Care Bill — Clause 119 — Proceedure for Dealing Financially Failing NHS Trusts — Requirement to Consult with Public — 11 Mar 2014 at 18:11

The majority of MPs voted in favour of requiring the administrator of a financially failing NHS trust to consult those commissioning services from it, and other affected trusts, and to seek their agreement with plans to address the problems. The majority of MPs also voted to extend the amount of time available for the administrators to do their work; to require the production of guidance on the way administrators work with commissioners and to clarify the Secretary of state may take decisions which affect other trusts when seeking to resolve the problems of a failing trust, and to clarify commissioners don't have to consult with the public during the administration process.

MPs were considering the Care Bill[1]. The amendment rejected in this vote was:

  • Amendment 30, page 102, line 31, leave out clause 119

Clause 119[2] makes five changes to the law relating to the way NHS trusts deemed unable, or likely to become unable, to pay its debts and to which administrators are appointed. The clause:

  • Clarifies that the Secretary of State, when responding to reports from administrators and regulators can take decisions which affect other trusts as long as they are "necessary for and consequential on" resolving the problems of the failing trust.
  • Gives more time to administrators dealing with failed trusts to carry out their work and produce their reports and recommendations.
  • To require those commissioning services from the failing trust, and other trusts affected, to be consulted on recommendations of administrators, and their agreement to them sought.
  • To require the Secretary of State to provide guidance on how administrators ought work with commissioners.
  • To clarify that requirements on commissioners to consult with the public don't apply during the operation of the administration proceedures. This applies to the NHS Commissioning Board, clinical commission groups, as well as NHS trusts and foundation trusts.

The effect of the clause is summarised in the explanatory notes to the Bill[3].


Debate in Parliament | Source |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your (UK) electricity and/or gas to Octopus Energy or tip us via Ko-Fi.

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%
Con251 (+2 tell) 6084.9%
DUP0 5062.5%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent0 1050.0%
Lab0 222 (+2 tell)086.8%
LDem46 0082.1%
PC0 2066.7%
Respect0 10100.0%
Total:297 239085.0%

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

Angie BrayEaling Central and ActonConaye
Nick de BoisEnfield NorthCon (front bench)aye
Richard DraxSouth DorsetCon (front bench)aye
Philip HolloboneKetteringCon (front bench)aye
Jeremy LefroyStaffordCon (front bench)aye
Bob StewartBeckenhamCon (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.

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive