§ [No. 6]
§
Clause 1, page 3, line 15, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 3 of the principal Act (as set out in subsection (1) above) where—
the said education authority may charge fees in respect of any school education provided by them for that pupil in any school under their management at any time after 1st August 1970 when he is an outwith-area pupil:
§ Provided that the education authority shall not have power under this paragraph to charge fees in respect of education provided by them for any pupil if a contribution in respect of such provision is payable to them by another education authority.
§ In this subsection 'outwith-area pupil' means, in relation to any education authority, a pupil who is not deemed to belong for the purposes of section 24 of the principal Act to the area of that authority."
§
The Commons agree to this Amendment but propose the following Amendment thereto:—
Line 2, after "above)", insert—
§ LORD HUGHESMy Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment to the Lords Amendment No. 6. The Amendment which is set out in italics on the Order Paper restores to the Bill 1169 subsection (3) of Clause 1 in the form in which it originally left the Commons. The Lords Amendment, which I would call the outwith area pupils Amendment, replaced this subsection with a new one. Both subsections are needed—that is, the original Commons subsection and the Lords Amendment—if fee-paying is to be abolished. The effect of the Commons Amendment is to postpone the abolition of fee-paying until August 1, 1970. If it were not made and the other provisions for the abolition of fee-paying were allowed to stand, fee-paying would be abolished one month after this Bill was enacted. That, of course, is not the intention, because it is considered desirable to give the authorities concerned, and especially Edinburgh and Glasgow, a full year to make the necessary adjustments to their schemes of educational provision. The effect, therefore, of the Commons Amendment to the Lords Amendment is to put the position back of giving that year's grace. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment to the Lords Amendment.—(Lord Hughes.)
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, 1 think that the history of this matter is that we moved this Amendment as a consequential Amendment to one of the Amendments that we carried; and I suppose inadvertently it was not moved back—although I do not suppose, as things then stood, it could have been moved back. This Amendment is in a sense a consequential Amendment to the Commons disagreeing with Amendments Nos. 1 to 5. May I ask a question about the drafting? It seems to be left in a slightly peculiar way. As the clause stands with the Commons Amendment inserted the position is that we now have "(a)" and "(b)" and "(b)" will then start with the word "where". Then we have another "(a) and a "(b)". I suppose what will happen is that we shall again have the word "where" and then a heading (i) and a heading (ii) and so on. It looks a little peculiar. I think that is what happens.
§ LORD HUGHESMy Lords, I had hoped that the noble Lord would not notice that. I ought to have known better. I also could not understand it; but unfortunately at the time when I 1170 looked at it there was no one I could ask. It looks as though "where" either got in the wrong place or was left in inadvertently. But the mysteries of draftsmanship I have long given up hope of understanding. I have not the slightest doubt that the draftsman is right and the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and I are equally wrong. But I cannot say where we are wrong. I shall have to hope that they are right and we are wrong.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I have not complained that anyone was wrong. I merely asked whether what seemed to be the only possible explanation was the right one, otherwise there was something wrong with it.
§ LORD HUGHESMy Lords, I thought that that was what I had said in slightly different words.