THE RSPB USING THEIR MEMBERS IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS TO CONTROL THE WAY THE LAW IS FORMED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AND THE HOUSE OF LORDS

Dear Sir or Madam,

HOW MANY MEMBERS OF THE RSPB ARE ALSO MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS
AND COMMONS?

WHAT INFLUENCE DUE MEMBERS OF THE RSPB HAVE ON MAKING THE LAWS THAT
CONTROL USE?

IS IT FAIR THAT RSPB MEMBERS ARE ALLOWED TO CONTROL LAW MAKING 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? I HAVE THE EVIDENCE TO PROVE THIS
CORRUPTION IF YOU WANT TO SEE IT.

WHY HAVE BOTH HOUSES IGNORED THIS INFORMATION REQUEST FOR THE LAST
6 MONTHS OR IN OTHER WORDS WHAT HAVE YOU GOT TO HIDE?

Yours faithfully,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Dear FOICOMMONS,

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,

Please note the followings rules before supplying the information
requested.

House of Lords
Code of Conduct (from 31st March 2002)

This Code of Conduct came into effect on 31st March 2002.
HOUSE OF LORDS
CODE OF CONDUCT
Adopted on Monday 2nd July 2001
as amended on Tuesday 24th July 2001
Purpose of the Code
1. The purpose of this Code of Conduct is:
(a) to provide guidance for Members of the House of Lords on the
standards of conduct expected of them in the discharge of their
parliamentary and public duties;
(b) to provide the openness and accountability necessary to
reinforce public confidence in the way in which Members of the
House of Lords perform their parliamentary and public duties.
2. This Code applies to all Members of the House of Lords who have
not taken leave of absence.
Public duty
3. By virtue of their oath, or affirmation, of allegiance, Members
of the House have a duty to be faithful and bear true allegiance to
Her Majesty The Queen, Her heirs and successors, according to law.
Personal conduct
4. Members of the House:

(a) must comply with the Code of Conduct;
(b) should act always on their personal honour;
(c) must never accept any financial inducement as an incentive or
reward for exercising parliamentary influence;
(d) must not vote on any bill or motion, or ask any question in the
House or a committee, or promote any matter, in return for payment
or any other material benefit (the "no paid advocacy" rule).
5. Members of the House should observe the seven general principles
of conduct identified by the Committee on Standards in Public Life.
The seven principles are:
(a) Selflessness: Holders of public office should take decisions
solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in
order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves,
their family, or their friends.
(b) Integrity: Holders of public office should not place themselves
under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or
organisations that might influence them in the performance of their
official duties.
(c) Objectivity: In carrying out public business, including making
public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending
individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office
should make choices on merit.
(d) Accountability: Holders of public office are accountable for
their decisions and actions to the public and must submit
themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.
(e) Openness: Holders of public office should be as open as
possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They
should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information
only when the wider public interest clearly demands.
(f) Honesty: Holders of public office have a duty to declare any
private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps
to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the Clerk
of the Parliaments by a Registrar appointed by him.
A Member of the House must register relevant interests before 31st
March 2002 and thereafter within one month of acquiring them.
The register shall be available for public inspection in accordance
with arrangements made by the Registrar. The register shall be
regularly updated and shall be reprinted annually. The annual
publication shall include all interests registered since the
previous edition and all continuing interests unless their
termination has been notified to the Registrar.
Registration and Declaration of Relevant Interests
8. Members of the House must:
(a) register in the Register of Lords' Interests all relevant
interests, in order to make clear what are the interests that the
Clerk of the Parliaments by a Registrar appointed by him.

A Member of the House must register relevant interests before 31st
March 2002 and thereafter within one month of acquiring them.

The register shall be available for public inspection in accordance
with arrangements made by the Registrar. The register shall be
regularly updated and shall be reprinted annually. The annual
publication shall include all interests registered since the
previous edition and all continuing interests unless their
termination has been notified to the Registrar.
Registration and Declaration of Relevant Interests
8. Members of the House must:
(a) register in the Register of Lords' Interests all relevant
interests, in order to make clear what are the interests that might
reasonably be thought to influence their actions;
(b) declare when speaking in the House, or communicating with
ministers, government departments or executive agencies, any
interest which is a relevant interest in the context of the debate
or the matter under discussion. This is necessary in order that
their audience may form a balanced judgment of their arguments. In
cases where Members of the House vote in a division where they have
a relevant interest that they have not been able to declare, they
should register that interest within 24 hours of the division.
What is a relevant interest?
9. The test of relevant interest is whether the interest might
reasonably be thought by the public to affect the way in which a
Member of the House of Lords discharges his or her parliamentary
duties.
10. The test of relevant interest is therefore not whether a
Member's actions in Parliament will be influenced by the interest,
but whether the public might reasonably think that this might be
the case.
11. Relevant interests include both financial and non-financial
interests.
Relevant financial interests
12. The following financial interests are always relevant and
therefore must be registered:
(a) any consultancy agreement under which Members of the House
provide parliamentary advice or services. A copy of any such
agreement, and the remuneration received by Members for advice in
relation to parliamentary matters, must be deposited with the
Registrar of Lords' Interests, so that details are available for
public inspection.
(b) employment or any other financial interest in businesses
involved in parliamentary lobbying on behalf of clients, including
public relations and law firms but Members of the House involved
with organisations that offer commercial lobbying services are not
obliged to refrain from participating in parliamentary business in
connection with all clients of that organisation but only their
personal clients;
(c) any remunerated service which Members of the House provide by
virtue of their position as members of Parliament, and the clients
of any such service;
(d) employment as a non-parliamentary consultant;
(e) remunerated directorships;
(f) regular remunerated employment (excluding occasional income
from speeches, lecturing, broadcasting and journalism);
(g) shareholdings amounting to a controlling interest;
(h) provision by an outside body of secretarial and research
assistance;
(i) visits with costs paid in the United Kingdom and overseas, made
as a member of Parliament, except any visits paid for from public
funds.
13. The list in paragraph 12 above is not exhaustive. For example,
relevant financial interests may also include (depending on their
significance):
(a) shareholdings not amounting to a controlling interest;
(b) landholdings (excluding Members' homes);
(c) the financial interests of a spouse or relative or friend;
(d) hospitality or gifts given to a Member which could reasonably
be regarded as an incentive to support a particular cause or
interest.
14. Except for remuneration received by Members for advice in
relation to parliamentary matters, Members of the House are not
required to disclose how much they earn from the financial
interests set out in paragraphs 12 and 13, but they may do so if
they wish.
Relevant non-financial interests
15. The following non-financial interests are always relevant and
therefore must be registered:
(a) membership of public bodies such as hospital trusts, the
governing bodies of universities, colleges and schools, and local
authorities;
(b) trusteeships of museums, galleries or similar bodies;
(c) acting as an office-holder or trustee in pressure groups or
trade unions;
(d) acting as an office-holder or trustee in voluntary or
not-for-profit organisations.
16. The list in paragraph 15 above is not exhaustive. For example,
relevant non-financial interests may also include (depending on
their significance):
(a) other trusteeships;
(b) unpaid membership of voluntary organisations.
17. Members of the House are not obliged to register membership of
Churches, religious bodies and quasi-religious organisations. But
it may be necessary to declare such interests (see paragraph 8).
Advice
18. The operation of the register shall be overseen by a
Sub-Committee of the Committee for Privileges on Lords' Interests
and the Registrar shall consult the Sub-Committee when necessary.
The Registrar is available to advise Members of the House. A Member
who acts on the advice of the Registrar in determining what is a
relevant interest satisfies fully the requirements of the Code of
Conduct.
Enforcement of the Code of Conduct
19. Allegations of non-compliance with this Code are dealt with as
follows:
(a) Any allegation should normally be raised first with the Member
complained against. However, there may be circumstances when it is
more appropriate to raise the matter with a party Leader or Chief
Whip, or the Convenor of the Cross Bench Peers.
(b) If the complainant chooses to pursue the matter, he or she
should refer the allegation in private directly to the
Sub-Committee on Lords' Interests, through its chairman.
(c) The Sub-Committee will then examine the allegation and may
decide to investigate it further or to dismiss it.
(d) In the investigation and adjudication of complaints against
them, Members of the House have the right to safeguards as rigorous
as those applied in the courts and professional disciplinary
bodies.
(e) If after investigation the Sub-Committee finds the allegation
proved, the Member complained against has a right of appeal to the
Committee for Privileges.
(f) The conclusions of the Sub-Committee and of the Committee for
Privileges are reported to the House.
20. Paragraph 7 shall have effect forthwith; the remainder of this
Code shall have effect from 31st March 2002; and the resolution of
the House of 7th November 1995 on the practice of the House in
relation to Lords' interests shall cease to have effect on the same
date.

Yours sincerely,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Dear FOICOMMONS,

I would appear to me that members of the RSPB are controlling Bills
going through the Houses without any counter controls and balances
and it needs to be investigated.

If you look at the laws that involve birds you will see how the law
has been changed to reflect the RSPB's wishes even sending people
to jail when the case has not been proven or for example in the
case of disturbing birds the RSPB were not happy that people were
not getting prosecuted if they made a genuine mistake therefore the
had placed in the act that you only need to be reckless. In summer
the RSPB have reversed the burden of proof in the Wildlife and
Countryside Act therefore a person can go to jail when there is
still grave doubt as to guilty or in the case of disturbance only
recklessness is need. How many other laws have those elements that
could send someone to jail?

Yours sincerely,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Dear Sir or Madam,

It seems to me that rules have been broken so what happens now: can
there be an investigation?

Yours sincerely,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]