LORD HARRIS, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said it proposed to amend the provisions of the Local Government Act of 1888, for the settlement of disputes or differences of opinion between County Councils and local authorities in respect to the cost of the maintenance of main roads. There was no doubt that it was the intention of Parliament that these disputes should be determined by the Local Government Board after a local inquiry by an officer of the Local Government Board. There was also ample proof that the local authorities were extremely well satisfied with the arbitration of the Local Government Board, and that they were very anxious to avoid the expense of calling in a special arbitrator who would probably charge a high fee. But in the Debate that took place in Committee the President of the Local Government Board expressed some fear that if there were many of those inquiries the extra work that would be thrown on the officials of the Local Government Board would render necessary a large increase in their staff, and said that he did not wish to throw upon the taxpayers more expenses than were necessary. Therefore provision was made in Section 63 of the Act by which the Local Government Board could, if they pleased, appoint an arbitrator instead of arbitrating themselves. In 1893 a dispute arose between 319 the County Council of Kent and the Sandgate Highway Authority as to the maintenance of a high road. The counsel for the County Council asked for a case to be stated for the Queen's Bench Division on points of law. This application was made under the Arbitration Act of 1889, which, of course, was passed the year subsequent to the passing of the Local Government Act. The Local Government Board held there was no occasion for them to state a case; that the Inquiry was provided for under Section 11 of the Act of 1888, and that, therefore, provision 63 did not apply. The County Authority approached the Queen's Bench Division themselves, with the result that the Court held that the Local Government Board must proceed under Section 63. The effect of this decision was that the Local Government Board must appoint an arbitrator, which was a most expensive proceeding; and that they might be compelled to state a case. It also prevented the Local Government Board from proceeding by way of local inquiry, which undoubtedly appeared, from the Debates on the Act of 1888, to be the most popular and economical proceeding. It was with the object of amending the provisions of the Act of 1888, thus interpreted by the Law Courts, that the Bill was introduced. The second clause gave the Bill a retrospective effect in regard to decisions that had already been given where the Local Government Board had acted as arbitrator.
§ *LORD THRINGsaid, the Bill was more important than appeared to the County Councils. In the Act of 1888 there were 14 different cases stated as subject to arbitration, and the language used in respect to the modes in which those cases were to be determined was expressed in as many different forms as the cases themselves. Some cases were to be decided by the Local Government Board and other cases by arbitration of the Local Government Board. In a particular instance, a case was determined by the Local Government Board on the report of their officer, but on the matter being brought into the Court of Queen's Bench the Court ruled that it should have been determined, not on the report of an officer of the Local Government Board, but by an arbitrator appointed by the Local Government Board. He would give no 320 opinion as to whether that ruling was right or wrong; but it was very important to County Councils. The County Councils did not for a moment complain of the Local Government Board or their officers, nor did they wish to discredit the mode in which the Board did their business. But the County Councils complained that the section of the Act of 1888, declaring that an Urban Authority might repair its main roads, and that the County Council must contribute towards the maintenance of those main roads, had caused them an extrordinary amount of useless expense. The section provided that the County Council was to make a bargain with the Urban Authority as to the money it was to pay; but when it was making its bargain the County Council had not the slightest idea what it had to pay, because the Urban Authority now and then claimed not only for the whole of its footpaths, but for the improvements of the footpaths and so forth, and the cases decided by the Local Government Board gave no information as to the principles on which such bargains should be made. It was a reasonable request that there should be some means of knowing on what grounds these arbitrations were to proceed. The technical objection could be raised that arbitrators did not under ordinary circumstances give their reasons; but that had nothing to do with these decisions, which were not arbitrations but were judicial decisions. What was asked was that the Local Government Board should give the reasons for arbitration or should allow parties to obtain from the Board or by appeal the general grounds on which arbitrators were to proceed. This was a reasonable request, because a large amount of money was uselessly expended in quarrels upon these matters between county councils and urban authorities. They were entitled to be assisted in construing the most unintelligible procedure ever introduced into an Act of Parliament.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)could not help advising the noble Lord who represented the Local Government Board not to give a hasty answer on such a subject without considering what might be the effect of the answer on the original Statute.
LORD HARRISsaid he understood the noble Lord wished him to represent to the Local Government Board the wish that, in deciding cases, it should either give reasons for its decisions, or else it should lay down principles which would enable disputing bodies to settle differences for themselves. He would be happy to make that representation; but he did not know whether the Board had sufficient experience of the working of this clause to be able to lay down guiding principles, although it would obviously be an economical proceeding, for a great deal of money was wasted in carrying disputes into the courts.
§ Read 2a, according to Order; and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Tuesday next.