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

Derek Canning LLB [HONS] made this Freedom of Information request to House of Commons This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

House of Commons did not have the information requested.

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

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]

FOICOMMONS, House of Commons

Dear Mr Canning,

Thank you for your email dated and received 20 April 2009.

We shall deal with your request promptly and provide a response by 19
May 2009.

If you have any queries about your request, please contact me

Mandy Kelly
Freedom of Information Assistant

show quoted sections

FOICOMMONS, House of Commons

Dear Mr Canning,

Thank you for your request for information which is copied below.

MPs are required to provide information of any pecuniary interest or
other material benefit which a Member receives which might reasonably be
thought by others to influence his or her actions, speeches or votes in
Parliament, or actions taken in the capacity of a Member of Parliament.
Such interests are recorded in the Register of Members' Interests
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa... .
Otherwise no information is held by the House of Commons.

We have no record of receiving any prior request from you.

You may, if dissatisfied with the treatment of your request, ask the
House of Commons to conduct an internal review of this decision.
Requests for internal review should be addressed to: Freedom of
Information Officer, Department of Resources, House of Commons London
SW1 OAA or [House of Commons request email]. Please ensure that you specify the
nature of your complaint and any arguments or points that you wish to
make.

If you remain dissatisfied, you may appeal to the Information
Commissioner at Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

Yours sincerely


Bob Castle
Head of Information Rights and Information Security House of Commons

show quoted sections

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]

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]

FOICOMMONS, House of Commons

Dear Mr Canning,

Thank you for your email dated 25 May 2009 which was received on 26 May.

Our internal target for dealing with internal reviews is thirty working
days. We will deal with your request promptly and endeavour to provide
a response by 7 July 2009.

Mandy Kelly
Freedom of Information Assistant

show quoted sections

FOICOMMONS, House of Commons

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Canning LLB,

Please find attached response to your request for an internal review of
your Freedom of Information request F09-168.

Yours sincerely,

Katy Turner

show quoted sections

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]

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]

FOICOMMONS, House of Commons

'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
</request/the_rspb_using_their_members_in> ' made by Derek Canning LLB
[HONS] </user/derek_canning_llb_hons>

Dear Mr Canning
I am sorry not to have responded before now
In response to your email of 23 June - the House of Commons does not
hold information about "How many other laws have those elements that
could send someone to jail" . The Statute Law database may assist your
research: http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/
In response to your email of 25 June - it is not clear what you are
referring to. However, the extent and nature of information held in
relation to your request is dealt with in the response and review
detailed above.
Yours sincerely

Bob Castle
Head of Information Rights and Information Security
House of Commons

show quoted sections