Lords Amendment: In page 45, line 46, after the words last inserted insert new Clause "D":
D.—(1) A harbour authority shall have power to make the use of services and facilities provided by them at a harbour which, in the exercise and performance of stautory powers and duties, they are engaged in improving, maintaining or managing subject to such terms and conditions as they think fit except with respect to charges as to which their discretion is limited by a statutory provision (whether by specifying, or providing for specifying, charges to be made, or fixing or providing for fixing charges, or otherwise).
(2) In this section 'harbour authority' has the same meaning as in section 25 of this Act.
§ Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This, again, is an Amendment consequential on the decision to restore the "reasonable" requirement. The new Clause inserted deals with the terms and conditions of the use of harbour services and facilities previously dealt with in Clause 25 after amendment. As previously drafted, Clause 25 provided, amongst other things, that a harbour authority to which the Clause related might make the use of its services and facilities subject to such terms and conditions as it thought fit. As altered by Amendments Nos. 36 to 46, Clause 25 deals only with the levying of ship, passenger and goods dues by such harbour authorities.
Provisions relating to terms and conditions have been moved in this new Clause, which provides that the authority may make the use of its services and facilities subject to such terms and conditions as it thinks fit. Since it might be argued that a charge is a "term and condition", the Clause provides that where a charge has some limitation—for example, a requirement that it shall be reasonable—the power to impose such terms and conditions as it thinks fit will not allow a harbour authority to override such a limitation.
I think that that will go some way to reassure the anxiety of the hon. and 122 learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) that we have not gone far enough in our undertaking to see that "reasonableness" came back into the Bill.
§ Question put and agreed to.