text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Higher Education Bill - Clause 27 - Sections 22 to 26: supplementary provisions
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  @MP voted Aye to allow universities to charge higher fees; to charge fees after the third year; and against ring-fencing fee income for use in higher education and against guaranteeing public funding of higher education. 
  @MP voted no against allowing universities to charge higher fees; against charging of fees after the third year; and for ring-fencing fee income for use in higher education and for guaranteeing public funding of higher education.
  
  The majority of MPs voted to allow universities to charge higher fees; to charge fees after the third year; and against ring-fencing fee income for use in higher education and against guaranteeing public funding of higher education. 
  
  Lords amendments 2 and 4 were rejected in this vote. 
  
  During debate the effect of amendment 2 was described as being to:"not only stop universities charging higher fees, but abolish all fees after the third year"[1]
  
  The rejected Lords amendment 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."[2]
  
  [1] [http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2004-06-23.1392.2 Alan Johnston MP, House of Commons, 23 June 2004]
  [2] [http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2004-06-23.1397.1 Alan Johnston MP, House of Commons, 23 June 2004]
  
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  