Higher Education Bill — Clause 27 — Sections 22 to 26: supplementary provisions — 23 Jun 2004 at 16:15
The majority of MPs voted against ring-fencing fee income for use in higher education and against guaranteeing public funding of higher education.
The rejected amendment from the Lords (No. 4) sought to ensure new fee income would be additional, and guarantee public funding for higher education could never decrease, regardless of the needs of other public services. The Government's argument, put forward by Alan Johnston MP was that this breached "privilege" as: " It would tie the hands of future Governments and prevent them from determining their spending priorities in the light of the circumstances at the time."
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 (Aye)||Minority (No)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||0||118 (+2 tell)||0||73.6%|
|Lab||291 (+2 tell)||10||0||74.6%|
|Jeremy Corbyn||Islington North||Lab||no|
|Jim Cousins||Newcastle upon Tyne Central||Lab (minister)||no|
|Ian Gibson||Norwich North||Lab (minister)||no|
|Kelvin Hopkins||Luton North||Lab||no|
|John Martin McDonnell||Hayes and Harlington||Lab||no|
|Mr Brian Sedgemore||Hackney South and Shoreditch||Lab||no|
|Alan Simpson||Nottingham South||Lab (minister)||no|
|Dennis Skinner||Bolsover||Lab (minister)||no|
|Robert Wareing||Liverpool, West Derby||Lab||no|