Care Bill — New Clause 16 — Detemination of Services to Continue at NHS Trusts under Administration — 11 Mar 2014 at 17:45

John Baron MP, Basildon and Billericay voted against allowing local commissioners, and commissioners at affected trusts, to determine which services must continue to be provided by a NHS trust which has gone into administration; and against requiring public consultation prior to changes to services at affected trusts.

The majority of MPs voted against allowing those who commission services at a NHS trust which goes into administration, and commissioners at affected trusts, to determine which services must continue to be provided.

This relates to the measures which come into effect when a trust is deemed unable, or likely to become unable, to pay its debts.

MPs were considering the Care Bill[1] when they rejected a proposed new clause. The rejected new clause[2] would have required wider consultation of trusts affected by decisions made by administrators of failed NHS trusts, and would have restricted the scope of the Secretary of State's consideration of the administrator's report and regulator's decision. The rejected new clause would also have introduced additional requirements for public consultation where there are changes proposed to services provided by an affected trust.

The proposed new clause rejected in this vote was accompanied by an explanatory statement saying it:

  • ensures that all commissioners of services affected by a trust special administrator’s report have the right to define local specified services;
  • clarifies that, save for the trust in administration, local commissioners remain the decision makers for services they commission; and
  • restores public engagement for changes other than for a trust in administration.

==

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%
Con253 (+2 tell) 7085.9%
DUP0 5062.5%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent0 1050.0%
Lab0 222 (+2 tell)086.8%
LDem35 1064.3%
PC0 2066.7%
Respect0 10100.0%
Total:288 241083.9%

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
Angie BrayEaling Central and ActonCon (front bench)aye
Nick de BoisEnfield NorthCon (front bench)aye
Zac GoldsmithRichmond ParkCon (front bench)aye
Philip HolloboneKetteringCon (front bench)aye
Jeremy LefroyStaffordCon (front bench)aye
Jason McCartneyColne ValleyCon (front bench)aye
Bob StewartBeckenhamCon (front bench)aye
Greg MulhollandLeeds North WestLDem (front bench)aye

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