Repatriation of Prisoners Bill [Lords] [Money] (Hansard, 21 May 1984)

§ Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)
I shall be brief and colleagues can go home, because I do not intend to divide the House on an issue which has been raised throughout the passage of the Bill and which I raised many months ago with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
The money resolution gives me an opportunity to raise the point again as it does not seem that the financial effects of the Bill are covered by the text and the explanatory memorandum. In all probability, other expenses will be created by the Bill because there is no statutory requirement on the Home Secretary to refuse to repatriate a terrorist. The extra expense will arise because there might well be extended negotiations between Britain and countries that try to repatriate terrorists whom we have convicted. It is inevitable that some countries will attempt to get their terrorists repatriated. We shall have to resist that.
The Bill states that absolute discretion lies with the Home Secretary, who will have to take account of all the prevailing considerations and the merits of the case. Flexibility is specifically written into the Bill. It is highly dangerous that the Home Secretary can and will be put under pressure time and again. British Governments have been put under pressure to effect a swap. Lonsdale was swapped for Greville Wynne and there is a long list of such examples. It is unreasonable to suppose that the same will not happen again. Additional expense will therefore be incurred by negotiating with and going to countries and the time delays involved. That is my justification for raising the matter.
The essential fact is that the British public will not tolerate the return of terrorists. We now have five Libyans who are being held for terrorist offences in Manchester and London. The Gaddafi regime has arrested two innocent Britons—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker Mr. Paul Dean)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman, but he must stick to the expenses involved. This is a narrow money resolution.

§ Mr. Lawrence
I envisage extra expense being involved in negotiating a blackmail. Money would be saved if there were statutory provision in this Bill to stop the repatriation of terrorists. It would strengthen the backbone of the Home Secretary, who would then have no truck with any expensive negotiation. It is one thing for the Home Secretary to say, "I have a discretion and I shall not give in" and quite another for him to say, "I have no discretion. The law says that I cannot give in in any circumstances."
This matter has been raised often and, so far, the Government have not given way. It should be reconsidered 800 constantly. The Home Secretary needs to be protected against the type of pressures that will be put on him. I urge the Government to reconsider a matter that has been urged by all parties during the passage of the Bill. They should put it beyond doubt that no terrorist will be repatriated because the Bill provides that that shall not occur. That would save money which would otherwise be involved in negotiations and the waste of time.

§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd)
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has used his customary ingenuity to make on the money resolution a point which also applies to the substance of the Bill. No doubt he will have other opportunities to make that point.
I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend has any doubts about the robustness with which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will use the discretion conferred on him by the Bill. My job is simply to say that the terms of the money resolution are widely drawn and provide for any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State for the purpoe of implementing the provisions of the Bill to be paid out of money provided by Parliament.