HC Deb 16 June 1902 vol 109 cc708-10
MR. CONDON (Tipperary, E.)

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Corr, a prisoner in Clonmel Gaol, sentenced under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act, applied on 16th May to the medical officer for an hour's additional exercise on the ground of ill-health caused by continued confinement in his cell, and that the medical officer refused the application on the ground that Mr. Corr was a hail prisoner and could leave the prison whenever he liked. And, seeing that the governor told the doctor that Mr. Corr could not leave as he had to serve a term of five months with hard labour, running concurrently with the bail sentence, will he say whether it is in accordance with the prison rules that the medical officers of prisons should decline, on the ground stated, to consider what medical treatment may be necessitated by the state of health of prisoners under their charge.

MR. WYNDHAM

The Question is based on a misapprehension of the facts. The prisoner was committed on the 20th of March under a warrant, which imposed, on separate charges, three concurrent terms of imprisonment of one month with hard labour, and, at the expiration of the month, a further term of three months without hard labour, in default of providing bail. That warrant will run out on the 19th July, and Corr continues to be treated under it as a bail prisoner, notwithstanding that on the 15th April he was sentenced under a second warrant to three months with hard labour, concurrent with the sentences in the first warrant. He will have undergone, therefore, when discharged, only one month's imprisonment with hard labour. The medical officer is empowered to recommend an increase of exorcise to a prisoner if satisfied on medical grounds that such is necessary. He was not so satisfied when Corr made the application, and the fact that he was a bail prisoner could not possibly influence his decision in this respect. As a matter of fact, Corr has walked about six miles daily during his hours of exercise.

MR. DILLON

Is it not the fact that the medical officer declined to consider Mr. Corr's application on the ground that he was a bail prisoner?

MR. WYNDHAM

I have stated that the medical officer was unable to extend the period of exercise on medical grounds.

MR. CONDON

Has the right hon. Gentleman inquired of the governor of the prison, in whose presence Mr. Corr was told that his application for extra exercise was refused because he was a bail prisoner. I am a visiting Justice of the gaol, and the man told me so himself.

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order!

MR. CONDON

That point was embodied in my Question.

MR. SPEAKER

The Question has been answered.

MR. CONDON

No, Sir, that portion of my Question was not answered.

MR. SPEAKER

The Question has been answered, and the hon. Member must give notice of any further Question. [Cries of "Order."]

MR. CONDON

I am addressing Mr. Speaker and not you. The Question I am now putting to the Chief Secretary was embodied in the Question I put on the Paper, but was cut out by the clerk at the table without acquainting me with the fact. It is absolutely true.

MR. SPEAKER

As I have said, the Question on the Paper has been answered. That is all I can deal with. If the hon. Gentleman objects to what was done at the table, he should consult me.

MR. CONDON

I shall put the Question down again, and see if you rule it out of order.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

Are the clerks at the table empowered to mutilate Questions without notification to the Member?

MR. SPEAKER

I have answered that question very often. It is the duty of the clerks to see that the Question is in order, and, if it is not, to communicate with the Member if possible. I think they do their very best to do that.

MR. REDDY

Is it right that the clerks at the table—

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The question cannot be debated.