voted strongly against the policy
by scoring 10.0% compared to the votes below
Someone who believes that foundation hospitals should be introduced would cast votes described by the policy.
|Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill - 7 May 2003 - Division No. 177|
I beg to move,
That this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which, by establishing Foundation Trusts and introducing other layers of bureaucracy, would increase disparities between hospitals and detract from the Government's commitment to a primary care led NHS, free from excessive bureaucracy, and believes that alternative ways of encouraging accountability in the NHS should be considered and a consensus established before legislation is introduced.
Question put, That the amendment be made:-
The House divided: Ayes 117, Noes 297.
|Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill - 7 May 2003 - Division No. 178|
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):-
The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 230.
|Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill — NHS Foundation Trusts - 8 Jul 2003 - Division No. 280|
The Aye-voters failed to pass an amendment to remove the foundation trust proposals from the bill.
Amendment No. 164, in page 1, line 4, leave out clause 1.
|Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill — Clause 1 — NHS foundation trusts - 19 Nov 2003 - Division No. 381|
The Aye-voters successfully rejected a Lords wrecking amendment.
Lords amendment: No. 1, leave out clause 1
Clause 1 defines "NHS foundation trusts".
Shortly after the division there were several points of order noting that Scottish MPs' votes were required to pass the bill, but that the bill only affects England and Wales.
|Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill — Clause 1 — NHS Foundation Trusts - 19 Nov 2003 - Division No. 388|
The Aye-voters struck down the Lords' wrecking amendment to the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, which had just been introduced a second time during their debate.
The MP's votes count towards a weighted average where the most important votes get 50 points, less important votes get 10 points, and less important votes for which the MP was absent get 2 points. In important votes the MP gets awarded the full 50 points for voting the same as the policy, no points for voting against the policy, and 25 points for not voting. In less important votes, the MP gets 10 points for voting with the policy, no points for voting against, and 1 (out of 2) if absent.
Questions about this formula can be discussed on the forum.
|No of votes||Points||Out of|
|Most important votes (50 points)|
|MP voted with policy||0||0||0|
|MP voted against policy||4||0||200|
|Less important votes (10 points)|
|MP voted with policy||0||0||0|
|MP voted against policy||0||0||0|
|Less important absentees (2 points)|
*Pressure of other work means MPs or Lords are not always available to vote – it does not always indicate they have abstained. Therefore, being absent on a less important vote makes a disproportionatly small difference.