Health and Social Care Bill — Should Secretary of State for Health "Secure" or "Provide or Secure" Services — 7 Sep 2011 at 18:00
The majority of MPs voted for a law saying the Secretary of State must secure rather than provide or secure the provision of services under the Health and Social Care Bill. If there is any substantive change in meaning between the two versions has been subject to debate.
MPs were considering the Health and Social Care Bill[1]. This vote was on an amendment[2][3] put forward by Owen Smith MP which read:
- page 2, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
- (2) The Secretary of State must for that purpose provide or secure the provision of services in accordance with this Act.’.
This would have affected clause 1 of the Bill[4] which is titled "Secretary of State’s duty to promote comprehensive health service"; the text in the amendment would have replaced what was originally present in subsection 2, which was:
- For that purpose, the Secretary of State must exercise the functions conferred by this Act so as to secure that services are provided in accordance with this Act.
The amendment sought to restore language seen in Section 1(1) of the National Health Service Act of 1946[5] and Section 1(1) of the National Health Service Act 2006.[6]
During consideration in committee Grahame Morris MP (Easington, Labour) explained his concern about the clause in the Bill[4] and why he preferred the version proposed by the amendment (and seen in the 1946 Act)[7]:
- Our concerns about the clause, voiced in the original Committee, were that the Secretary of State sought to reduce the accountability of his role in the delivery of health services.
==
- [1] Parliament's webpage on the Health and Social Care Bill (Now the Health and Social Care Act 2012)
- [2] Official Record, House of Commons, 6 September 2011
- [3] Amendment sheet for consideration of the Health and Social Care Bill on 7 September 2011
- [4] Health and Social Care Bill as at 18 July 2013
- [5] National Health Service Act of 1946
- [6] Section 1 National Health Service Act 2006
- [7] Grahame Morris MP (Easington, Labour), House of Commons, 6 September 2011
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.
| Party | Majority (No) | Minority (Aye) | Both | Turnout |
| Alliance | 0 | 1 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Con | 273 (+1 tell) | 0 | 0 | 89.5% |
| DUP | 0 | 6 | 0 | 75.0% |
| Green | 0 | 1 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Independent | 0 | 1 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Lab | 0 | 231 (+2 tell) | 0 | 90.3% |
| LDem | 31 (+1 tell) | 10 | 0 | 73.7% |
| PC | 0 | 3 | 0 | 100.0% |
| SDLP | 0 | 2 | 0 | 66.7% |
| Total: | 304 | 255 | 0 | 88.2% |
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
| Name | Constituency | Party | Vote |
| Annette Brooke | Mid Dorset and North Poole | LDem (front bench) | aye |
| Tim Farron | Westmorland and Lonsdale | LDem (front bench) | aye |
| Andrew George | St Ives | LDem (front bench) | aye |
| Martin Horwood | Cheltenham | LDem (front bench) | aye |
| Julian Huppert | Cambridge | LDem (front bench) | aye |
| Stephen Lloyd | Eastbourne | LDem (front bench) | aye |
| John Pugh | Southport | LDem (front bench) | aye |
| Dan Rogerson | North Cornwall | LDem (front bench) | aye |
| Adrian Sanders | Torbay | LDem | aye |
| David Ward | Bradford East | LDem (front bench) | aye |