§ Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether there is anything and, if so, what in the rule made by his predecessor with respect to the treatment of offenders who have been committed for an offence not involving dishonesty, cruelty, indecency, or serious violence which is incapable of application to those sentenced to hard labour?
§ Mr. McKENNAThe rules for prisoners sentenced to hard labour provide inter alia, that such prisoners shall for the first month of their sentence be employed in strict separation on some hard bodily or manual labour. This requirement is quite incompatible with the indulgence allowed under my predecessor's rule to certain offenders of the second and third divisions. It is clear that Parliament meant, when it provided for sentence of hard labour, to enable the court to pass a sentence involving severe penal discipline. This intention would be defeated, and the courts deprived of the power given them by Parliament, if the indulgences under the new rules were extended to sentences of hard labour.
§ Lord HUGH CECILWhy does not that apply just as much to other sentences in the second and third divisions?
§ Mr. McKENNABecause Parliament has not laid down similar conditions for sentences in the second and third divisions as for sentences of hard labour.
§ Lord HUGH CECILAre prisoners who are sentenced to hard labour outside the rule which was laid down by the Home Secretary?
§ Mr. McKENNAWhat was laid down in regard to sentences of hard labour would 974 be inconsistent with the rule which was laid down by my right hon. Friend last Session.
§ Lord HUGH CECILWould the right hon. Gentleman point out the inconsistency?
§ Mr. McKENNAI think if the Noble Lord will read the answer I have given, he will see that the conditions laid down in the rule last year are generally inconsistent with the conditions attaching to sentences of hard labour.