Skip to content

Where are you from?

Choose your province and we will tell you how the deputies and senators you elected vote, one by one.

 

We remember it in this browser. If you create an account, we keep it there.

Type a law, a topic, a person or a province.

What it is

Non-legislative motion on the quality and the reduction of waiting times to receive the benefits regulated by Law 39/2006, of December 14, on the Promotion of Personal Autonomy and Care for People in a Situation of Dependence.

BOE step 7 of 7 · Passed

It is a non-binding motion. It was introduced on 24 October 2017. Introduced by: Grupo Parlamentario Confederal de Unidos Podemos-En Comú Podem-En Marea.

Source: Congreso de los Diputados, file 162/000484· updated 11 Nov

We do not have a summary of this text yet, so we do not tell you what it changes: only what the official page says. Read the official page

Where it stands

How far did it get?

It took 7 of 7 steps. It reached BOE, and today it is passed.

  1. Introduced24 October 2017Someone registers the text in the Congreso.
  2. Admitted6 November 2017The Bureau of the Congreso accepts it and, for a members’ bill, the plenary decides whether to consider it.
  3. Amendmentsno dateGroups propose changes.
  4. Committeeno dateA committee goes through the text in detail.
  5. Plenary10 November 2017All 350 deputies vote.
  6. Senateno dateThe Senate can pass it, amend it or veto it.
  7. BOE14 November 2017It is published in the Official State Gazette (BOE) and comes into force.
See the 5 official steps on a timeline
Oct 2017Nov 2017Nov 2017Nov 201711. 24 October 2017: Presentación22. 6 November 2017: Boletín Oficial de las Cortes Generales Publicación desde 06/11/2017 hasta 10/11/201733. 6 November 2017: Calificación44. 10 November 2017: Pleno desde 10/11/2017 hasta 14/11/201755. 14 November 2017: Concluido - (Aprobado con modificaciones) desde 14/11/2017 hasta 23/11/2017

14 November 2017

How did the plenary vote?

More votes in favour 204 yes · 128 no · 1 abst.

Voted on: Non-legislative motion of the Confederal Parliamentary Group of Unidos Podemos-En Comú Podem-En Marea, regarding the quality and the reduction of waiting times to receive the benefits regulated by Act 39/2006, of 14 December, on the Promotion of Personal Autonomy and Care for People in a Situation of Dependence. Voted in the terms of the transitory amendment submitted by the Confederal Parliamentary Group of Unidos Podemos-En Comú Podem-En Marea, the Ciudadanos Parliamentary Group and the Mixed Parliamentary Group.

Source: Congreso de los Diputados, vote 4 of sitting 85· updated 10 Nov

Each dot is a seat. Tap one, or use the arrow keys, to see who it is.

Your province

How did the deputies from your province vote?

And your senators: the Senate does not link its votes to this law in its open data, so we cannot put them side by side here.

Or see how most of each province voted
More details: how each group and each province voted

The groups

Who voted in favour and who against?

In favour, most of Socialista, Vasco (EAJ-PNV), Mixto, Ciudadanos, Gcup-ec-em and GER. Against, most of Popular en el Congreso. 2 deputies voted differently from their group.

By province: in 27 most voted in favour; in 12, against.

Coloured by how most of each province’s deputies voted.

  • In favour: 27
  • Against: 12
  • Tie: 13
Result by parliamentary group
GroupSeatsHow it voted
Socialista84
81 in favour · 3 did not vote
Vasco (EAJ-PNV)5
4 in favour · 1 did not vote
Mixto19
18 in favour · 1 against
Ciudadanos32
30 in favour · 2 did not vote
Gcup-ec-em67
62 in favour · 5 did not vote
GER9
9 in favour
Popular en el Congreso134
127 against · 1 abst. · 6 did not vote

What happens next

What happens now?

It is law, or will be once published in the BOE. It comes into force on the date its own text sets.

Sources

Where does all this come from?

  • The data comes from the open files of the Congreso, the Senate and the BOE, unaltered.
  • Each deputy’s province is the one of their seat on the day of the vote.
  • We only say “passed” or “rejected” when the majority needed is certain; otherwise we say which side had more votes.