LOCAL REFERENDUMS (Hansard, 13 March 1998)

§ Mr. Öpik
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 97, in clause 14, page 5, line 34, leave out from 'force' to end of line 35 and insert 'upon the making of an order by the Secretary of State which shall be made by statutory instrument and shall not be made unless a draft has been approved by each House of Parliament.'.

§ Mr. Öpik
An earlier point of order cast aspersions on the reasons of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) for not voting in favour of the Northern Ireland changes. I take a more charitable view. At an early stage in the debate, the hon. Gentleman said that he was willing to take our position on board, and he eventually abstained. That shows that he changed his mind twice owing to the merits of the debates that he heard.

§ Mr. McNamara
Is it possible that his mind was changed by the fact that none of those who said how keenly they felt about the matter, such as the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), could be bothered to refer it to the Maryfield secretariat, which deals with precisely such matters affecting Northern Ireland citizens that the British Government might be acting on? The Unionists had a perfect opportunity to put all their grievances to the secretariat.

§ Mr. Öpik
No. I wish to point out that, assuming those in favour of the Bill are not playing games, the hon. Member for Worcester has himself shown the importance of having a deep and considered debate on the issues involved. That is why we propose local referendums. They would ensure that justice was done if hunting were to be banned. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I wish to point out to the House that it is unfair to the hon. Gentleman speaking if so many conversations are taking place.

§ Mr. Öpik
I thank you for exercising control, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I take a positive view of the conversations taking place. I believe that my earlier comments aroused such excitement that Members are conducting an informal referendum among themselves 897 and trying to predict the matters that I will raise. I thank hon. Members, especially Labour Members, for their evident support in word and deed.
My first point is about the importance of the democratic mandate. We have heard many times from the hon. Member for Worcester and his colleagues that there is a democratic mandate for his Bill and that that should be sufficient to carry it through the House.

§ Mr. Andrew Lansley ( South Cambridgeshire)
I apologise if I anticipate a point that the hon. Gentleman will address later in his speech, but he referred to referendums to be held locally. Having read the new clause, I am not clear what is meant by "local" in this context. The relationship between democratic mandates and the definition of a locality is very important.

§ Mr. Öpik
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and I shall return to it later, because one important aspect of holding local referendums would be the need to establish their geographical extent.
We have heard many times today—and in Committee—that there is an overwhelming feeling that the Bill should be passed and that fox hunting should be banned. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), who is unfortunately not in his place at the moment, claimed that 75 per cent. of the United Kingdom population support the Bill. [Interruption.] I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, who is present, but he appears to have promoted himself to the Front Bench and that is why I did not see him. His statistic means that 25 per cent. of the population, or 15 million people, are opposed to the Bill. Let us think about the consequences of that. Either we are to believe that those 15 million people support barbaric acts and should be prevented from doing so by the moral majority, or we could postulate that those 15 million people represent a sizeable—and, more to the point, reasonable—group of the British population with a genuine right to expect their views to be heard.

§ Mr. Corbyn
Before the hon. Gentleman pursues that argument any further, can he tell the House what precedent exists for national legislation on a national welfare issue to be the subject of local referendums? We have just had a debate about foxes crossing the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. What does the hon. Gentleman propose to do about foxes that escape from a hunting area into a non-hunting area, when the hounds, the horses and, possibly, the huntsmen are unaware of the county, parish or district boundaries?

§ Mr. Öpik
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is a key problem and I shall return to the question. I wish to correct him on one point, because it is not right to say that the Bill is a matter of national welfare. If we were debating whether to allow sick foxes to avail themselves of the national health service, it would be a welfare question, but the Bill is a moral issue. It is about the rights and wrongs of our treatment of animals. Anyone who believes that the Bill is about whether we should kill foxes is wildly off the mark. It is not about that because all three political parties established a long time ago that they accept the need for foxes to be culled; it is about process, about the most humane way of culling them. It is legitimate to have such a debate, and completely correct 898 for hon. Members to establish where to draw the arbitrary line between acceptable and unacceptable countryside pastimes and ways of controlling the fox population.
I regret that debate in the House and in Committee has deviated from the core question of process. There is a crying need for the public to participate in an informed debate that focuses on the question in hand: what processes should be regarded as acceptable and humane in a modern society? That question is the core of our request that local people's views be canvassed.
The key issue is local circumstances. Foxes are not negotiators, and there is no quid pro quo: they do not say, "If you don't hunt us in such and such a way, we won't eat your chickens." To a fox, a chicken coop is the equivalent of a run-through fast food takeaway. Foxes take the easiest route to feeding themselves and their dependants, and that includes taking chickens and lambs at will. I must thank the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole, the cheeky chappie, for sharing his wisdom and wit with an all-party group earlier today.

§ Mr. Spring
The hon. Gentleman is correct about the activities and behaviour of foxes. They take the lives of chickens or any sort of bird without eating what they have killed.

§ Mr. Öpik
Killer foxes, as anyone with countryside experience knows, might kill 18 chickens and take only one for food which, aside from being unfair to the British chicken population, is a great inconvenience to people who raise chickens for economic reasons.

§ Mr. Corbyn
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Öpik
I shall give way to the increasingly excited hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Corbyn
I am not excited, but puzzled. Many people, including me, keep chickens. It is incumbent on them to lock the chickens up at night so that foxes cannot eat them. That is a well-known fact, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will address it.

§ Mr. Öpik
I must be cautious and not deviate too far, but I can already imagine that in a year or two a private Member's Bill will call for the liberation of chickens that have been locked up as a result of the draconian action proposed by the hon. Gentleman. More seriously, his remark underlines the philosophical inconsistency of the Bill. Why should chickens suffer because foxes are allowed to roam free? Chickens would undoubtedly prefer a happy free-range and unincarcerated life.
The assumption that chicken farmers can build effective cages ignores the fact that farmers do not think that they should construct monstrous cages around the countryside. Many hon. Members buy free-range eggs. If farmers choose to raise free-range chickens that can run happily around—

§ Mr. Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Does the new clause deal with referendums or with chickens and foxes? Would chickens and foxes vote in the referendums?

Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is allowed to express himself. He is within the scope of the new clause; I would not allow him to discuss these matters otherwise.

§ Mr. Öpik
I have veered into a debate on chickens because hon. Members have raised some serious and 899 genuine concerns about the degree to which we should incarcerate chickens in the interest of fox freedom. I shall return to the point about a referendum in a moment. The questions that have been raised about chickens underline the massive list of unresolved questions that relate to the inconsistencies of the Bill.

§ Mr. Corbyn
The hon. Gentleman has expressed deep concern about the activities of foxes in eating other animals. Is he calling for the extermination of all foxes or does he propose the continued breeding of foxes to enable hunts to go around hunting them? That is a matter of some concern to many of us.

§ Mr. Öpik
Once again, I believe that I am seeing the beginnings of an all-party committee that may like to pose the questions that I should like to have debated in referendums around the parishes. The sort of questions that the hon. Gentleman asks relate directly to the unresolved questions that have arisen in the past three months since the Standing Committee first sat.
You would be correct, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in preventing me from entering into a wider diatribe about the number of foxes that we should permit around the United Kingdom. I am here to debate not the rights and wrongs of having hundreds of thousands of foxes but a process by which local people can decide the issue for themselves.
I wish to make some progress. Let me move on to what may seem a subsidiary point but is in my view the central point with regard to local circumstances. We all know that local farms, especially small farms, are in crisis. They genuinely suffer significant economic hurt when a fox takes lambs, especially during the lambing season. Let us be in no doubt and let me say again for the record—I am sure that farmers who avidly read Hansard in their spare time will nod approvingly when they hear this—that foxes take lambs. They take lambs especially in hilly and inaccessible areas such as Montgomeryshire, but they take lambs throughout Britain. That is an economic cost to farmers. If we ignore the local circumstances that I describe, we must recognise that we are costing farmers money.

§ Mr. Gray
I am grateful to my hon. Friend—I call him my hon. Friend today. Is he aware of the detailed research by Cambac Associates in my constituency, a leading pig breeding research organisation in the United Kingdom, into the concept of outdoor farrowing, of which many people, especially Labour Members, are strongly in favour, believing it to be kinder to the pigs, although not all of us would necessarily agree with them? Is he aware that that organisation is rapidly coming to the conclusion that the more outdoor farrowing there is, the more piglets will be lost because foxes hang around the outdoor farrowing pens and eat the piglets as they are born?

§ Mr. Öpik
I was not aware of that, but I am all too aware of the costs to smallholders and sheep farmers. They have repeatedly shown me not only the cost in their balance books but the corpses of animals killed by foxes. Let us be in no doubt. There is an economic cost to preventing farmers from controlling foxes as they see fit.

§ Dr. Doug Naysmith (Bristol, North-West)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware of further research at Bristol 900 university—an institution that he knows well—which concedes that foxes take the occasional lamb, but which, having studied the matter fully, concludes that farmers could protect their lambs by better husbandry and in many other ways, and that foxes play a small part in deaths of lambs?

§ Mr. Öpik
I have heard many figures and statistics bandied about in the past three months. One reason why I have joined the hon. Members for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) in setting up the Middle Way Group is that we need to have a level playing field in these debates. Otherwise, my referendum proposals are pointless.

§ Dr. Naysmith
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Öpik
So I welcome the contribution that the hon. Gentleman has made—

§ Dr. Naysmith
rose—

§ Mr. Öpik
Well, I—

§ Dr. Naysmith
The research was performed by Professor Stephen Harris—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Please be seated. The hon. Gentleman should not intervene unless he has the agreement of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik)—[Interruption.] Order. I think that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire sat down out of politeness.

§ Mr. Öpik
Indeed. Courtesy is my middle name. I apologise if I misled the hon. Gentleman into thinking that I wished to enter into a dialogue about statistics.

Mr. Michael J. Foster
Further to the point that my hon. Friend made about the research carried out by Bristol university, I should make the hon. Gentleman aware of the exact statistics on the number of sheep and lamb losses so that there is no confusion in his mind: 40 per cent. of lambs die through abortion or stillbirth; 30 per cent. through exposure and starvation; 20 per cent. through disease; 5 per cent. through congenital defects; and 5 per cent. through misadventure and predation, including by dogs and foxes. Clearly the amount lost through fox predation is small. Should not the farmers for whom the hon. Gentleman cares so dearly look at the other reasons why lambs die?

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind that the new clause is about referendums.

§ Mr. Öpik
On this occasion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am more grateful for your intervention than words can say.
Let me steer a course back to the core of the debate. The 5 per cent. cited by the hon. Member for Worcester is one in 20, which is a large attrition rate in any industry, certainly in farming. His statistics and the fact that, 901 yet again, we are wrangling about numbers underline the need for a clear and agreed statistical base before we proceed with the proposals for referendums.
Farmers in Montgomeryshire would be grateful for a referendum because in some areas the attrition rate is between 10 and 15 per cent. It is simply not good enough to say that, because the national average—I am using the hon. Gentleman's figures—is 5 per cent. we need not worry about areas that are already on their knees owing to the rural crisis and the deep recession that they are experiencing, which will be exacerbated. I heard no suggestion of compensation for the 5 per cent. attrition rate.

§ Mr. Lansley
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Öpik
I shall give way, but I hope that these will be brief interventions, as I want to bring my remarks to a close.

§ Mr. Lansley
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Local referendums would lead to distinctly different provision across the country, and some farmers would be adversely affected by not being able to have hunts on their land to relieve fallen stock and to keep down the fox population. Others would also be badly affected if the provisions of the Bill were imposed on their areas.

§ Mr. Öpik
I shall immediately give way to the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and then move on.

§ Mr. Greenway
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. May I bring him back to the 15 million to which he referred? Is it his view that, in parts of the country—in his constituency as in mine—a substantial majority in some parishes are opposed to the Bill because it affects their livelihoods? Is that what he is saying?

§ Mr. Öpik
Absolutely. I know that to be a fact. That is at the heart of why I propose that we should look forward to a referendum.
If the hon. Member for Worcester genuinely recognises the importance of having a democratic mandate to implement the proposals, he should recognise the importance of acknowledging the outcome of that democratic mandate in a local area or parish, even if it goes against his preferred outcome. Whatever our differences in the House, I do not for a moment question that the hon. Gentleman is committed to the democratic process—and if he is a committed democrat, he should be willing to stand by the outcome of local referendums.
As I have said, 15 million people—to use the statistics of the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole—oppose the Bill. I speculate that they are concentrated in the countryside, and almost certainly in the areas where the predation problem is greatest. I am in no doubt that the overwhelming majority of people in Montgomeryshire, mid-Wales and many other areas oppose the Bill because they believe that it has a special impact on them. That is where the referendum comes in, which is why the hon. Member for Worcester should not 902 be afraid of the proposal. It will ultimately enable him to advance the arguments, which he believes to be so strong, at local level so that local people can decide whether they agree with them.
Let us be in no doubt that there is a debate to be had. The referendum is not a pointless or empty vessel, because so many of the questions were not even answered in Standing Committee. I asked numerous questions about the Bill's philosophical foundations, but they were not answered once. [Laughter.] I hear laughter from Labour Members, so I shall give an example of the sort of debate that has led me to believe that a public referendum is necessary.
On 17 December, there was an exchange between the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole and me. He was saying that there was evidence to show that mammals experience pain and that that could be shown statistically. I said: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that similar data exist on fish? The hon. Gentleman replied: Fish are not the subject of the Bill. There is evidence that cold-blooded animals do not feel pain in the same way as mammals. So far, so good. At that point, the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) said: Fish are not mammals. Then it all fell apart, because the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole said: I realise that—at least they are not yet."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 17 December 1997; c. 39.] I knew that I would be serving on the Committee for three months; the hon. Gentleman seemed to be thinking of a time frame approaching 500 million years. I fully acknowledge the wit and wisdom that he has contributed to the Committee, and I do not say that he has not made a valuable contribution to the debate, but I wanted to show to the public and to the House that we need to have a sensible debate where we do not talk in those terms.

§ Mr. Garnier
I do not wish the hon. Gentleman to be detained by the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), but will he explain why he believes that the parish is the best unit in which to have the referendum? Other new clauses have been tabled, but not selected, which deal with districts and counties. Will the hon. Gentleman address his mind to those?

§ Mr. Öpik
I shall return to the problems highlighted by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but I shall first finish my point.
The core of the referendum debate would have to centre on finding a philosophical justification for banning hunting as described in the Bill, because it is a moral issue. The referendum might want to address four key matters. The first relates to suffering—to what extent we should prevent suffering in the animal kingdom and to what extent that objective is achieved by banning hunting with hounds.

§ Mr. Cawsey
I thank all hon. Members for their continual reference to Brigg and Goole, which has never been as famous as it is now. We like to call it the pig capital of Britain.
I wish to take up the important point on parishes which was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). Parts of north Lincolnshire are 903 unparished, so how would the new clause work in those circumstances? The hon. and learned Gentleman raised an important point and I seek an answer to that question.

§ Mr. Öpik
I shall return to the contribution made by the pig king of Britain, the porcine prince, but I shall first finish my point about which matters the referendum might address. The first relates to suffering. The second involves pest control; I shall not go into that subject in detail now, as it is not the purpose of the new clause to re-run that debate, but I have no doubt that there is a genuine, sensible and rational debate on pest control to be had with those affected by the Bill.
I imagine that, in the heart of Birmingham, most people would feel that pest control is not an issue, whereas in the heart of Wales it would be.

§ Mr. Paterson
I thank the hon. Gentleman, whose constituency borders mine, for giving way. This morning, without notice, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) doubted the veracity of a statement that I made about matters around Lake Vyrnwy in Montgomeryshire, concerning pest control and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. I talked to Mr. Einian Evans—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is not going to get away with that in an intervention.

§ Mr. Paterson
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What is the protocol on this matter? This morning, the hon. Member for Worcester intervened on a speech by the Minister. He gave no warning. He said that he doubted the veracity of what I said, which was a direct quotation from a constituent of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). I did not intervene on the Minister, as I did not think at the time that the intervention of the hon. Member for Worcester was relevant to the new clause discussed by the Minister. I just wanted to clear my name—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. It is a matter for debate, but the hon. Gentleman was seeking to get in on an intervention, and that is not the way to go about clearing his name, as he puts it.

§ Mr. Öpik
So much for pest control. I shall move on quickly.
The third question—that of natural processes—also came up in Committee. Is there a case for restoring natural processes in the countryside that necessitates banning certain types of fox control process?
The fourth question is the more general one of animal rights. That is so nebulous that we cannot start on it now, but I acknowledge—I hope that all hon. Members, whatever their opinions on the Bill, do so—that there is a direct link between the rights of animals, whether they be domestic, livestock, pets or wild, and the Bill. I have said—again I summarise—that there have not been proper or sufficiently deep debates on the subject during the Bill's passage.
Penultimately, I shall respond to two questions which have been asked: why new clause 21 chooses parishes as the geographical unit and whether the foxes recognise parish boundaries and abide by them.
904 To answer the first question, perhaps we should have given a wider spread of geographical areas, not just parishes. There is a strong case for suggesting that the areas covered by the Welsh assembly, the Scottish Parliament and—if there is one—a Northern Ireland assembly should be the geographical areas for a referendum. I fully accept that, and I acknowledge that there may be other boundaries, but I am advancing the principle that local groupings, local geographies, to a wider or narrower extent, should be entitled to take that decision.

§ Mr. Lansley
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for seeking to answer the question that I asked in an intervention, but, as he is moved the motion, perhaps I may explore what the new clause is intended precisely to mean. It appears to be intended to apply the disapplication of the Bill to parishes, but by reference to a local referendum. Am I to understand from the hon. Gentleman, therefore, that the use of the adjective "local" simply implies that the referendum takes place within that parish, or is the locality referred to wider than the parish?

§ Mr. Öpik
The hon. Gentleman understands correctly that, naturally, the referendum must be within the same geographical boundaries as the enforcement or lifting of the ban. However, I accept that we might have drafted the new clause slightly better.
I move on to the bigger problem, which was raised earlier—whether foxes can respect borders. As in the previous debate, this is a difficult problem with our proposals. Foxes are not good geographers. In fact, in the previous debate I was thinking that, in these tense times in Northern Ireland, many people are debating the meaning of borders, and some of the greatest minds in Northern Irish politics have tried to debate what a border means. I include the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) in that category.
That debate has taken decades, and I can hardly expect a fox to take a split-second decision, in the blink of an eye, on the location of a boundary crossing a field, especially when it is pursued by hounds. In fact, if there was a fox that was capable of doing that in Northern Ireland, not only would it be reasonable to ban the hunting of that fox, but that fox could reasonably expect to be appointed Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. My point casts no aspersions on the current Secretary of State, but underlines the difficulty of defining borders.
The issue is, to what extent is it meaningful to have a referendum in parish A, which bans fox hunting, and another in parish B, which does not? My only response is that there is likely to be a pattern of banning or protecting it. I expect that large parts of the countryside would vote against banning fox hunting, and that cities and urban areas would favour such a ban. There would also be grey areas, which would probably cause the most difficulty.

§ Mr. Gray
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I agree that, if particular parishes were able to ban fox hunting, we might end up with a curious patchwork of some parishes banning fox hunting and others not. That might make it difficult to control foxes; therefore, it might have been better had the new clause been in respect of counties rather than parishes. None the 905 less, does the hon. Gentleman accept that a pack of hounds is always under the control of the master and that the meet would be held in such a place—[Laughter.] The fact that Labour Members are laughing reveals the depth of their ignorance about hunting. As a pack of hounds is constantly under control, it might be possible to confine it within a parish or district boundary.

§ Mr. Öpik
I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point. Nevertheless, hounds occasionally run off and there is a genuine problem in relation to facilitating the administration of the boundaries.

§ Dan Norris (Wansdyke)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I was puzzled to hear him refer to the need for a referendum. I cannot understand the need for that, so soon after a general election which produced such an overwhelming result. I certainly stood for Parliament on the basis of supporting a ban on hunting and consequently received the biggest increase in the Labour vote in the south-west.
I was also surprised to hear the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) say that the hounds were always under the control of the huntsmen. That is absolute nonsense. He should know that, only a week or two ago, exactly the opposite happened in his own county: the hounds ran out of control and many local people complained. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not read his own local newspapers.

§ Mr. Öpik
I have already addressed the hon. Gentleman's second point, and I have some sympathy with him. Of course hounds sometimes run off. They always come back eventually, but that does not mean that they will not impinge on the boundary of another parish. Having said that, they would have to be very close to a parish boundary for that to occur.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point on whether there was a mandate to such an extent that referendums were unnecessary, he may be shocked to learn that the Government did not win 659 seats—

§ Mr. Cawsey
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Öpik
I shall in a moment, as I am always intrigued to know what the porcine prince has to say.
Many constituencies simply did not support the Government's position. I remind the hon. Member for Wansdyke (Dan Norris) that the Government's position was not to ban fox hunting, but simply to allow a free vote on the subject, and, to their credit, they have facilitated the achievement of at least that early electoral promise. Whatever one may think about the hon. Member for Worcester, he has provided the Government with a genuine vehicle to fulfil that electoral requirement.

§ Mr. Cawsey
I thank the hon. Gentleman for yet a further description of my position in Brigg and Goole. Given that he has made a long speech with a wide context, can we assume that, like his speech, he supports the right to roam?

§ Mr. Öpik
I would be immediately ruled out of order if I were to embark on a diatribe or any other comment 906 on that point. In the interests of honesty, I believe that it should be based on voluntary arrangements, but that has nothing to do with the debate on the new clause.

§ Mr. David Maclean ( Penrith and The Border)
In respect of the new clause and the Government's position, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the article in Animal Action on 10 March, in which the Prime Minister said: I will be there to vote against hunting. It ought to be banned.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. That has nothing to do with the new clause.

§ Mr. Eric Forth ( Bromley and Chislehurst)
rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The intervention had nothing to do with the new clause, Mr. Forth. I have made my case.

§ Mr. Öpik
I agree with the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole that the debate has been wide ranging. I see him racing off, presumably to set up an informal referendum of his own in the land of the pig.
We have had a pretty constructive debate on new clause 21. There have been sensible and reasonable contributions, which add value to the quality of the debate. That is a far cry from much of the debate in Standing Committee, which was lamentably destructive and went nowhere. Debate of the kind that we have had for the past 40 minutes should be continued through the referendum process which I propose.
I have acknowledged that there are some problems, but, if we accept the principle that we live in a democratic society and that fox hunting is a moral issue, there is every reason to move away from dictating what local people around the UK should believe and do, and for allowing them the responsibility to make that decision for themselves.
The middle way is concerned not with winning a victory, but with finding a solution. The hon. Members for Vauxhall and for Mid-Worcestershire and I are inviting contributions from all sides, including the hon. Member for Worcester and the League Against Cruel Sports, so that we can have the kind of referendum debate that I outlined. If we trust the public to participate directly in the debate, we will not have a slanging match or yah-boo politics. People will at long last be able to express their views on a fundamental matter of great concern to the countryside.

Mr. Michael J. Foster
I have read new clause 21 with interest, and listened with patience to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) trying to sell it to the House.
The new clause is neither well written nor technically competent, compared with a new clause written by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier).

§ Mr. Luff
That is because I drafted new clause 21, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) is a lawyer.

Mr. Foster
Usually, I would defend constituents of mine, but in this case I shall make an exception.
907 The new clause states that the hunt will pay for the organisation of the ballot, but it makes no reference to who will organise it. Should we assume that the hunt would organise the ballot, as well as pay for it? Imagine the question mark that would be placed over the democratic outcome of the referendum, if the hunt both organised and paid for it. There is no reference to whether it would be a secret ballot, whether there would be postal votes, how often the ballot would be taken, or for how long it would be binding. Because there are so many flaws in the new clause, I urge the House to vote against it.
We do not need to bother with local referendums. We already know what British public opinion supports.

§ Mr. Paterson
The hon. Gentleman is replying to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). This morning, in an intervention, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) queried the activities of the Berwyn hounds around Lake Vyrnwy.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must try some other time. He will not get away with that today.

Mr. Foster
We have always said, and no one who disagrees with our argument has denied, that overwhelmingly British public opinion is against hunting wild mammals with dogs.

§ Mr. Garnier
I wish to explore the hon. Gentleman's point a little further. I think that he said that, as a result of the general election, we are aware of overwhelming public opinion—[Interruption.] He claimed that the overwhelming majority of the United Kingdom population opposes hunting.
In the event of a referendum—I agree that there are difficulties with parish referendums—we may face the same situation as occurred with the Welsh assembly referendum. A tiny majority of people support the Welsh assembly, but that majority support was built up by county or constituency areas. Will the hon. Gentleman apply his mind to the evidence behind his assertion, which may be undermined if a referendum—rather than a general election—were conducted across the nation?

Mr. Foster
My understanding of British public opinion is derived not simply from the general election result but from the well-established opinion polling that has gone on.

§ Mr. Gray
rose—

Mr. Foster
I should like to make a little more progress.

§ Mr. Gray
My point is directly related to the credence we give to polls. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the recent MORI polls that showed that 76 per cent. of people favour the return of the death penalty, and 55 per cent. believe that gays should not have the same rights as 908 heterosexuals? Does the hon. Gentleman subscribe to those views? Does he believe, therefore, that MORI works?

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. That point is a little wide.

Mr. Foster
My initial response is that, if the hon. Gentleman is so concerned, he should introduce a private Member's Bill on the subject.
I must address the point about findings regarding countryside issues, particularly with reference to hunting with dogs. I refer to an article that appeared in The Daily Telegraph—I confess that I occasionally read that newspaper, usually to find out whether Quentin Letts has said anything nice about me, although I am yet to find such an article—entitled "Propaganda victory for country march". I am sure that Conservative Members will agree that they may have scored a propaganda victory—I see a few nods of agreement from the other side. Respondents were asked about new developments in rural areas and existing towns and cities. An overwhelming number of people—some 76 per cent.—said that housing should be built on brown-field sites or in towns and cities.

§ Mr. Lansley
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that trading statistics from national opinion polls is not relevant to this new clause? Whatever its difficulties might be in practice, the new clause is designed to allow the expression of opinion in local areas. The hon. Gentleman should address the question of the balance of opinion in areas where hunts take place.

Mr. Foster
If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I shall come to that point very shortly.

§ Mr. Savidge
rose—

Mr. Foster
I shall give way one last time.

§ Mr. Savidge
On the subject of expressions of overwhelming public opinion, has my hon. Friend noticed that the two causes at which the Tories have directed their most prolonged and determined efforts at frustrating public opinion—hunting with hounds and poverty pay—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. We are considering only the clause before us. The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss any other matter.

Mr. Foster
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is important that we take note of referendum results, because at present they provide the only evidence available of British public opinion in both rural and urban areas.

§ Mr. Hawkins
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster
I said that I have taken my last intervention.
I am pleased to see the name of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) on this proposed new clause. It would appear that he has had a sudden conversion to the benefits of a referendum. The House might be interested to learn that the Worcester Referendum Society conducted a referendum in his 909 constituency in 1993. That opinion poll found that some 72 per cent. of people within the old city boundary wanted to see a ban on fox hunting.
Hon. Members will retort that that includes the city of Worcester, so it is bound to be urban-dominated. However, if we take a referendum that looks at just the rural parts—the same rural parts that gave the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire the justification for moving his seat—[Interruption.] It is fair to point out that, when the hon. Gentleman moved his seat, he did so on the basis that a large proportion of his votes went to a new boundary—the Wychavon aspect of the old city of Worcester boundary. Of the 50.2 per cent. who took part in the referendum, 62.2 per cent. were in favour of a ban on hunting, while 32 per cent. wanted hunting to continue.

§ Mr. Nick St. Aubyn (Guildford)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster
No, I said that I will allow no more interventions.
A referendum in a rural area where hunts take place came up with that result, yet the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire professes to be pro-hunt. Conservative Members should listen to voters and the results of referendums, and take note of public opinion.

Several hon. Members
rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman has said that he will not give way.

Mr. Foster
I am pleased to see Conservative Members' conversion to referendums as an indication of what people in rural areas want. A majority of two to one support a ban on hunting, and I look forward to having the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire with us the next time we walk through the Lobby.

§ Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire)
Before your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I had thought that the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) was going to give way. Had he done so, I would have said that he was entirely right about that referendum.
The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that he often misses out other bits of the truth that do not suit him. That referendum was organised by some passionate anti-Europeans who sought to secure evidence for their position against Europe. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to be bound by the outcome of that aspect of the referendum, he should look at the other questions asked in the referendum, and decide whether he is bound by those as well. It was a multi-question referendum on a range of issues, although I concede that the figures he quoted were accurate.

§ Mr. Maginnis
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that referendums are dangerous when the facts are not honestly put before the public? In the new clause that was not selected, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) was suggesting a measure that would have led to the extermination rather than the control of foxes. If the public had to choose between those two, they would have an entirely different opinion.

§ Mr. Luff
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman.
910 My motive in tabling this new clause was to encourage at parish council level the informed debate which has conspicuously failed to take place nationally. The debate has been dominated by those with money—the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the League Against Cruel Sports—which have spent a fortune deceiving people about the reality of hunting. Referendums conducted locally would lead to intelligent and informed debate between those who know and trust each other, and would lead to some facts emerging, rather than to blind prejudice.

§ Mr. Öpik
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the League Against Cruel Sports and other organisations that oppose hunting have an important role to play in setting out both sides of the argument?

§ Mr. Luff
Yes. I hope that, if the Middle Way Group's proposals succeed, we shall listen carefully to what the RSPCA and the League Against Cruel Sports have to say. I hope that they will be prepared to engage in that intelligent debate.

§ Mr. Hawkins
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) would not give way to many Conservative Members who sought to intervene to answer some of the points that he was making.
Does my hon. Friend agree that what was interesting about the 300,000 people who joined the countryside march was that almost every banner and placard showed their strong opposition to the view of the hon. Member for Worcester? The Labour party used to believe that it represented minority rights. Even if the hon. Gentleman is right—I do not agree with him—that he represents the majority, has not the Labour party abandoned its traditions?

§ Mr. Luff
I entirely agree. Minorities have rights, too—something the supporters of the Bill often choose to ignore. At a local level, we could have an intelligent debate. If a parish voted against hunting, all well and good. If it voted for it, that would be good also, but we should give people that choice.

§ Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot)
I am slightly concerned by my hon. Friend's line of argument. It is no better if a referendum is held in a confined area—whether that is a parish or a county—if the rights of law-abiding, intelligent people with a perfect understanding of moral issues are rubbed out by the tyranny of the majority. Surely that is what is so offensive about the Bill—it seeks to assert a moral superiority over ordinary, decent people. I do not believe that my hon. Friend's new clause would help to get that message across.

§ Mr. Luff
I make no secret of the fact that I do not wish the Bill as it stands to succeed, but the House must proceed—even now, at the eleventh hour—on the basis that there is a chance that it could scrape through to the other place. If that is the case, we must make sure that it is as unexceptionable and inoffensive as possible.
I dislike referendums, and I stand by the things I said in response to the referendum alluded to by the hon. Member for Worcester. I do not like them in principle, but there have to be exceptions to rules. Desperate diseases 911 sometimes call for desperate remedies, and that is the situation we are in. I stand with Edmund Burke's famous remarks to the electors of Bristol. He said, in respect of constituents and their representatives, that their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion high respect; their business unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions to theirs; and, above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interests to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living…Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion. That goes to the heart of the debate and the new clause.
I had harsh words for the hon. Member for Worcester last week, as some of his remarks were intemperate, but this week he has contributed helpfully to the debate. I am grateful to him for that, and for the spirit in which he has done so. However, he once again made great play of the use of opinion polls. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) made the obvious point that he picks and chooses his opinion polls, and we do not have the right to do that. The hon. Gentleman refused to give an answer on capital punishment. If this House felt bound by opinion polls, it would vote to reintroduce capital punishment—but it has not done so.
We need an opinion poll that really counts—not one in which a complete stranger with a clip board walks up to you in the street and asks whether you are in favour of killing little furry animals. We need an opinion poll where voters are given the chance to express their opinion on a mature and anonymous basis.

§ Mr. St. Aubyn
Does my hon. Friend agree that, when one is approached by a person with a clipboard, one may not hear the question precisely?

§ Mr. Cawsey
Is this why the Tories lost the election?

§ Mr. St. Aubyn
Labour Members would do well to listen to what is being said.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I hope that hon. Members are listening to the debate. If they want to engage in another conversation, they should leave the Chamber. I ask the hon. Gentleman to make his intervention brief.

§ Mr. St. Aubyn
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if a person is asked if he wants to ban the thing he is against, he might pause before agreeing just because he disapproves of it?

§ Mr. Luff
My hon. Friend is right. The House should listen to opinion polls—we are right to do so. But they should be just one of the issues that we should bear in mind in reaching a judgment on an issue. The new clause seeks a better way of reaching a judgment at local level.
I fully concede to the supporters of the Bill that most people in this country are probably vaguely uncomfortable about the principle of hunting. That vague discomfort manifests itself in the opinion polls. A local referendum conducted at parish level would produce a different result. Typically, a small minority who were passionately against hunting would express that view at the ballot box, a much 912 larger group but still a minority who were passionately in favour of hunting would support that view, and a rather larger group would stay at home.

§ Kate Hoey
May I ask my hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hon. Friend!"] The hon. Gentleman and I are associated in an all-party group on the issue. Many people feel that, by supporting the Bill, they will save the fox. Does he agree that that is the greatest fallacy of the Bill, and that, in fact, we will see greater—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) will not respond to that question, because we are talking not about the Bill in its entirety but about a new clause.

§ Mr. Luff
I will not respond, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I respect your ruling. The advantage of local referendums at parish council level, as the new clause suggests, would be to force people to confront the reality in a harsh way. They would be not merely responding to opinion polls in the street, but casting a vote in private and in response to a campaign of fact. The sort of issue that the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) raised would feature large in the debate that led up to a referendum, so it would make for better decision making.

§ Mr. Lansley
When my hon. Friend reflects on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), will he, as the author of the new clause, observe that, at the moment, it disapplies the provisions? In truth, it might be better to present the question to people in terms of whether they want to ban other people from engaging in something that they had previously engaged in legitimately. Although the new clause has merits, it is the other way around, and proposes the disapplication of a general law.

§ Mr. Luff
I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend's point, although I somehow doubt whether, if I had drafted the new clause as he recommends, it would have been acceptable to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or to Madam Speaker, as it would have been seen to go against the spirit of the Bill. I would be happy to draft such an amendment, because I do not agree with the approach adopted by the hon. Member for Worcester, but I doubt whether a clause drafted as my hon. Friend suggests would have been acceptable to the Chair.

§ Mr. Garnier
I agree that the way in which my hon. Friend's new clause has been drafted is to some extent defective. I would draw to his attention my new clause 39, which unfortunately has not been selected for debate, but which might deal with some of the problems that he and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) are facing. My new clause sets out a number of detailed points that are not dealt with in his, and it would have been preferable if he had signed up to my new clause.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. As I have said, I will not allow discussion on new clauses that have not even been selected.

§ Mr. Luff
I understand that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the Bill is to be reported, I hope that it will be with new clause 21 as a part of it and that in another place the 913 defects in the new clause that probably do exist, could be ironed out and the clause improved. I happen to agree with my hon. and learned Friend that his new clause is probably preferable in many ways.

§ Mr. Hawkins
In my hon. Friend's proposals for local referendums, does he agree that one of the concerns that constituents have expressed to me could still be a danger? There is a concern that the more extreme so-called animal rights organisations have, in attempting to obtain evidence to bolster the side of the argument of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) sought to intimidate people to sign up to petitions. I have had complaints about the heavy-handed tactics used by people with clipboards in the street to put people under pressure to sign petitions that they have not wished to sign, but have signed to get away from the animal rights extremists.

§ Mr. Luff
We often hear allegations from the supporters of the Bill that those who support hunting use heavy-handed tactics. Regrettably, in my experience the majority of the heavy-handed tactics have come from its supporters, which makes me pause to think about the merits of the new clause. It may well be that such tactics would be employed in the debate before the referendums, but I hope that, typically in country areas where the debates would take place, that would not be the case.

§ Mr. McNamara
How about those threatened with losing their tied cottages?

§ Mr. Luff
That is the oldest red herring—it is totally untrue, and I will not be dragged down that path.
I was pleased to read of the Prime Minister's strong support for the principle of referenda at local level, and I should have thought that he would have been in the House today to vote, but I expect that he is at Chequers, his tied cottage.

§ Mr. Colvin
I wish that my hon. Friend would get his grammar right. "Referendum" is a gerundive, and the plural is "referendums", not "referenda".

§ Mr. Luff
I think that common usage has changed.
914 In his interesting pamphlet, "Leading the Way: A new vision for local government", the Prime Minister says: it is not just representative democracy that needs to be strengthened. We also need to look at other democratic initiatives that will strengthen community leadership. He talks about what councils can do to achieve that, and says: And the local referendum could become part and parcel of a council's tool kit to help it exercise its leadership function. One does not have to share Conservative Members' reservations on referendums to know that that is what the Labour party seems to be committed to. The Prime Minister was clearly thinking about county and district councils, but I think that the rules—

§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Bill was carried on Second Reading by a very substantial majority, which in our view reflects the feeling in the country. Given that overwhelming majority, is there any protection against the parliamentary vandalism that we have seen throughout the Bill's consideration that could enable it to go through Parliament? [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Let me answer the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman has been here for a long time, and he knows the procedures of the House. That is not a matter for the Chair.

§ Mr. St. Aubyn
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have listened to the three days of debate on the Bill. I have found our discussions very informative; I have learnt a great deal more about the issue, and I want to make points that deserve to be heard.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
That is not a matter for the Chair.