§ Lord H. CAVENDISH - BENTINCKasked the Chief Secretary whether Engineer Newman, of Kilkenny Prison, was put to do heavy manual work at Belfast Prison, and was afterwards certified by the local medical officer and a medical board as physically incapable of such work, owing to an accident sustained in the execution of his duty at Clonmel on 24th November, 1916, but was certified ac quite fit for ordinary duty; whether such heavy manual work is essentially part of the duties of a supervising officer or engineer; whether this engineer has in consequence been reduced to the rank of warder, involving a loss of £1 ls. 2d. per week; and, if these facts are correct, what 659W action does he propose to take to have this matter adjusted?
§ Sir H. GREENWOODWarder Newman was accidentally injured in the discharge of his duty as a tradesman warder, and was, in consequence, pensioned from the service in the year 1916. In the year 1917 he was taken back, as his condition had improved, and he has been employed on ordinary warder's duties since then, occasionally receiving working pay for such artisan duties as his physical condition permitted him to undertake. On the recent creation of the grade of engineer warder it was thought right to place him tentatively in this rank, but as he has been proved to be physically unfit, the Prisons Board have reluctantly been compelled to make him revert to ordinary rank and employ him on warding duties. This officer appears himself to have decided to lift heavy weights on the recent occasion in Belfast, but in any case the Prison Board could not again take the risk or justify the expense of employing a man on work for which he has proved unfitted. While the duties of an engineer warder are partly of a supervising capacity, he must always be available for and physically capable of undertaking manual labour.
§ Mr. GILLISasked the Chief Secretary if he will inquire into the discontent among the staff of the Irish Prisons service relating to methods of promotion and general administration by the General Prisons Board; whether certain promotions have taken place contrary to the terms of the circular dated 9th December last; what are the qualifications possessed by the chief warder of Mountjoy Prison after having spent nearly all his service in the clerical branch; will the promise made to the Prison Officers' Representative Council be carried out with regard to granting the temporary officers an increment after one year's service; why the temporary officers are not granted the usual rest day in certain prisons; and the number of days' duty performed by Chief Warder Fitzgerald during the past 12 months?
§ Sir H. GREENWOODI am not aware that there is any general discontent in the Irish Prisons Service as to the methods of promotion and administration by the Board. All officers are considered as to their suitability for promotion irrespective of the duties which they may be per-660W forming, and this principle was applied in the case of the chief warder at Mount-joy Prison, who possessed the necessary qualifications for the post to which he was promoted, and was considered by the Board the most suitable officer for this appointment. As regards temporary warders, the Prison Officers' Representative Council raised the question of their increments, and the matter was promised consideration. It was found, however, that the grant of increments in such cases would be contrary to general Treasury practice, and therefore could not be sanctioned. A weekly rest day is being granted to temporary warders as far as the exigencies of the service permit. Where such is not possible the warder is entitled to overtime payment. As regards the last part of the question I must protest against the unfounded suggestion made against the General Prisons Board.