§ 29 and 30. Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether Mr. Clifford Allen is at present under punishment in prison; and, if so, the nature of such punishment; (2) whether his attention has been called to the fact that Mr. Clifford Allen is suffering from consumption, a disease which had developed before his first imprisonment; and what steps have been taken to give Mr. Allen the medical treatment and care essential to his condition?
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace)This prisoner has been several times punished for persistent refusal to work, but he is not now under punishment, having been admitted yesterday to the prison hospital. He has been specially examined and it is found that he is not suffering from consumption. He shows no signs of active tubercular disease, or of deterioration as a result of imprisonment, but he is of poor physique and gives a history of debility in childhood which may have had tubercular origin. He has been under close medical observation, and will receive every medical attention which his physical state requires.
§ Mr. WHITEHOUSEIs the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that Mr. Allen contracted a tuberculous disease as the result of his labours in the slums of Manchester and London, before the War, in the public service?
§ Mr. WHITEHOUSEIs not this gentleman being punished again and again for some offence, and is not that very improper and very unjust?
33. Mr. E. HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Prison Commissioners during the last five years have revised or reversed a local decision to punish a prison warder on his appeal; and whether during this period any decision of the Prison Com missioners to punish a warder has been revised or reversed by the Home Secretary for the time being?
§ Mr. BRACEThe decision of a Governor in punishing an officer is frequently revised or reversed by the Commissioners. It is open to the Secretary of State, at any time, to disagree with the decision of the Commissioners, and there are from time to time cases in which at his request the Commissioners reconsider the punishments they propose; but the records of such cases could only be ascertained by prolonged research in the files of the Department.
§ 34. Mr. THOMAS RICHARDSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department in what respect Israel Bern- hardt, of Hull, a conscientious objector, who was sent from the work centre at Wakefield back to his unit, failed to observe the conditions under which he was released from prison?
§ Mr. BRACEShortly after his release from prison this man was sent for employment in a quarry, but within a short time the employer returned him, saying he was unable to get any work out of him. He remained at Wakefield for some time under observation; both his industry and his conduct were unsatisfactory. He was then sent out for employment in a fertilizer factory, but within a few days his employer sent him back on the ground that he was altogether idle. In these circumstances the Committee on 28th March requested the War Office to recall the man to his unit.
§ 38. Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the proceedings at the Cambridge Appeal Tribunal on 4th June in connection with the case of Mr. Reginald Fenn, who had previously been granted exemption on conscientious grounds by the Cambridge borough local tribunal, but whose exemption was appealed against by the military representative on the ground that, having submitted to a medical examination, this was 1274 a proof of his insincerity and was accordingly withdrawn by the Appeal Tribunal; and whether he proposes to take any steps in connection with this matter?