Health Care Targets — 27 Oct 2003 at 21:45

I beg to move,

That this House notes that the Government's obsession with target-setting now pervades almost every aspect of healthcare; believes that the volume of centrally set targets and the way in which these have been imposed is having a detrimental effect on clinical outcomes, since the welfare of the patient becomes a secondary consideration to the achievement of the target; further believes that the imposition of these targets is seriously demoralising the professional staff within the NHS, diverting them from spending time with patients to additional paperwork and bureaucracy; is appalled that pressure on managers to achieve targets has led to distortions in reporting on performance, so that the public has no confidence in claims that are made about achievements in the NHS; and calls on the Government to do away with their reliance on the target-setting culture, to re-invest the money saved on bureaucracy into front line medical care and to trust doctors, nurses and other professional staff to get on with their jobs with minimal interference, in the interests of all of their patients.

I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:

"welcomes the Government's record extra investment in the National Health Service; supports the Government's policy of linking investment to reform; notes that setting targets and monitoring performance against them are a vital part of the accountability process; welcomes the Government's determination to devolve power in the health service to the front line backed by three-year allocations of money to NHS organisations and clear delivery targets for the next three years; welcomes the positive effect of the right targets on staff morale, motivation and standards; welcomes the increases in capacity and workforce numbers, the greater availability of new and better drugs, the shorter waiting times and the greater choice available to all patients; notes that expenditure on NHS management as a proportion of the total NHS budget is falling; and supports the Government's commitment to a high quality NHS, responsive to the needs of patients, available to all free at the point of need."

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:-

The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 333.

Debate in Parliament | Historical Hansard | Source |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit free service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your electricity and/or gas to Bulb Energy who provide 100% renewable electricity and tend to be 20% cheaper than the 'Big Six'. They'll also pay any exit fees (up to £120) from your old supplier AND give you (and us) a £50 credit for joining up via our Bulb Referral Link.

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
Con0 129 (+2 tell)080.4%
Independent0 1050.0%
Independent Conservative0 10100.0%
Independent Ulster Unionist0 1033.3%
Lab294 (+2 tell) 0072.5%
LDem37 0068.5%
PC1 0025.0%
SDLP1 0033.3%
UUP1 0033.3%
Total:334 132073.3%

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

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.

PublicWhip v2 codebase is currently under development - you can join the Slack group to find out more or email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive