The following document from the House of Lord has greatly shocked and frightened me to the extent that I am compelled to request any information that you have in relation to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds using their members in the House of Lords to apply the political agenda of the RSPB to the extent that it influences the law that controls use all.

Dear Sir or Madam,

The following document from the House of Lord has greatly shocked
and frightened me to the extent that I am compelled to request any
The following document from the House of Lord has greatly shocked
and frightened me to the extent that I am compelled to request any
information that you have in relation to the Royal Society for the
Protection of Birds using their members in the House of Lords to
apply the political agenda of the RSPB to the extent that it
influences the law that controls use all.

Could I also see any guideline that you have to control any bias
influence in relation to passing Bills in the various stages in the
House of Commons and the House of Lords?

What do I have to do to request an inquiry into the charitable
status of the RSPB?

Search Help

HANSARD 1803–2005 → 1970s → 1976 → July 1976 → 26 July 1976 → Lords
Sitting
PROTECTION OF BIRDS (AMENDMENT) BILL
HL Deb 26 July 1976 vol 373 cc1139-45 1139
§ 7.49 p.m.
Lord CHELWOOD
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This very short amending Bill passed through all its stages on the
nod in another place on 16th July. That was something which I think
was most unusual and, in my experience at any rate, unique. But it
showed three things: first, that this amending Bill is not
controversial; secondly, that it has the Government's blessing;
and, thirdly, that there is a need for it. As Parliament has had no
explanation whatsoever of the need for this amendment of the
Protection of Birds Act 1954, as amended in 1967, because there was
no opportunity in another place, may I please say a few words, in
spite of the hour being latish, because I think it is important
that there should be something—even something brief—on the record?
The fines for any person guilty of an offence against the
Protection of Birds Act 1954 have not been changed since that Act
was put on the Statute Book. Clause 12(2)(a) of the Act laid down a
maximum fine of £25 for especially serious offences. Those offences
fell into two main categories: first, excessively cruel methods of
killing or taking wild birds, such as the use of gin traps, or the
use of blinded decoy birds, or the use of bird lime. Those are
three examples which spring to mind and they were described in
detail, together with other excessively cruel methods of taking
wild birds, in Section 5 of the 1954 Act.
The second category of specially serious offences which are subject
to a maximum fine of £25 involve the taking of rare or very rare
birds which are listed in the First Schedule to the Act.
Incidentally, the very first bird in that Schedule is the 1140
avocet, because the Schedule is alphabetical. This bird is the
symbol of the RSPB. At the moment I am wearing the tie of the Royal
Society for the Protection of Birds, whose President is the noble
Lord, Lord Donaldson, who sits opposite. For many years this
society has done splendid work for the protection of wild birds and
it is extremely anxious to see that this measure reaches the
Statute Book.
Section 12(2)(b) of the 1954 Act laid down a maximum fine of £5 for
all other offences under the Act. It is sad but true that the
purchasing power of the pound since 1954 has fallen so steeply that
to impose the same penalty in real terms today the fines would need
to be, in round figures, £90 and £18 instead of £25 and £5. Thus
this Bill introduces no more than an increase that offsets the
inflation since 1954. In addition, the fines under the Protection
of Birds Acts are now seriously out of line with the most recent
legislation in the conservation field. The Badgers Act 1973 laid
down a maximum fine of £100. The Conservation of Wild Creatures and
Wild Plants Act 1975 laid down the same maximum fine of £100. The
really important reason, however, for this short amending Bill must
be the ever increasing demand for, and hence the pressure on, rare
species of birds, in particular birds of prey, and the
extraordinarily high price that these species fetch on the black
market.
Already this year your Lordships will be shocked to know that some
30 pairs of peregrine falcon, the only bird that we have breeding
in Britain which is listed in the Endangered Species Bill, have
failed to rear their young because either their eggs or their young
have been taken illegally. The peregrine falcon is a Schedule 1
bird and offences involving it are subject, naturally, to the £25
maximum fine. It is reasonable to assume that by the end of the
breeding season rather more than 40 pairs of peregrine falcon will
have been robbed of either their young or their eggs. Acts such as
the Protection of Birds Acts are notoriously difficult to enforce.
But enforcement must be made more difficult, surely, in that £25
fines, even when costs have to be paid as well, represent a small
risk when speaking about a bird such as the peregrine falcon. which
has a value, believe it or not, of £500 or more for a mature bird.
So, 1141 for that matter, does the golden eagle. Those are the
prices at which these birds are changing hands on the black market.
The number of prosecutions under the Protection of Birds Acts
gives, unhappily, only an inkling of the widespread and numerous
infringements of them. I have a long, sad list of successful
prosecutions during the last 12 months or so under the Acts and I
am sure that they are only the tip of the iceberg. Rare birds'
eggs—for example, the osprey's or the snowy owl's eggs—fetch very
high prices from egg collectors, as do the birds themselves, alive
or dead, from so-called bird fanciers or taxidermists. In my view,
the 1954 Act needs several important amendments to make it more
effective. Incidentally, this Act was introduced by my noble friend
Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie in another place and amended in 1967
by the late Lord Hurcomb in your Lordships' House. The two Acts
together need further amendment in the light of experience.
I hope to have an opportunity to introduce another amending Bill to
the 1954 Act in the next Session of Parliament. Meanwhile, Mr.
Peter Hardy's Bill which, brought from another place, we have
before us now will, if it commends itself to your Lordships, go
some way, although in my view not far enough, towards deterring law
breakers who seek to profit from the suffering of wild birds and
the senseless greed of the collector.
When considering the maximum fines which should be imposed under
the Acts, it is reasonable to bear in mind that the prison
sentences provided for in the 1954 Act are no longer regarded as an
appropriate form of punishment for offences committed under these
Acts. Surely this clearly points to the need for stiffer fines. At
present, the fines are derisory and are taken in their stride by
unscrupulous people. We can do something to make the law more
effective if today we give this modest Bill a Second Reading and if
it passes its remaining stages on Thursday of this week.
I am exceptionally grateful to my noble friend Lord Mowbray and
Stourton for being kind enough to come to listen to this very short
Second Reading speech and, I hope, to lend me his support. In fact,
1142 I feel sure of his support. I am also very grateful indeed to
the noble Lord the Minister for being on the Front Bench opposite,
and I hope to hear from him that this small measure has the
Government's blessing. My Lords, I beg to move.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Chelwood.)
§ 7.58 p.m.
§ Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON
My Lords, I should like to say straight away that I am most
grateful that my noble friend Lord Chelwood has seen fit to bring
this measure before your Lordships' House. Needless to say, as he
anticipated, I can assure my noble friend of the full support not
only of myself but, I suspect, of every member of the Party for
which I stand. As my noble friend has said, regrettably the pound
has fallen in value since 1954 and accordingly the value of
collectors' items, he they alive or dead, has gone up far more than
one would ever have wished.
The noble Lord mentioned the peregrine falcon. When one considers
that each young peregrine falcon commands £250 and each adult £500,
one wonders how £25 can be considered an adequate fine. My noble
friend said that 30 pairs of young peregrine falcon have already
gone and that possibly 40 pairs will have gone by the end of the
year. That is at £250 each—not for a pair but £250 for each young
bird and £500 for each adult. It is a lot of money, and £25 is not
much of a deterrent.
May I say that my noble friend Lord Craigton, whose influence in
this field is so great and whose knowledge is so enormous, has
asked me to say how sorry he is that he is not able to be in the
House tonight to add his views. I told him that on his behalf I
would inform your Lordships that the World Wildlife Fund's
allocations committee had come unanimously to the conclusion that
in their view even the suggested £100 fine was inadequate for the
elimination of these racketeers.
May I ask the noble Lord the Minister who is to reply one question
which is in no way derogatory of the Bill. I understand that the
Government are favourably disposed towards this Bill, for which,
like my noble friend, I am most grateful. 1143 I merely want to
ask, in a spirit of genuine inquiry and making no Party political
points, a question about the Endangered Species Bill which was
recently before us. We asked then whether the fines were adequate,
and I seem to remember the noble Baroness who answered for the
Government saying that the James Committee was recommending
increased fines in the case of all Acts of Parliament of this sort
which would bring fines up to a level to make them adequate to the
rate of inflation as compared to the time when they were
introduced. Therefore, at that moment we were asked not to insist
on Amendments in Committee and on Report stages because the
Government wished them to be dealt with across the broad spectrum
in all Acts of Parliament. I merely ask this question. If, as I
understand, the Government are favourable to this measure—for which
I again say that I am most grateful—ought one's honourable friends
in another place now consider increasing the fines which we were
advised not to increase in such cases as the Endangered Species
Bill? I am slightly puzzled, because that seems to be a parallel to
this measure. Having injected that slightly carping note into what
is otherwise a happy occasion, I wish to support my noble friend
Lord Chelwood.
§ 8.2 p.m.
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELL
My Lords, this is the second time within recent weeks that the
noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, has taken up cudgels on behalf of the
animal world and, I am happy to say, this is the second time that
on behalf of the Government I have been able to nod rather
approvingly in his direction. Your Lordships will remember that the
noble Lord piloted through this House the Dangerous Wild Animals
Bill which received Royal Assent last Thursday. Your Lordships
wholeheartedly approved of the Bill, as did those in another place.
If I understood the noble Lord correctly, I believe he is hoping to
introduce yet a third Bill in the not too distant future. He has
struck lucky on this occasion and I hope, if the Bill is suitable,
he will complete a hat trick.
As the noble Lord explained, the Bill before us increases the
financial penalties under the Protection of Birds Act 1954, to take
account of changes in the value of 1144 money over the last 22
years, and to bring them into line with those provided in recent
comparable legislation. Let me say here and now that the Bill has
the support of the Government. Indeed I am giving away no secret
when I say that these penalties, along with many others, are
currently under review by the Home Office. We are indeed well aware
that many Statutes provide for financial penalties which over the
years have simply lost all or a great deal of whatever power they
may have had to deter people or to punish them. As your Lordships
know, we have been studying the recommendations of the report of
the James Committee on the distribution of criminal business among
the courts. As may be imagined, this is quite a lengthy exercise,
but I can say that one aspect of our consideration will be the
revision of the maximum fines imposable on summary conviction for
particular offences. That study will inevitably embrace the fines
we are talking about today, and the end product would almost
certainly be a Government measure which inter alia would take
account of the fall in the value of money since 1954.
The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, was right in his
recollection about various things that were said during the passage
of the Endangered Species Bill, when I think he may well have been
given to understand that this was a matter that we hoped to deal
with. The reason why it is being done on this occasion—and I do not
want to go all over the ground already covered by the noble Lord,
Lord Chelwood—is simply that Mr. Peter Hardy took the initiative to
do something in that direction in this Bill.
Whether it would be worth the noble Lord's while to talk to his
friends in another place, I do not know. I think probably that if
the Bill has not yet been through another place it might not
succeed in getting through there this session. However, I will
certainly convey what the noble Lord has said this evening to the
appropriate Department because, as he will know, it is not the
Department for which I am speaking here this evening. I will convey
his remarks to my right honourable friend in that Department. To
that extent it can be said that this Bill will do for a very small
area what a Government Bill in a future Session of Parliament is
likely to do over a much 1145 greater area of the criminal law. We
shall try to do that as soon as we possibly can.
I wish to repeat that the report of the James Committee covers a
wide area, and a good deal of thought and consideration as to the
kind of action that is to be taken would have to he given to it.
Meanwhile, the Government give their approval and support the Bill
now before your Lordships' House.
§ On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the
Whole House.
Back to COMPULSORY ACQUISITION BY PUBLIC AUTHORITIES (COMPENSA
TION) ORDER 1976
Forward to STOCK EXCHANGE (COMPLETION OF BARGAINS) BILL
Noticed a typo? | Report other issues | © UK Parliament

________________________________________

Could I also see any guideline that you have to control any bias
influence in relation to passing Bills in the various stages in the
House of Commons and the House of Lords?

What do I have to do to request a public inquiry into the aforesaid
matters?

Search Help

HANSARD 1803–2005 → 1970s → 1976 → July 1976 → 26 July 1976 → Lords
Sitting
PROTECTION OF BIRDS (AMENDMENT) BILL
HL Deb 26 July 1976 vol 373 cc1139-45 1139
§ 7.49 p.m.
Lord CHELWOOD
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This very short amending Bill passed through all its stages on the
nod in another place on 16th July. That was something which I think
was most unusual and, in my experience at any rate, unique. But it
showed three things: first, that this amending Bill is not
controversial; secondly, that it has the Government's blessing;
and, thirdly, that there is a need for it. As Parliament has had no
explanation whatsoever of the need for this amendment of the
Protection of Birds Act 1954, as amended in 1967, because there was
no opportunity in another place, may I please say a few words, in
spite of the hour being latish, because I think it is important
that there should be something—even something brief—on the record?
The fines for any person guilty of an offence against the
Protection of Birds Act 1954 have not been changed since that Act
was put on the Statute Book. Clause 12(2)(a) of the Act laid down a
maximum fine of £25 for especially serious offences. Those offences
fell into two main categories: first, excessively cruel methods of
killing or taking wild birds, such as the use of gin traps, or the
use of blinded decoy birds, or the use of bird lime. Those are
three examples which spring to mind and they were described in
detail, together with other excessively cruel methods of taking
wild birds, in Section 5 of the 1954 Act.
The second category of specially serious offences which are subject
to a maximum fine of £25 involve the taking of rare or very rare
birds which are listed in the First Schedule to the Act.
Incidentally, the very first bird in that Schedule is the 1140
avocet, because the Schedule is alphabetical. This bird is the
symbol of the RSPB. At the moment I am wearing the tie of the Royal
Society for the Protection of Birds, whose President is the noble
Lord, Lord Donaldson, who sits opposite. For many years this
society has done splendid work for the protection of wild birds and
it is extremely anxious to see that this measure reaches the
Statute Book.
Section 12(2)(b) of the 1954 Act laid down a maximum fine of £5 for
all other offences under the Act. It is sad but true that the
purchasing power of the pound since 1954 has fallen so steeply that
to impose the same penalty in real terms today the fines would need
to be, in round figures, £90 and £18 instead of £25 and £5. Thus
this Bill introduces no more than an increase that offsets the
inflation since 1954. In addition, the fines under the Protection
of Birds Acts are now seriously out of line with the most recent
legislation in the conservation field. The Badgers Act 1973 laid
down a maximum fine of £100. The Conservation of Wild Creatures and
Wild Plants Act 1975 laid down the same maximum fine of £100. The
really important reason, however, for this short amending Bill must
be the ever increasing demand for, and hence the pressure on, rare
species of birds, in particular birds of prey, and the
extraordinarily high price that these species fetch on the black
market.
Already this year your Lordships will be shocked to know that some
30 pairs of peregrine falcon, the only bird that we have breeding
in Britain which is listed in the Endangered Species Bill, have
failed to rear their young because either their eggs or their young
have been taken illegally. The peregrine falcon is a Schedule 1
bird and offences involving it are subject, naturally, to the £25
maximum fine. It is reasonable to assume that by the end of the
breeding season rather more than 40 pairs of peregrine falcon will
have been robbed of either their young or their eggs. Acts such as
the Protection of Birds Acts are notoriously difficult to enforce.
But enforcement must be made more difficult, surely, in that £25
fines, even when costs have to be paid as well, represent a small
risk when speaking about a bird such as the peregrine falcon. which
has a value, believe it or not, of £500 or more for a mature bird.
So, 1141 for that matter, does the golden eagle. Those are the
prices at which these birds are changing hands on the black market.
The number of prosecutions under the Protection of Birds Acts
gives, unhappily, only an inkling of the widespread and numerous
infringements of them. I have a long, sad list of successful
prosecutions during the last 12 months or so under the Acts and I
am sure that they are only the tip of the iceberg. Rare birds'
eggs—for example, the osprey's or the snowy owl's eggs—fetch very
high prices from egg collectors, as do the birds themselves, alive
or dead, from so-called bird fanciers or taxidermists. In my view,
the 1954 Act needs several important amendments to make it more
effective. Incidentally, this Act was introduced by my noble friend
Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie in another place and amended in 1967
by the late Lord Hurcomb in your Lordships' House. The two Acts
together need further amendment in the light of experience.
I hope to have an opportunity to introduce another amending Bill to
the 1954 Act in the next Session of Parliament. Meanwhile, Mr.
Peter Hardy's Bill which, brought from another place, we have
before us now will, if it commends itself to your Lordships, go
some way, although in my view not far enough, towards deterring law
breakers who seek to profit from the suffering of wild birds and
the senseless greed of the collector.
When considering the maximum fines which should be imposed under
the Acts, it is reasonable to bear in mind that the prison
sentences provided for in the 1954 Act are no longer regarded as an
appropriate form of punishment for offences committed under these
Acts. Surely this clearly points to the need for stiffer fines. At
present, the fines are derisory and are taken in their stride by
unscrupulous people. We can do something to make the law more
effective if today we give this modest Bill a Second Reading and if
it passes its remaining stages on Thursday of this week.
I am exceptionally grateful to my noble friend Lord Mowbray and
Stourton for being kind enough to come to listen to this very short
Second Reading speech and, I hope, to lend me his support. In fact,
1142 I feel sure of his support. I am also very grateful indeed to
the noble Lord the Minister for being on the Front Bench opposite,
and I hope to hear from him that this small measure has the
Government's blessing. My Lords, I beg to move.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Chelwood.)
§ 7.58 p.m.
§ Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON
My Lords, I should like to say straight away that I am most
grateful that my noble friend Lord Chelwood has seen fit to bring
this measure before your Lordships' House. Needless to say, as he
anticipated, I can assure my noble friend of the full support not
only of myself but, I suspect, of every member of the Party for
which I stand. As my noble friend has said, regrettably the pound
has fallen in value since 1954 and accordingly the value of
collectors' items, he they alive or dead, has gone up far more than
one would ever have wished.
The noble Lord mentioned the peregrine falcon. When one considers
that each young peregrine falcon commands £250 and each adult £500,
one wonders how £25 can be considered an adequate fine. My noble
friend said that 30 pairs of young peregrine falcon have already
gone and that possibly 40 pairs will have gone by the end of the
year. That is at £250 each—not for a pair but £250 for each young
bird and £500 for each adult. It is a lot of money, and £25 is not
much of a deterrent.
May I say that my noble friend Lord Craigton, whose influence in
this field is so great and whose knowledge is so enormous, has
asked me to say how sorry he is that he is not able to be in the
House tonight to add his views. I told him that on his behalf I
would inform your Lordships that the World Wildlife Fund's
allocations committee had come unanimously to the conclusion that
in their view even the suggested £100 fine was inadequate for the
elimination of these racketeers.
May I ask the noble Lord the Minister who is to reply one question
which is in no way derogatory of the Bill. I understand that the
Government are favourably disposed towards this Bill, for which,
like my noble friend, I am most grateful. 1143 I merely want to
ask, in a spirit of genuine inquiry and making no Party political
points, a question about the Endangered Species Bill which was
recently before us. We asked then whether the fines were adequate,
and I seem to remember the noble Baroness who answered for the
Government saying that the James Committee was recommending
increased fines in the case of all Acts of Parliament of this sort
which would bring fines up to a level to make them adequate to the
rate of inflation as compared to the time when they were
introduced. Therefore, at that moment we were asked not to insist
on Amendments in Committee and on Report stages because the
Government wished them to be dealt with across the broad spectrum
in all Acts of Parliament. I merely ask this question. If, as I
understand, the Government are favourable to this measure—for which
I again say that I am most grateful—ought one's honourable friends
in another place now consider increasing the fines which we were
advised not to increase in such cases as the Endangered Species
Bill? I am slightly puzzled, because that seems to be a parallel to
this measure. Having injected that slightly carping note into what
is otherwise a happy occasion, I wish to support my noble friend
Lord Chelwood.
§ 8.2 p.m.
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELL
My Lords, this is the second time within recent weeks that the
noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, has taken up cudgels on behalf of the
animal world and, I am happy to say, this is the second time that
on behalf of the Government I have been able to nod rather
approvingly in his direction. Your Lordships will remember that the
noble Lord piloted through this House the Dangerous Wild Animals
Bill which received Royal Assent last Thursday. Your Lordships
wholeheartedly approved of the Bill, as did those in another place.
If I understood the noble Lord correctly, I believe he is hoping to
introduce yet a third Bill in the not too distant future. He has
struck lucky on this occasion and I hope, if the Bill is suitable,
he will complete a hat trick.
As the noble Lord explained, the Bill before us increases the
financial penalties under the Protection of Birds Act 1954, to take
account of changes in the value of 1144 money over the last 22
years, and to bring them into line with those provided in recent
comparable legislation. Let me say here and now that the Bill has
the support of the Government. Indeed I am giving away no secret
when I say that these penalties, along with many others, are
currently under review by the Home Office. We are indeed well aware
that many Statutes provide for financial penalties which over the
years have simply lost all or a great deal of whatever power they
may have had to deter people or to punish them. As your Lordships
know, we have been studying the recommendations of the report of
the James Committee on the distribution of criminal business among
the courts. As may be imagined, this is quite a lengthy exercise,
but I can say that one aspect of our consideration will be the
revision of the maximum fines imposable on summary conviction for
particular offences. That study will inevitably embrace the fines
we are talking about today, and the end product would almost
certainly be a Government measure which inter alia would take
account of the fall in the value of money since 1954.
The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, was right in his
recollection about various things that were said during the passage
of the Endangered Species Bill, when I think he may well have been
given to understand that this was a matter that we hoped to deal
with. The reason why it is being done on this occasion—and I do not
want to go all over the ground already covered by the noble Lord,
Lord Chelwood—is simply that Mr. Peter Hardy took the initiative to
do something in that direction in this Bill.
Whether it would be worth the noble Lord's while to talk to his
friends in another place, I do not know. I think probably that if
the Bill has not yet been through another place it might not
succeed in getting through there this session. However, I will
certainly convey what the noble Lord has said this evening to the
appropriate Department because, as he will know, it is not the
Department for which I am speaking here this evening. I will convey
his remarks to my right honourable friend in that Department. To
that extent it can be said that this Bill will do for a very small
area what a Government Bill in a future Session of Parliament is
likely to do over a much 1145 greater area of the criminal law. We
shall try to do that as soon as we possibly can.
I wish to repeat that the report of the James Committee covers a
wide area, and a good deal of thought and consideration as to the
kind of action that is to be taken would have to he given to it.
Meanwhile, the Government give their approval and support the Bill
now before your Lordships' House.
§ On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the
Whole House.
Back to COMPULSORY ACQUISITION BY PUBLIC AUTHORITIES (COMPENSA
TION) ORDER 1976
Forward to STOCK EXCHANGE (COMPLETION OF BARGAINS) BILL
Noticed a typo? | Report other issues | © UK Parliament

________________________________________

Yours faithfully,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Dear Web Enquiries,

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Dear Web Enquiries,

If I was to supply Hansard evidence of the RSPB using their top
members to fulfil their political agenda by setting up new laws
that the RSPB have wrote would that mean there must be an
investigation into whether the RSPB charity moreover what does RSPB
Sales stand for and how can money flow between these two
businesses.

Finally if I supply conclusive evidence of a member of the RSPB
perverting the course justice what information do you hold on what
investigations you can undertake?

Yours sincerely,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]