Sign in
☰
People MPsHouse of LordsGovernmentOppositionPartiesCommittees Votes Commons votesLords votesVotes by issueTopicsStats & rankingsParliament in numbers Legislation BillsEarly day motionsPetitions Elections Election resultsConstituenciesWho is my MP? Scotland OverviewMSPsScottish GovernmentVotesBillsMotionsCommitteesConstituencies & regionsElections Search Sign in

Lords division · 14 Dec 2010 · No. 3

Section 24 of the Higher Education Act 2004

Lord Triesman moved, as an amendment to the motion that “for the purpose of section 24 of the Higher Education Act 2004, the higher amount should be increased to £9,000, and to £4,500 in the cases described in regulation 5 of the draft regulations in Command Paper Cm 7986, and that the increase should take effect from 1 September 2012”, to leave out from “that” to the end and insert “this House regrets that the Government has failed to consult adequately with parents, students, higher education bodies, employers and local authorities on raising student tuition fees and to convince many people of the fairness and sustainability of its proposals for funding higher education; urges the Government to undertake more public consultation on the issue, including consultation with future graduates and their families who did not contribute to the consultation over the Browne review; further considers that there should be an independent impact assessment on (a) the financial consequences of the proposed fees on students from both lower and middle income families, (b) the financial consequences of the proposed fees on women, including a full assessment of the impact of the fees on equalities and fairness, and further calls on Her Majesty’s Government to commission new research to analyse the probable impact on demand for university courses of fees being increased to the range of £6,000 to £9,000 per annum from students from lower and middle income families and women; and further considers that, prior to contemplating any increase to the higher amount specified in section 24 of the Education Act 2004, the Government should publish a White Paper on reform of higher education funding, allowing for consultation and for consideration of alternative proposals.” The House divided:

The Not Contents have it

Majority 73

Contents: 200 Not Contents: 273

At a glance The Not Contents won by a margin of 73 votes. The Government's position was Not Content, and it won.

How the parties voted

Contents

Labour 150
Crossbench 31
Non-affiliated 10
Liberal Democrat 3
Democratic Unionist Party 2
Bishops 2
Independent Labour 1
Ulster Unionist Party 1

Not Contents

Conservative 158
Crossbench 51
Liberal Democrat 51
Non-affiliated 11
Lord Speaker 1
Independent Ulster Unionist 1

The party breakdowns are our own analysis of the official voting records (recorded votes only; they do not describe the formal whip). How we work this out.

Peers attend divisions ad hoc, so there is no did-not-vote list. Tellers are counted in the Content and Not Content totals, unlike in the Commons.

Tellers: Lord Bassam of Brighton (Content), Lord Tunnicliffe (Content), Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Not Content), Lord Shutt of Greetland (Not Content).

Every vote

Contents (198)

Not Contents (271)

Tellers (4)

Source: the official Lords division record.