---

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, in the light of the post-September 11 anti-terrorism laws in place both here and in the United States, how many extraditions have been made in relation to accusations of terrorism; and how many arrests using the European arrest warrant of the extradition treaty have been used in this country for actions that are not crimes in this country?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not have specific details in relation to the arrests not for crimes. I do not know of any in fact, but before I confirm that I shall obtain details and write to the noble Baroness. I can tell the noble Baroness that to date the United Kingdom has received 37 extradition requests from the US that are being considered under the Extradition Act 2003. There have been four surrenders to the US under the new Act and one request has been withdrawn by the United States. The United Kingdom has made two requests to the United States since the introduction of the new legislation. On the other details, I shall happily write to the noble Baroness.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that there will be no change in the existing practice whereby extradition requests from the United States are automatically refused if the person concerned is likely to face a possible death sentence?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can confirm to my noble friend that there has been no
 
12 Jan 2005 : Column 254
 
change in that regard. We do not extradite unless there is an undertaking from the United States that the death penalty will not be applied to any person so extradited. We have no intention whatever of changing that position.

Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, have all the 37 requests from the United States to which the Minister referred been brought under this new measure which came into effect on 1 January, or will some of them be handled under the earlier procedures?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, in answer to a number of previous questions, I have made it absolutely clear that the 2003 Act is not retrospective. It will operate in relation to all the applications received after the Act came into operation. There is no element of retrospection.

Hunting Act 2004: Legal Challenge

Lord Lamont of Lerwick asked Her Majesty's Government

Why the Attorney-General has indicated that they will not oppose injunctions to delay the ban on hunting with dogs coming into force on its due date.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, my right honourable friend Alun Michael made a substantive Statement on this matter in another place yesterday.

The Government will vigorously oppose the Countryside Alliance's current challenge to the legality of the Parliament Act 1949 and hence the Hunting Act 2004. We expect its challenge to fail. The alliance has said that, having failed, it would seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Were that leave to be granted, it would apply also for an injunction to delay the commencement of the Act. The Government will neither support nor oppose that application, but all this is a matter for the courts, and nor does any of this set any precedent or commit the Government to act in any particular way in any subsequent case on this or any other issue.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. If all this is just the legal process grinding on and nothing to do with politics or electoral considerations, why did the Government make an announcement about this matter before Boxing Day? If the Countryside Alliance fails at the first court hearing with its argument that the Parliament Act has been used improperly, are the Government really saying that the Attorney-General is going to stand up in court and say that he is not opposed to any injunction regardless of the time and the delay that will take place? Is it not
 
12 Jan 2005 : Column 255
 
extraordinary that the Government should have used the Parliament Act to ram this Act through both Houses and should then connive in steps to prevent it taking effect?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, on the first point, the Government did not make any announcement before Christmas; some discussions between lawyers somehow appeared in the media. It is not primarily in the Government's interest that that should happen, so one can conjecture why it did. The government announcement was made yesterday by my right honourable friend in another place.

On the substantive point, the challenge is not really about hunting but about the legality of the Parliament Act. In those circumstances, it is important that the constitution is clarified. If there are grounds for appeal, the Government would not feel it proper to oppose anything that stemmed from it. However, I emphasise that it would be a matter for the courts alone, and for neither the Government nor, with respect, this House.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, is not this the political equivalent of Saint Augustine's Prayer: "Oh Lord, make me chaste but not until after the general election"? Having allowed themselves to be saddled with this wretched Bill, are not the Government simply looking for any excuse to delay its implementation?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not know about the noble Lord but unless there is a rather earlier date for the general election, I am not sure whether the Government would wish to exalt people to be chaste until after the general election. It is clear that there is an issue, but I do not believe that the courts will find favour with it. However, were there any doubt, clarity would be important.

The Government are relaxed about the date of commencement; after all, the House of Commons decided on a later date, but this House decided by a free vote to bring it forward.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is not the short answer to the Question on the Order Paper that we were simply trying to be helpful to the hunting community?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure that I would go that far.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, further to that, I do not think that the Minister actually agreed. If the lawyers did not talk about the Hunting Act, what on earth did they talk about and why was the information leaked to the press in the first place?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I said that the information found its way into the press; I do not know how it happened. It was probably more in the interests of the Countryside Alliance than of the Government that it did. Nevertheless, the Government have clarified our position, as I have indicated. The challenge is to the
 
12 Jan 2005 : Column 256
 
validity of the Parliament Act and only consequentially in relation to the Hunting Act. On that constitutional issue it is right for us to defer to the courts.

Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, if the Government had pressed ahead to implement the legislation before the legal issue had been resolved, does the Minister think that that would have won praise from the Opposition?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, in all contexts I fail to receive praise from the Opposition, despite my desperate attempts. On this, I cannot really expect it.

Lord Renton: My Lords, is it too late for the Government to realise that, if hunting is abolished, foxes will suffer terribly, compared with their being got rid of—as they have to be—by being shot or by other means? If foxes are hunted, they are dead within four seconds of hounds closing in. That is a much better way of getting rid of foxes than shooting them, as a result of which they may be wounded and subsequently die of gangrene.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have been over these arguments almost interminably. Parliament has made its position clear. I remind noble Lords, once again, that only 6 per cent of all foxes die as a result of hunting; therefore, other means, especially shooting, are the norm not the exception.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, earlier the Minister said that this issue was not about hunting but about the constitution. Is it not true that the issue is about liberty; that the great British public should surely have the chance at the next election to debate the issue of liberty in relation to this and other measures; and that that would be forwarded by allowing the normal timing of this legislation to proceed?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, it was this House that denied us that opportunity. When I was advocating the position taken in a free vote in the House of Commons for a later date, I said that one of its advantages would be to allow any residual opposition to be expressed through the ballot box. This House chose deliberately and, I am afraid, overwhelmingly, to reject that advice. Therefore, we are in the position whereby, unless the courts decide otherwise, we will implement the legislation on 18 February. This House has itself to blame for that position.

---