NHS — Private Patient Income Cap — 16 Jan 2012 at 21:50

The majority of MPs voted against reducing the amount of income a NHS foundation trust is permitted to make from private patients.

The text of the rejected motion reads:

  • That this House
  • believes there is an important role for the private sector in supporting the delivery of NHS care;
  • welcomes the contribution made by private providers to the delivery of the historic 18-week maximum wait for NHS patients;
  • recognises a need, however, for agreed limits on private sector involvement in the NHS;
  • notes with concern the Government’s plans to open up the NHS as a regulated market, increasing private sector involvement in both commissioning and provision of NHS services;
  • urges the Government to revisit its plans, learning from the recent problems with PIP implants and the private cosmetic surgery industry;
  • believes its plan for a 49 per cent. private income cap for Foundation Trusts, in the context of the hospitals as autonomous business units and a ‘no bail-outs’ culture, signals a fundamental departure from established practice in NHS hospitals;
  • fears that the Government’s plans will lead to longer waiting times, will increase health inequalities and risk putting profits before patients;
  • is concerned that this House has not been given an opportunity to consider such a significant policy change; and
  • calls on the Government to revise significantly downwards its proposed cap on the level of private income that can be generated by NHS hospitals.

Explanatory notes to the Health And Social Care Bill[1] provide further information on the proposed cap on the level of private income that can be generated by NHS hospitals (the cap is introduced in Clause 168 of the Health and Social Care Bill[2]) :

  • This clause repeals the restriction on the amount of income a foundation trust can earn from private charges, otherwise known as the "private patient income cap". The cap, which was introduced in 2003, has the effect that a foundation trust cannot earn in any financial year a higher proportion of its total income from private charges than it derived from private charges in the financial year 2002-03 (the year before the first foundation trusts were authorised). For example, as no mental health foundation trust derived income from private charges in 2002-03, their cap was 0%. This was increased to 1.5% by section 33 of the Health Act 2009.


Debate in Parliament | 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
Con271 (+1 tell) 0088.9%
DUP0 2025.0%
Lab0 231 (+2 tell)090.3%
LDem47 (+1 tell) 0084.2%
PC3 00100.0%
SDLP0 1033.3%
Total:321 234088.0%

Rebel Voters - sorted by constituency

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