Health and Care Bill — After Clause 148 — Dispute Resolution in Children’s Palliative Care — 30 Mar 2022 at 20:30

The majority of MPs voted against requiring inclusive and informed meditation when there is a dispute between a parent of a child with a life-limiting illness and a doctor responsible for the child’s treatment in relation to care focused on relieving pain rather than dealing with the cause(s) of the condition.

MPs were considering the Health and Care Bill.[1][2][3]

The motion supported by a majority of MPs in this vote was:

  • That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 90.

Lords amendment 90 began:[4]

  • Insert the following new Clause—
  • Dispute resolution in children’s palliative care
  • (1) This section applies where there is a difference of opinion between a parent of a child with a life-limiting illness and a doctor responsible for the child’s treatment about—
  • (a) the nature (or extent) of specialist palliative care that should be made available for the child, or
  • (b) the extent to which palliative care provided to the child should be accompanied by one or more disease-modifying treatments.
  • (2) Where the authorities responsible for a health service hospital become aware of the difference of opinion they must take all reasonable steps—
  • (a) to ensure that the views of the parent, and of anyone else concerned with the welfare of the child, are listened to and taken into account;
  • (b) to make available to the parent any medical data relating to the child reasonably required to obtain evidence to inform the parent’s proposals for the child’s treatment (including obtaining an additional medical opinion);
  • (c) to allow the provider of an alternative treatment that is being advocated by the parent to provide evidence, in person or remotely, to the mediation process and subsequently to the court;
  • (d) to demonstrate the reasons that significant harm would be likely to be caused by the proposed treatment; and
  • (e) where the two parties are unable to resolve their difference of opinion, to allow for a mediation process, acceptable to both parties, between the parent and the senior doctor with overall clinical responsibility.
  • (3) Nothing in subsection (2) requires, or may be relied upon so as to require, the provision of any specific treatment by a doctor or institution, and in particular nothing in subsection :(2)—
  • (a) requires the provision of resources for any particular course of treatment; or
  • (b) requires a doctor to provide treatment that the doctor considers likely to be futile or harmful, or otherwise not in the best interests of the child.
  • (4) In this section—
  • “child” means an individual under the age of 18;
  • “health service hospital” has the meaning given by section 275 of the National Health Service Act 2006 (interpretation);
  • “parent” means a person with parental responsibility for a child within the meaning of the Children Act 1989.
  • (5) Nothing in this section affects—
  • (a) the principle of the best interests of the child,
  • (b) the law about the appropriate clinical practice to be followed as to—
  • (i) having regard to the child’s own views, where they can be expressed; and
  • (ii) having regard to the views of anyone interested in the welfare of the child, whether or not a person concerned with the welfare of the child within the meaning of this section.”

Explanatory notes to the amendment stated:[5]

  • Lords Amendment 90 would insert a new clause ('Dispute resolution in children's palliative care') into the Bill, which would aim to ensure that, where there is a difference of opinion between a parent of a child with a life-limiting illness and a doctor responsible for the child’s treatment, disputes will be able to engage effective mediation.


Debate in Parliament |

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 (Aye)Minority (No)BothTurnout
Alliance0 10100.0%
Con257 (+2 tell) 1071.8%
DUP0 2025.0%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent0 2040.0%
Lab0 126 (+2 tell)064.0%
LDem0 10076.9%
PC0 30100.0%
SDLP0 1050.0%
Total:257 147068.6%

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

Jeremy HuntSouth West SurreyCon (front bench)no

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