THE RSPB PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE WHILE THE HOME OFFICE TURN A BLIND EYE

Dear Sir or Madam,
Why is Jacqui Smith ignoring my many letters in relation to the
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds perverting the course of
justice, with the express help of the police over the last thirty
years?

WHY HAVE THE HOME OFFICE IGNORED MY INFORMATION REQUESTS FOR THE
LAST 11 MONTHS OR IN OTHER WORDS WHAT HAVE YOU GOT TO HIDE?

HOW MANY MEMBERS OF THE RSPB ARE ALSO EMPLOYEES OF THE HOME OFFICE?

WHAT INFLUENCE DO MEMBERS OF THE RSPB HAVE ON MAKING THE LAWS AND
HOME OFFICE POLICY THAT CONTROL USE?

IF I MAKE A COMPLAINT OF SERIOUS CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES INVOLVING THE
POLICE AND THE RSPB TO THE POLICE CAN THE POLICE REFUSE TO
INVESTIGATE MY COMPLAINT AND IF SO WHY?

IS IT FAIR THAT RSPB MEMBERS ARE ALLOWED TO CONTROL LAW MAKING,
CONTROL EVIDENCE FOR THE POLICE WITHOUT THE POLICE SUPERVISING THE
EVIDENCE?

WHY ARE THE RSPB ALLOWED TO INFLUENCE THE LAW MAKING STRUCTURE TO
THE EXTENT THAT THE WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981 PUTS THE
BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE DEFENDANT THEREFORE A PERSON COULD BE
INNOCENT BUT CANNOT PROVE HIS INNOCENCE WHILE THE RSPB WITHHOLD
EVIDENCE AND OR DESTROY IT? YOU HAVE BEEN SENT THE EVIDENCE OF THIS
FACT BUT NO ONE HAS REPLIED TO MY COMPLAINTS. THE AFORESAID
REVERSED BURDEN OF PROOF MEANS THAT PEOPLE HAVE GONE TO JAIL WHILE
THERE IS SERIOUS DOUBT AS TO THEIR GUILT. I HAVE SENT YOU EVIDENCE
OF THIS BUT YOU HAVE IGNORED MY MANY LETTERS ON THIS POINT.

Yours faithfully,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Home Office's
handling of my FOI request 'THE RSPB PERVERTING THE COURSE OF
JUSTICE WHILE THE HOME OFFICE TURN A BLIND EYE'.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/th...

Yours sincerely,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Dear Sir/Madam.

Ref; The RSPB
Please note below sections taken from Hansard to show how for many
years the RSPB have used their members to make the law that
controls use in relation to birds. This is not acceptable given the
bias nature of the RSPB and the doctrine of separation. The RSPB
helped write the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, their members
helped pass it through the House of Commons and House Lords and the
RSPB WRONGLY set the president that the burden of proof is on the
defendant in the Robinson v Kirkland 1986 case.
If you look at the sections below from Hansard you will note that
it was not Parliament’s intention to put the burden of proof on the
defendant who could now go to jail if found guilt which is very
likely as usually it is impossible to prove once innocence in
relation to bird offences. Also note, as in my case, judges who are
members of the RSPB are making judgements in relation to bird
offences that set presidents. I want a public inquiry into the
matter.
Please supply the information how I can request a public inquiry
into my complaint.
Below is sections taken from Hansard to show how the RSPB control
the law via their members.
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.
Below is sections taken from Hansard to show how the RSPB control
the law via their members.

‘breeding capacity in captivity. That is because nobody has
bothered to do it. Whether a blackbird is something from which one
can make mules with canaries I am not absolutely certain, but
bullfinch mules and goldfinch mules are certainly produced in the
canary exhibiting world and produce very special song birds and
rather pretty variants. I think probably the reason is that there
are so many of them in the wild that nobody has actually bothered
to go to the trouble of introducing a self-sustaining breeding
population in captivity. That is merely an observation, but I think
it bears a little on what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has said.
§ Baroness David
The Minister gave a list of societies which have given advice on
this subject. Was the 933 Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
included in that list?
§ Lord Renton
I will try not to widen the discussion too much, but I have always
had an aversion to seeing birds of any kind kept in small cages. I
remember annoying one of my constituency agents very much by
refusing to present the prizes at an annual show of a cage birds
society. Is there anything in this Bill which will ensure that if
birds are bred and kept in captivity they will be kept in
reasonable sized cages?
In this connection, I feel bound to invite the attention of your
Lordships to the Notes on Clauses, which make it clear that birds
may be shown non-competitively even if they are not listed in Part
I of Schedule 3. In this respect there seems to be no limit
whatever upon the number of birds which may be kept in small cages
so long as they are kept non-competitively. This is a matter on
which Parliament perhaps needs to lead public opinion. I should be
grateful if my noble friend could let us know whether there is
anything in the Bill, other than what is in subsection (3) of
Clause 6 (which does not go very far), which could set at rest the
kind of fears that I have mentioned.
Lord Chelwood
Now that my noble friend Lord Sandys has heard the anxieties
expressed on both sides of the Committee, which I think are clearly
fairly widely shared, perhaps he will be good enough to say that he
will at any rate look at this again, even though he is prejudiced
against the amendment at the moment. I fully realise this is a very
prickly and very complicated question. It would have been tackled
in 1954 and 1967 under the Wild Birds Protection Acts had it been
easier to tackle. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, the immediate
past President of the Royal Society for the Protection for Birds,
of which I was once President, is only too well aware how anxious
the RSPB is that it should be tackled.
Therefore, of course, the Society, which is I believe the biggest
voluntary conservation society in the world, will be glad that we
are debating it, but they do have serious anxieties. They were not
mentioned by my noble friend, Lord Sandys, who gave the names of
three societies he had consulted, all of which, I had the
impression, were perhaps to some extent prejudiced, in that they
were interested in the very widespread hobby of showing caged
birds, which is obviously going to go on whether we like it or not.
It does seem to me extremely important, now that we
WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981: DECISIONS TO PROSECUTE
HL Deb 15 March 1983 vol 440 c718WA 718WA
§ Lord Melchett
asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why, in respect of the shooting of a barnacle goose on Islay on
25th October 1982, the procurator fiscal decided that no
proceedings should be taken, and whether the procurator fiscal
decided, as with an incident that occurred on 27th January 1983 on
Islay, that no offence had been committed.
§ The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)
In deciding whether the facts as disclosed to the procurator fiscal
justified the taking of proceedings under the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981, the procurator fiscal had to decide whether
an offence had been committed, whether there was sufficient
evidence to prove the alleged offence against the accused and
whether there was any excuse for the accused's conduct. The
decision in respect of the incident of 25th October 1982 involved
the exercise of a judgment by the procurator fiscal taking all the
circumstances into consideration. It would not be appropriate to
give the detailed grounds upon which the decision was taken. I have
examined the circumstances of the case, and am satisfied that the
procurator fiscal exercised his judgment in a proper manner.
Forward to CIDER: PRODUCTION AND TAXATION
Noticed a typo? | Report other issues | © UK Parliament
Search Help

HANSARD 1803–2005 → 2000s → 2003 → April 2003 → 14 April 2003 →
Written Answers (Commons) → ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

Yours sincerely,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Dear Sir or Madam,

24 Priestlands Close
Hexham
Northumberland
NE46 2AW

Dear Sir/Madam.

Ref; The RSPB
Please note below sections taken from Hansard to show how for many
years the RSPB have used their members to make the law that
controls use in relation to birds. This is not acceptable given the
bias nature of the RSPB and the doctrine of separation. The RSPB
helped write the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, their members
helped pass it through the House of Commons and House Lords and the
RSPB WRONGLY set the president that the burden of proof is on the
defendant in the Robinson v Kirkland 1986 case.
If you look at the sections below from Hansard you will note that
it was not Parliament’s intention to put the burden of proof on the
defendant who could now go to jail if found guilt which is very
likely as usually it is impossible to prove once innocence in
relation to bird offences. Also note, as in my case, judges who are
members of the RSPB are making judgements in relation to bird
offences that set presidents. I want a public inquiry into the
matter.
Please supply the information how I can request a public inquiry
into my complaint.
Below is sections taken from Hansard to show how the RSPB control
the law via their members.
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.
Below is sections taken from Hansard to show how the RSPB control
the law via their members.

‘breeding capacity in captivity. That is because nobody has
bothered to do it. Whether a blackbird is something from which one
can make mules with canaries I am not absolutely certain, but
bullfinch mules and goldfinch mules are certainly produced in the
canary exhibiting world and produce very special song birds and
rather pretty variants. I think probably the reason is that there
are so many of them in the wild that nobody has actually bothered
to go to the trouble of introducing a self-sustaining breeding
population in captivity. That is merely an observation, but I think
it bears a little on what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has said.
§ Baroness David
The Minister gave a list of societies which have given advice on
this subject. Was the 933 Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
included in that list?
§ Lord Renton
I will try not to widen the discussion too much, but I have always
had an aversion to seeing birds of any kind kept in small cages. I
remember annoying one of my constituency agents very much by
refusing to present the prizes at an annual show of a cage birds
society. Is there anything in this Bill which will ensure that if
birds are bred and kept in captivity they will be kept in
reasonable sized cages?
In this connection, I feel bound to invite the attention of your
Lordships to the Notes on Clauses, which make it clear that birds
may be shown non-competitively even if they are not listed in Part
I of Schedule 3. In this respect there seems to be no limit
whatever upon the number of birds which may be kept in small cages
so long as they are kept non-competitively. This is a matter on
which Parliament perhaps needs to lead public opinion. I should be
grateful if my noble friend could let us know whether there is
anything in the Bill, other than what is in subsection (3) of
Clause 6 (which does not go very far), which could set at rest the
kind of fears that I have mentioned.
Lord Chelwood
Now that my noble friend Lord Sandys has heard the anxieties
expressed on both sides of the Committee, which I think are clearly
fairly widely shared, perhaps he will be good enough to say that he
will at any rate look at this again, even though he is prejudiced
against the amendment at the moment. I fully realise this is a very
prickly and very complicated question. It would have been tackled
in 1954 and 1967 under the Wild Birds Protection Acts had it been
easier to tackle. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, the immediate
past President of the Royal Society for the Protection for Birds,
of which I was once President, is only too well aware how anxious
the RSPB is that it should be tackled.
Therefore, of course, the Society, which is I believe the biggest
voluntary conservation society in the world, will be glad that we
are debating it, but they do have serious anxieties. They were not
mentioned by my noble friend, Lord Sandys, who gave the names of
three societies he had consulted, all of which, I had the
impression, were perhaps to some extent prejudiced, in that they
were interested in the very widespread hobby of showing caged
birds, which is obviously going to go on whether we like it or not.
It does seem to me extremely important, now that we
WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981: DECISIONS TO PROSECUTE
HL Deb 15 March 1983 vol 440 c718WA 718WA
§ Lord Melchett
asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why, in respect of the shooting of a barnacle goose on Islay on
25th October 1982, the procurator fiscal decided that no
proceedings should be taken, and whether the procurator fiscal
decided, as with an incident that occurred on 27th January 1983 on
Islay, that no offence had been committed.
§ The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)
In deciding whether the facts as disclosed to the procurator fiscal
justified the taking of proceedings under the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981, the procurator fiscal had to decide whether
an offence had been committed, whether there was sufficient
evidence to prove the alleged offence against the accused and
whether there was any excuse for the accused's conduct. The
decision in respect of the incident of 25th October 1982 involved
the exercise of a judgment by the procurator fiscal taking all the
circumstances into consideration. It would not be appropriate to
give the detailed grounds upon which the decision was taken. I have
examined the circumstances of the case, and am satisfied that the
procurator fiscal exercised his judgment in a proper manner.
Forward to CIDER: PRODUCTION AND TAXATION
Noticed a typo? | Report other issues | © UK Parliament
Search Help

HANSARD 1803–2005 → 2000s → 2003 → April 2003 → 14 April 2003 →
Written Answers (Commons) → ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

Yours truly,

Derek Canning LLB [hons]

Below are pages from Hansard to support my claim the RSPB are allow
to control the law making, enforce the law and pervert the law. For
example The Bill was conceived by the Royal Society for the
Protection of Birds.

Please note my additional request for information placed within the
text of Hansard.

I WOULD ADD THERE IS A NEED FOR A PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO THE WAY THE
RSPB HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO CONTROL THE POLICE, the CPS and the HOUSE
OF LORDS AND COMMONS. I ALSO WANT THE EVIDENCE THAT I HAVE IN
RELATION TO THE RSPB INVESTIGATED, THEREFORE WHOM DO I SEND IT TO
FOR IT TO BE INVESTIGATED?

Search Help

HANSARD 1803–2005 → 1990s → 1991 → April 1991 → 29 April 1991 →
Lords Sitting
Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Bill
HL Deb 29 April 1991 vol 528 cc535-9 535
§ 7.6 p.m,.
§ Baroness Nicol
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill was originally presented in another place by my
honourable friend the late Donald Coleman, then Member for Neath.
His tragic death led to the Bill passing into the hands of my
honourable friend the Member for Caerphilly who, with the support
of the other sponsors and with the willing support of the
Government, has seen it through all its stages in another place.
The Bill was conceived by the Royal Society for the Protection of
Birds HOW ARE THE RSPB ALLOWED TO MAKE THE LAW, INVESTIGATE IT AND
ENFORCES IT GIVEN THE DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION? It amends the
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to strengthen the prohibition
against certain methods of killing or taking wild birds and other
animals. At present the Act makes it an offence to employ certain
methods. The amendment would also make it an offence to cause or
permit others ro employ such methods. That will enable enforcement
officers to question employers or landowners who may have
instructed or allowed their staff to behave illegally and will
bring wildlife legislation into line with legislation protecting
domestic and farm animals which contains "cause or permit"
provisions.
The need for greater protection is clear. The RSPB produced figures
which show that last year alone birds of prey were involved in over
530 incidents of poisoning, shooting and trapping. Many of those
incident; were illegal; and, given the size and nature of the
terrain over which that takes place, it is safe to assume that the
real figure is greater. WHERE IS THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE FOR THIS
CLAIM?
Many of our rarest and most beautiful species are at risk. WHERE IS
THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE FOR THIS CLAIM? I can give more statistics
if noble Lords require them, but I shall not do that at this stage.
There is on record at least one case of a gamekeeper who claimed
that he had been instructed by his employer to lay poison, and that
he was afraid of loosing his job if he did not obey. [SO THAT WOULD
BE ONLY ONE] The gamekeeper was convicted but the employer had
committed no offence against the law as it stanch and could not be
prosecuted. Closing that loophole would make employers responsible
for the acts of their employees and would undoubtedly improve
wildlife protection. New Clause 1(4) provides a defence: in cases
of accident or mistake.
The majority of farmers and landowners act responsibly. That makes
it even more important that those who do not so act are prosecuted.
The RSPB is to be congratulated on its dedication to the protection
536 of wildlife, and I commend those members of staff who take
considerable personal risks to collect information to illustrate
their case. THE RSPB ARE CORRUPT LIARS AND I HAVE THE EVIDENCE TO
PROVE IT.
I am grateful to the Government for their support so far, and I
hope that that support is still available to see this Bill safely
onto the statute book.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Nicol.)
The Viscount of Falkland
My Lords, on these Benches we agree wholeheartedly with everything
that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said. I do not believe that
there is anything contentious in the Bill. Most reasonable people
would agree with the simple statement that it makes. It strengthens
the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. For the
first time it allows the police and others investigating offences
where protected species have been "persecuted"—that is the word
used by the RSPB THE RSPB ARE CORRUPT LIARS AND I HAVE THE EVIDENCE
TO PROVE IT. —and killed unlawfully to question the real culprits
who are the landowners and those who authorise their staff to trap,
shoot and poison illegally the kind of wildlife covered by the
Bill.
The Bill is in no sense an attack on legitimate field sports, nor
will it reduce legal methods of controlling pest species. It is
directed to deterring people from using illegal methods of killing
wildlife. The background to the Bill is that, in the case of birds,
in which I am personally interested [SO YOU ARE RSPB?], certain
species are seriously threatened. As I was discussing outside your
Lordships' Chamber with the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, there are
people—not only young people—who do not appreciate that if these
species are allowed to disappear because they are not adequately
protected, those who follow will not be able to appreciate the
beauty of many species which have enriched our wildlife in this
country.
I refer specifically to the red kite. That is a bird which was,
certainly during the 16th and 17th centuries, common over London.
It was common throughout these islands and particularly in areas of
habitation. Now there are only around 60 pairs known to be breeding
in central Wales. I am told that the golden eagle is less
threatened than it was. The buzzard, which has thankfully recovered
in the south-western counties—Devon and Cornwall—is still
threatened in southern and eastern England. The Bill will allow
those species and others a reasonable chance to increase so that
generations who follow will be able to enjoy them in the way that
people have enjoyed them in the past.
We thoroughly support the Bill. However, I ask the Minister whether
the Government would consider granting an amnesty arrangement,
without fear of prosecution, for those who have stocks of unwanted
pesticides so as to allow those pesticides to be withdrawn. That
would be an additional help.
§ 7.12 p.m.
§ Lord Moran
My Lords, I had not intended to take part in the debate. However, I
should like to say a few words to indicate how strongly I support
what the 537 noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said, and how much I hope
the Bill will receive the support of your Lordships.
I live on the edge of red kite country in Wales. It is a small and
fragile population which has suffered greatly from persecution.
There have been deplorable cases recently of red kites being
poisoned. It is extremely important that everything possible should
be done to stop that.
I feel very strongly also that gamekeepers who take action
illegally against birds by putting out poisoned eggs and so forth,
are liable to prosecution while their employers apparently are not
liable at all. Any landowner whose gamekeeper or other employees
behave in such a way should certainly bear a measure of
responsibility. That is extremely important.
§ I hope your Lordships will support the Bill, which is an
admirable and very necessary one.
§ 7.14 p.m.
§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Nicol not only on the
substance of the Bill, which I support officially from this
Dispatch Box, but also on the way in which she introduced it. I
congratulate her also on her sense of timing. No doubt my noble
friend will have seen today's copy of The Times containing a
splendid picture of Gurkhas protecting the last 52 nesting pairs of
red kites in Wales. It makes one think that possibly this House is
a habitat for endangered species. I cannot imagine many other
places in the country where there are as many employers of
gamekeepers as there are in your Lordships' House. The Bill brings
those employers of gamekeepers to heel.
I see the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, present, who is undoubtedly an
employer of gamekeepers. I hope that the Minister, who herself must
be an employer of gamekeepers, will ensure that gamekeepers obey
the provisions in the Bill.
§ The Earl of Swinton
My Lords, I had not intended to speak but the noble Lord, Lord
McIntosh, mentioned my name. Like everything else, there are
gamekeepers and gamekeepers. I am sure that my gamekeepers do not
destroy anything which they are not allowed to destroy. The other
day one took great pleasure in taking me out to show me a merlin's
nest on my moor, which I was delighted to see.
§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, I never doubted for a moment that that would be the case.
However, the noble Earl has given me great encouragement in my
belief that the nesting habits of employers of gamekeepers are as I
suspected and as I hoped. This is a good Bill and deserves both the
unanimous support it received in another place and the support of
your Lordships.
§ 7.16 p.m.
§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, in view of the last comments I should perhaps say at the
outset that my name is Lady Blatch and not Lady Chatterley!
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, in carrying forward
this Bill, which the Government 538 support wholeheartedly. We
share her concern about the illegal killing of wild birds or
animals, particularly where cruel or indiscriminate methods are
used.
The noble Baroness explained that the Bill would make it an offence
for a person to cause or permit another to contravene the
provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 which prohibit
the use of certain means of killing or taking wild birds or
protected species. The Act already provides very strict controls in
that area and offenders face heavy penalties. But the Bill would
help to strengthen those controls by making people who manage or
oversee land responsible for ensuring that they or their employees
do not use unlawful means to kill wildlife. We are thankful that
most farmers and landowners act responsibly, as the noble Baroness
said, and within the law. But, regrettably, there are those who pay
little regard to the consequences of using substances or methods
which cause unnecessary suffering to birds and animals and put at
risk many of our endangered wild species.
The Bill would bring the Wildlife and Countryside Act into line
with the equivalent legislation in Northern Ireland. It would also
parallel provisions in the Food and Environment Protection Act
1985, which controls, among other things, the sale, storage and use
of pesticides.
The Bill was amended in another place to reflect the Government's
policy on the creation of "causes or permits" offences. It has
always been implicit that the successful prosecution of such
offences depends on evidence that the accused person had some sort
of knowledge of the offence with which he was charged with causing
or permitting. It is normal practice to make that clear on the face
of the legislation and it helps to clarify the court's
understanding of the nature of such offences. As amended, the Bill
would make it an offence if a person knowingly caused or permitted
another to contravene the Act's provisions for the protection of
wildlife.
The House should also be aware that we propose to introduce, in
Committee, two further minor amendments to bring the Bill into line
with other legislation on the creation of new offences. The first
would ensure that the Bill did not come into force on Royal Assent.
As is usual, a period of two months would be allowed to give the
public an opportunity to become aware of the changes in the law
before they started to operate.
At this point perhaps I could answer the specific question raised
by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. The two-month period would
enable people who possess stocks of unwanted pesticide to get rid
of them. We shall of course discuss with MAFF whether further
action is required to ensure that unnecessary poisons are not held.
The second minor amendment would prevent the Bill, when enacted,
from operating retrospectively. Anything done prior to the Act
would not become an offence; only those actions taking place after
the Act comes into force would be caught by the new provisions.
I am sure that noble Lords will agree that we owe it to ourselves
and to future generations to take great care of our wildlife in
order to preserve its abundance 539 and diversity. The 1981 Act has
been the vital key to establishing comprehensive and effective
procedures for protecting species and their habitats. But
unfortunately there are those who, by their thoughtlessness or
ill-considered actions, undermine these procedures by acting
outside the law and ignoring the wishes of the vast majority of
people in their concern to preserve our natural heritage.
This Bill would help to bring home to people who use or permit the
use of illegal methods to kill wildlife that we are determined to
do everything possible to meet our objectives for the protection of
our national heritage and especially our endangered species. We
must stamp out illegal practices that cause so much unnecessary
suffering to our wildlife and the death of species that do no harm.
We wish the Bill well in its remaining stages.
§ 7.20 p.m.
§ Baroness Nicol
My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has spoken in support of
the Bill. I understand the amendment that the Government are
bringing forward. I feel a little uneasy at the use by the noble
Baroness of the phrase "to give them an extra two months in which
to get rid of the pesticides". I hope that the result will not be
that the pesticides are got rid of by a quick, all-over poisoning
of the remaining terrain. However, we shall discuss that during the
Committee stage.
The suggestion put forward by the noble Viscount for an amnesty on
pesticides is a good idea. It will enable people to return them and
perhaps remove the temptation to get rid of them by use. It is
greatly to the credit of Members of your Lordships' House, among
whom there are so many who employ gamekeepers, that none of them
has turned out today to question the passage of the Bill. I take
that as very encouraging and as a sign that they are all
responsible employers of gamekeepers. I hope that the House will
give the Bill a Second Reading. [SO PEOPLE CAN TURN UP SPECIFICALLY
IF THE BILL INTERSTS THEM?]
§ On Question, Bill read a second time, and committx1 to a
Committee of the Whole House.
Viscount Astor
My Lords, I beg to move that the House d o now adjourn during
pleasure until five minutes past eight o'clock.
§ Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
§ [The Sitting was suspended from 7.22 to 8.5 p.m.]
Back to Child Support Bill [H.L.]
Forward to Child Support Bill [H.L.]
Noticed a typo? | Report other issues | © UK Parliament
Search Help

HANSARD 1803–2005 → 1990s → 1991 → March 1991 → 22 March 1991 →
Commons Sitting → Orders of the Day
PLEASE SUPPLY A COPY OF THE CONSULTATION AND THE REPLIES ESPECIALLY
IN RELATION TO HYBRIDS.

Search Help

HANSARD 1803–2005 → 1990s → 1994 → February 1994 → 17 February 1994
→ Written Answers (Commons) → ENVIRONMENT
Birds of Prey (Protection)
HC Deb 17 February 1994 vol 237 cc972-3W 972W
§ Mr. Hinchliffe
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment
he has made of current legislation protecting British birds of
prey; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Atkins
[holding answer 16 February 1994]: Under the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981 British birds of 973W prey are protected
against taking, killing, injuring or removal from the wild in any
other way, except under licence. I am satisfied that this
legislation is required and appropriate. Many birds of prey, both
native and non-native, are also subject to the registration and
ringing requirements of section 7 and schedule 4 to the Act if held
in captivity. A consultation paper was issued by the Department
last April inviting comments on possible changes to these
requirements. Consultation on detailed proposals affecting
registration and ringing of certain hawks and other species should
begin very shortly. PLEASE SUPPLY A COPY OF THE CONSULTATION AND
THE REPLIES ESPECIALLY IN RELATION TO HYBRIDS.
Back to Local Social Services
Forward to Equipment Thefts
Noticed a typo? | Report other issues | © UK Parliament
PLEASE SUPPLY THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION REQUEST IN BLUE PLACED IN
THE HANSARD TEXT IN 3 SECTIONS.
Search Help

HANSARD 1803–2005 → 1990s → 1994 → April 1994 → 25 April 1994 →
Written Answers (Commons) → ENVIRONMENT
Birds of Prey
HC Deb 25 April 1994 vol 242 cc40-1W 40W
§ Mr. Tony Banks
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what
representations he has received in respect of his proposal to lift
protection from birds of prey; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Atkins
I announced on 21 February 1994 that, following our review, we
proposed to make changes to the bird registration system to reduce
unnecessary regulation and to ensure that the controls are targeted
and implemented more effectively. We consulted around 7,000
organisations and individuals about our proposal and a copy of our
consultation letter was placed in the Library. Some 192 responses
were received. QUESTION 1 PLEASE SUPPLY A COPY OF THE CONSULTATION
LETTER, THE REPLIES AND ANY OTHER INFORNATION ESPECIALLY IN
RELATION TO HYBRIDS BIRDS OF PREY.
The Government remain convinced that the bird registration system
is in need of change. It was introduced for conservation reasons
and mainly in response to concerns about the major decline in
populations of birds of prey in the wild. Since the introduction of
the registration system of 1982, populations of some species have
recovered, particularly sparrowhawks, kestrels and common buzzards.
Some concern was expressed by consultees that the removal of
ringing and registration requirements could lead to an increase in
the taking of birds of prey from the wild. However, we believe that
the strict controls which will continue to protect birds of prey in
the wild should avoid any threat to the conservation of the three
United Kingdom breeding species to be removed from registration
requirements: the sparrowhawk, kestrel and common buzzard. The
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 generally prohibits the injuring,
killing or taking of birds from the wild. It also generally makes
it an offence to possess any bird or egg, whether alive or dead, or
any part or derivative of such a specimen.
The Act will continue to be strictly enforced. Moreover, the
resources which will be released by deregistration will enable the
Department's wildlife inspectorate to give 41W greater assistance
to the police and other enforcement agencies in protecting all wild
birds, particularly those more endangered species such as the
hobby, red kite and golden eagle. Reorganising work in this way
will also provide resources to expand the use of DNA testing
techniques to verify captive breeding claims. QUESTION 2 PLEASE
SUPPLY ANY INFORMATION RELATION TO AVIAN DNA [NOTTINGHAM
UNIVERSITY] AND WHY IT WAS NOT EXPANDED AND ALSO WHY DID NOTTINGHAM
UNIVERSITY’S SINGLE LOCUS PROBES NOT WORK CORRECTLY TO THE EXTENT
THAT THEY LOST THE CONTRACT AFTER MANY YEARS OF PUBLIC FUNDING.
COULD YOU ALSO SUPPLY THE DETAILS ON THE RSPB SETTING UP THE DNA
PROFILING AT NOTTINGHAM UNIVERSITY?
Concern was also expressed by the RSPCA and others that freedom of
movement of specimens within the European Union would create
opportunities for illegal trade in non-native birds, including
globally threatened species. We have therefore decided that ringing
and registration controls should continue to apply within Great
Britain to birds of prey which are threatened with extinction on a
global basis, in order to assist international conservation
efforts. In particular this means that the following species
originally proposed for deregistration will be retained on schedule
4 to the Act.
Species
Black Honey-Buzzard Henicopernis infuscatus
Madagascar Fish Eagle Haliaeetus vociferoides
Pallas's Fish Eagle Haliaeetus leucoryphus
Steller's Sea Eagle Haliaeetus pelagicus
Mountain Serpent-Eagle Spilornis kinabaluenis
Adaman Serpent-Eagle Spilornis elgini
Madagascar Serpent-Eagle Eutriorchis astur
Small Sparrowhawk Accipiter nanus
New Britain Sparrowhawk Accipiter brachyurus
Imitator Sparrowhawk Accipiter imitator
Gundlach's Sparrowhawk Accipiter gundlachi
White-necked Hawk Leucopternis lacernulata
Grey-backed Hawk Leucopternis occidentalis
Ridgeway's Hawk Buteo ridgwayi
Galapagos Hawk Buteo galapagoensis
Hawaiian Hawk Buteo solitarius
New Guinea Eagle Harpyopsis novaeguinae
Great Philippine Eagle Pithecophaga jefferyi
Adalbert's Eagle Aquila adalberti
Imperial Eagle Aquila heliaca
Wallace's Hawk-Eagle Spizaetus nanus
Plumbeous Forest-Falcon Micrastur plumbeus
Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni
Mauritius Kestrel Falco punctatus
The Government proposal to invite the Joint Nature Conservation
Committee to advise on criteria for the listing of species on
schedule 4 and our proposal that the list of species should be
subject to regular review, will enable us to respond to changes in
population levels of particular species and introduce or reinstate
registration requirements in the future. QUESTION 3 PLEASE GIVE THE
DETAILS AND RESULTS OF THE AFORESAID PROPOSALS IN RELATION TO
HYBRID BIRDS OF PREY ESPECIALLY. If necessary, this can be done
swiftly to meet any conservation need. I have today made an order
under section 22 of the Act. This will remove the following species
from schedule 4 to the Act: sparrowhawk, kestrel, common buzzard,
non-native and irregular visitor species of birds of prey—except
the Barbary falcon and the globally threatened species listed
above—and certain other birds which are not commonly kept in
captivity.
Back to Leaseholders
Forward to TRANSPORT
Noticed a typo? | Report other issues | © UK Parliament
24 Priestlands Close
Hexham
Northumberland
NE46 2AW
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/writt...
PLEASE SUPPLY ME WITH THE INFORMATION REQUESTED IN BLUE BELOW IN
EIGHT POINTS PLEASE IN THE HANSARD TEXT. 11 MAY 2009.

Search Help

HANSARD 1803–2005 → 1990s → 1994 → July 1994 → 20 July 1994 →
Written Answers (Commons) → ENVIRONMENT
Wildlife Sales Controls
HC Deb 20 July 1994 vol 247 cc321-3W 321W
§ Mr. Garnier
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a
statement on the outcome of his review of wildlife sales controls
in Great Britain.
§ Mr. Atkins
I announced the outcome of the first stage of the review on 25
April 1994. This focused mainly on changes in the bird registration
system. The rest of the review covered a range of issues concerning
secondary controls on native and exotic wildlife, and enforcement.
We plan to make some changes which should take effect from 1
October. These will simplify paper controls and improve
enforcement. There are seven main elements:
1. (i) The Registered Sellers of Dead Birds—RSDB—scheme allows
people, mainly taxidermists, registered with the Department to sell
dead birds. In return for a triennial fee, registered sellers do
not have to submit individual sales applications to the Department.
However they are required to fix a marker to specimens and to keep
records which are returned to the Department every six months. The
scheme was intended to discourage the taking of birds from the wild
for taxidermy and to allow people already legitimately trading in
birds to continue to do so without the need to apply for individual
sales licences. We believe that these objectives can be achieved
more effectively by issuing a general licence allowing the sale of
captive-bred and legally-taken dead birds. The wording of the
licence would make it clear that sellers must be able to
demonstrate conclusively that the legal requirements have been met.
We shall be issuing a formal consultation letter shortly.
2. (ii) The Department issues about 2,500 individual sales licences
each year to allow the sale of live or dead wildlife specimens, or
parts thereof, for example where they have been bred in captivity
or artificially propagated, or are needed for research. This means
that substantial resources are being devoted to authorising
legitimate activities which have little or no apparent effect on
the conservation of the species concerned. We shall therefore be
moving to a control system base on wider use of general sales
licences which will enable us to operate more effective checks on
specimens for which individual licences will continue to be
required. The new system will rely on the increased use of DNA
tests to check claims that specimens have been bred in captivity.
3. (iii) My Department has financed research on the use of DNA
testing to identify the parentage of birds, and I shall place a
copy of the results in the library of both Houses as soon as they
are available. QUESTION 1 PLEASE SUPPLY ME WITH A COPY OF THE
RESULTS DNA tests have already been used in four recent and
successful prosecutions, QUESTION 2 PLEASE SUPPLY ME WITH THE
DETAILS AND/OR ANY INFORMATION IN RELATION TO THE PROSECTIONS AND
ON WHAT DATES THE PROSECTION OCCURRED and further cases are in the
pipeline. QUESTION 3 PLEASE SUPPLY ME WITH THE DETAILS AND/OR ANY
INFORMATION IN RELATION TO THE PROSECTIONS IN THE PIPELINES AND ON
WHAT DATES THE PROSECTIONS ARE DUE TO OCCUR We shall be looking
into the feasibility of extending the use of DNA testing where
appropriate to help enforce controls on other endangered species.
QUESTION 4 PLEASE SUPPLY ME WITH A COPY OF THE RESULTS OF THE
FEASIBILITY OF EXTENDING THE USE OF DNA IN RELATION TO NOTTINGHAM
UNIVERSITY SINGLE LOCUS PROBES.
4. (iv) Four amphibian species are subject to sales controls, but
not a prohibition on the killing, injuring or taking of wild
specimens, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981—the common
toad, common frog, smooth newt and palmate newt. At present these
species can be sold only if an individual licence has been issued
or if the vendor has obtained a 'trader' licence. The reported
level of trade in these species, which is in the low thousands, is
unlikely to have a discernible effect on populations in the wild,
which run into millions. We shall therefore be issuing a general
licence for these four species, subject to conditions agreed with
our scientific advisers, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee,
restricing the times and locations when they can be collected. We
shall also be asking the JNCC to look carefully at the
effectiveness of sale-only controls in its next quinquennial review
of schedules 5 and 8 of the Act.
5. (v) In the past, some species have been subject to sales
controls under the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976.
In many instances, these controls 322 have been superseded by the
EC CITES regulation or duplicated by the Wildlife and Countryside
Act 1981. These controls have taken precedence and the sale of most
of the small number of species remaining has been permitted under
an open sales licence for some time. In December 1992, the then
Minister, my noble Friend Lord Strathclyde, announced that 200
additional species would be made subject to sales controls
following the establishment of the single market. On further
investigation we are not convinced that sale controls are an
effective means of controlling trade in these species and we do not
now propose to introduce these measures. Furthermore, we do not
propose to add any new species to the Act for the purposes of sales
controls unless our scientific advisers judge that an undesirable
level of trade in any wide specimens of particular species is
taking place.
6. (vi) We believe that there is room for improving controls on the
import of CITES species. In particular, the Department will give
greater emphasis to its powers to impose conditions on import
permits and to ensure that conditions which have been imposed are
complied with. Where an import of a CITES appendix I (or EC
Regulation Annex C1) specimen is allowed only because of the
purpose for which it will be used, for example for specific
research or breeding projects, a condition will be imposed
requiring prior authorisation from the Department before it is used
for any other purpose. We will continue to make use of the
provision to restrict the movement of a specimen from the address
specified on the import permit. The Department's wildlife
inspectors will carry out more inspections to ensure that specimens
are used and kept as proposed.
7. (vii) The Department already monitors advertisements offering
endangered species for sale in a range of specialist journals. More
journals will be scrutinised and advertisements followed up; to
guard against possible sale offences. QUESTION 5 PLEASE SUPPLY ME
WITH A COPY OF THE RESULTS AND ANY INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE.
We also propose to make a number of changes which will take longer
to implement. First, we will review our publicity on both primary
and secondary controls, with a view to issuing additional material
by March 1995. Secondly, we shall consider whether there is any
scope for the conservation agencies assuming responsibility for
some of the licensing controls currently operated by my Department.
Thirdly, we will begin work to consider amending the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981 to exclude captive-bred birds and remove
duplication with the EC CITES regulation.
These changes as a whole will reduce bureaucracy, and release
resources to improve enforcement of the import and sales controls
which protect genuinely endangered species. The additional
enforcement measures I have described—more inspections, DNA tests,
stricter import conditions and monitoring of advertisements—will be
introduced by October this year. QUESTION 6 PLEASE SUPPLY ME WITH A
COPY OF THE RESULTS ESPECIALLY IN RELATION TO DNA TESTING AND WHY
DNA TESTING WAS STOPPED IN RELATION TO NOTTINGHAM UNIVERSITY SINGLE
LOCUS PROBES.
We also recognise the scope for further improvements in enforcement
and in the links between enforcement agencies. These need to be
considered in detail with other interested groups, including the
voluntary bodies QUESTION 7 PLEASE SUPPLY ME WITH A COPY OF THE
RESULTS ESPECIALLY IN RELATION TO DNA TESTING AND WHY DNA TESTING
WAS STOPPED IN RELATION TO NOTTINGHAM UNIVERSITY SINGLE LOCUS
PROBES. I therefore propose to establish an official level working
group on enforcement involving relevant enforcement agencies and
non-Governmental organisations. Its composition and detailed terms
of reference will be announced shortly.
I have placed a paper giving more about these proposals and the
background to them in the Libraries of both Houses in accordance
with our commitment to open government. QUESTION 8 PLEASE SUPPLY ME
WITH A COPY OF THE RESULTS ESPECIALLY IN RELATION TO DNA TESTING
AND WHY DNA TESTING WAS STOPPED IN RELATION TO NOTTINGHAM
UNIVERSITY SINGLE LOCUS PROBES.
323W
Back to Litter
Forward to Departmental Houses
Noticed a typo? | Report other issues | © UK Parliament

Search Help

HANSARD 1803–2005 → 1990s → 1994 → July 1994 → 20 July 1994 →
Written Answers (Lords)

Yours sincerely,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Dear Sir or Madam,

Are you going to continue to break the law or are you going to
supply the information requested as I have waited too long already?

Yours sincerely,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Dear Sir or Madam,

Could you please tell me what has occurred to the internal review
and the information requested?

Yours sincerely,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]