At today’s AGM, the Chair of RSPB Council, Kevin Cox, made this announcement.
“There is growing concern about the environmental impact (including for carbon, water and biodiversity) of intensive forms of game bird shooting and associated land management practices. This includes both driven grouse moor management (which involves shooting our native red grouse) and largescale release of non-native game birds, primarily pheasants and red-legged partridges, now in excess of 40 million birds annually.
Environmental concerns include the ongoing and systematic illegal persecution of birds of prey such as hen harriers on some sporting estates; the ecological impact of high numbers of game birds released into the countryside increasing the density of generalist predators; the mass culling of mountain hares in some parts of our uplands; the use of lead ammunition; the impact of burning peatlands and medicating wild animals for sport shooting.
In response to the evidence about the scale of the environmental impact and growing public concern, including from our membership, the RSPB’s Council has agreed to review our policy on game bird shooting and associated land management.
This is an emotive and sometimes controversial subject but we want to use our scientific rigour to develop a set of conservation tests for management practices associated with game bird shooting. We will use these to guide the RSPB’s conservation policy, practice and communications, consistent with the ongoing climate and ecological emergency, respectful of our charitable objectives and maintaining the confidence and support of our members.
We intend to do this, informed by the views of members and other stakeholders many of whom we have engaged with on these issues for decades.
The exact process we shall follow to conduct this review will be communicated as soon as possible. The intention is to complete this work as soon as is practically possible but in order to engage people in the right way and ensure we have the best available evidence it might take until the next AGM, though we hope that it will be completed sooner than that.
And to avoid doubt, we shall in this period, while the review is being conducted, continue to call for the introduction of licensing of driven grouse shooting.”
I shall say more on this subject in due course. But if you do have any immediate reaction, please do get in touch as it would be great to hear your views.
I believe this would involve changes to the RSPB’s royal charter, if there where any changes made in policy to this subject. And after checking this as I had already known this for years. It’s not straight forward to make changes to the RSPB’s royal charter and it’s worth reading the privy council’s website and it would be the privy council that would have to make any changes if requested by recomendation’s from the RSPB.
Regards,
Ian.
"Since then, the Charter and Statutes have been updated a number of times. Most recently, the RSPB went through a constitutional review process in 2016 – 2019, leading to the current Charter and Statutes and the new Bye-Laws. The Privy Council approved our new Charter and Statutes in February 2019."
I know that. But I’m saying, it’s not straightforward as some members of this forum have suggested, as the RSPB can’t make changes to the Royal Charter themselves, as the RSPB can only make recommendations to the Privy Council and I don’t think this change will be easy as other changes over the last few years.. Also as one member of this forum suggested ditch the royal charter, it would be very difficult and practically impossible and you can get all the details by googling to see why. This could be more difficult than usual as the Privy Council would have to hear from other organisations such as gamekeepers etc, before considering any changes to the RSPB’s royal charter and it won’t be 100% certain that this change in this review would be allowed if the RSPB recommend changes to there royal charter to the privy council to consider.
The RSPB has made changes to its RC many times, including at last year's AGM. Amendments to its governing documents are not hampered by their status as a Royal Charter or by being overseen by the Privy Council as neither the Monarch or Privy Council has a power to refuse the change, only to withdraw the charter. Amendments are no more difficult than for any other charity covered by Charity law and the Companies Act (in respect of invoking Special Resolutions) except that it takes longer as the PC is involved, as are Statutory Consultees such as Defra. The PC offers the following guidance on its website:
“… The Privy Council Office is not aware of any Charter being revoked since the time of Charles II. Our understanding is that The Sovereign has no power to revoke a Charter at will, without the consent of the original grantees or their successors. In the absence of the consent of the grantee, it may be that the only way to revoke a Charter granted under the prerogative would be by primary legislation.”
“Separately, legal proceedings by way of Scire Facias (a writ requiring a person to show why a judgment regarding a record or patent should be enforced or annulled) could be brought by a third party in the administrative court. This is the only means by which a court may determine forfeiture of a Royal Charter. A Claimant would need to show some degree of interest in the proceedings to bring a claim, but the extent of this would depend on the circumstances. Where it is claimed that a Chartered body has acted in breach of a term of the Charter, the court has discretion to determine whether the Charter should be forfeited or not. Historically, there have been very few scire facias cases – the last one being in 1853.”