§ Mr. CASSELasked the President of the Local Government Board whether at a public local inquiry held on the 8th December, in connection with the appeal of Mr. Arlidge from a closing order made by the Hampstead Borough Council, none of the witnesses who gave evidence were sworn; whether it was the practice to swear witnesses at such local inquiries; whether the inspector had power to administer an oath; and whether he would consider the advisability of changing a procedure under which reports were made by the inspectors upon unsworn testimony, and a decision was given by the Board upon the inspectors' reports, which were treated as confidential, and which the accused was not allowed to see?
§ The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns)I am aware that at a public local inquiry held on the 8th December in regard to the appeal of Mr. Arlidge against the refusal of the Hampstead Borough Council to determine a closing order the witnesses were not sworn. It is not the usual practice at such inquiries to put the witnesses on oath, as it is not found necessary to do so. The inspector has (as he stated at the inquiry) power to administer an oath, and would, in accordance with the Board's instructions, do so in any case where the circumstances appeared to him to render that course desirable. The point was raised and expressly waived by Mr. Arlidge's solicitor, Mr. Rubinstein. I am not aware of any ground for changing the procedure.