October 2012[5] and states:

  • On the basis of these figures, we would conclude that expenditure on the NHS in real terms was lower in 2011-12 than it was in 2009-10. Given the small size of the changes and the uncertainties associated with them, it might also be fair to say that real terms expenditure had changed little over this period In light of this, I should be grateful if the Department of Health could clarify the statements made.

==

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
Con257 (+1 tell) 0084.6%
DUP0 5062.5%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent0 10100.0%
Lab0 221 (+2 tell)086.4%
LDem45 (+1 tell) 0080.7%
PC0 2066.7%
SDLP0 30100.0%
Total:302 233084.7%

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