text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Higher Education Bill - Clause 27 - Sections 22 to 26: supplementary provisions
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  
  @MP voted Aye against ring-fencing fee income for use in higher education and against guaranteeing public funding of higher education. 
  @MP voted no for ring-fencing fee income for use in higher education and for guaranteeing public funding of higher education.
  
  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."[1]
  
  * [1] [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)
  