Part of our democratic tradition is the right to protest and the freedom of expression. Charities have a rich and long history of influencing change in policy, law, attitudes and behaviour - the RSPB's own campaigning roots date back to our origins in 1889 and the ultimately successful campaign against the use of feathers in the hat trade while we also fought a decade long battle to ban the use of DDTs - a class of pesticides that was harmful to birds of prey.
I have been involved in a number of campaigns which resulted in changes in the law: to improve the management of our finest wildlife sites (Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000), protect the marine environment (Marine and Coastal Access Act, 2008) and set legally binding targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Climate Change Act 2008). Each of these landmark achievements were hard fought and were the culmination of many years of campaigning and each required manifesto commitments before legislative reform was secured.
Since 2011, there has been a formal way of securing parliamentary profile with the Number 10 petition system established to enable parliamentary debate for petitions attracting more than 100,000 signatures. 39 petitions have secured such a debate and the latest took place today as a result of Mark Avery's campaign to ban driven grouse shooting. As most readers of this blog will know, the RSPB believes that a licensing system for driven grouse shooting should be introduced as an effective way of improving our uplands. In the run up to the debate, we shared our knowledge of the environmental consequences of driven grouse shooting.
My colleague, Jeff Knott, witnessed the debate and sent me this rapid assessment...
"There was lots of interest and a ticketing system had to be introduced because so many people came to listen: about 50 individuals which was approximately twice the capacity of the room. Equally, there was lots of interest from MPs with about 50 MPs attending at least part, with a majority speaking.
Overall, it was an interesting debate with a variety of contributions from MPs, varied in subject, opinion and quality. There was lots of agreement that biodiversity conservation is a major imperative. That is clearly good news! Yet, there were also various references to hen harriers doing better on driven grouse moors than off them. This simply isn't true. Several MPs said hen harriers are increasing. While they have increased from a historical low 100 years ago, the UK population declined between the last two national surveys. And clearly, it will be interesting to see what this year's survey says.
It was questioned why there are no hen harriers on RSPB reserves. There are! In 2015, RSPB nature reserves across the UK provided a home to over 60 pairs of hen harriers in 2015, about 10% of the UK population. And this year, one of the three pairs that successfully nested in England was on our Geltsdale reserve.
There was lots of support for greater enforcement of laws to prevent illegal killing of birds of prey, but this was short on detail. It was striking that the only real argument against licensing was that it would be bureaucratic. Indeed several MPs stated it was an option. This is easily solvable and we'd be very happy to work with parliamentarians to develop a streamlined system.
Clearly, there is huge interest in this subject, both from the public and from MPs, so it is vital that the Government sets out how it will enable further debate leading to action and real change."
While there will be some that will be downhearted that the parliamentary debate did not lead to an immediate commitment for legislative reform, I think that it would be a mistake to ignore the voices of more than 100,000 people wanting reform. The public anger about ongoing persecution of birds of prey and the state of our uplands will only grow unless action is taken. And, the RSPB will continue to make the case for reform both in England and in Scotland, where licensing will be considered through a similar petitioning process.
Change may take time, but it will come.
I think that in future, Martin, the RSPB must support this stance regardless of that awkward 'Royal' in the title. The organisation has been proven to have been too cautious and the enemy has ruthlessly used that against you - and our native birds of prey.
Our herring gulls are red listed birds. Think about that the next time you hear some flaming idiot calling for a cull of them.
Indeed Martin, as George Orwell said 'Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear'. On all sides of this discussion.
Of course there should not be sides in this debate and Jeff calling for 'further debate' hardly helps harriers or wildlife as a whole. Only a partnership in constructive dialogue, including robust natural and social science-informed exchanges, can further possible solutions to this long running matter of human-human interests with wildlife in the middle.
It is never right to give up on talking, or sabotage painfully slow progress in the name of public opinion when doing so might block any potential public benefits from reforming moorland management. Think of any conflict (Northern Ireland 20 yrs ago, Columbia today) - of course solutions are not perfect for everyone. Few are. And yes, changes are required within shooting practices and I shall do everything I can do to help engineer them.
But if I hear on the grapevine that it's fashionable for keepers to 'wear a pair of harriers' on their moor in 2017, don't be surprised that the govt led Hen Harrier Action Plan can still work and lead to 'real change'.
Trust in a peace accord, not 'own' an urge to win a war.
Best
www.robyorke.co.uk
If you listened to the debate, then it is clear there is a long way to go to break down the myths that are peddled by the grouse-moor owners.I do think the RSPB should have promoted Mark's petition more, in order to help secure the debate.The MPs almost used the fact that the RSPB did not support a ban to discredit the petition.It is quite clear to me that the RSPB is going to have to step up its game if it is to win over the public to force the necessary change.There is still much frustration (and anger from many) that the RSPB still seems too worried about ruffling establishment's feathers!
I witnessed the debate as well, but I'm not sure it was the same one as Jeff! True, both sides of the argument were mentioned but hardly in a balanced way. To start with the Chairman, who I expected to be impartial, at least in his opening remarks, quickly established his antithesis to the petition. This was mostly followed by feudal relic after feudal relic getting up in an attempt to defend the indefensible. Many speakers were extremely unpleasant about the petitioners and the RSPB but are presumably protected by Parliamentary Privilege. It seemed to be orchestrated that Mark was continually referred to as Mr. Avery rather than Dr. Avery!
I would have hoped that the whole of the RSPB management team would have sat down to watch the debate in full (it's still available if they haven't) and analysed each contribution. I will look forward to seeing a further in depth analysis in due course, Martin.
ps don't quite understand your reply below. Did Vanellus ask you a question?
We did not support the epetition that led to the parliamentary debate, Vannellus and have not sought to claim credit in any way. Indeed we received a considerable amount of flack for not supporting it as you know! However, given our desire for reform of grouse shooting and the interest people have shown in the debate and the fact we submitted evidence to the pre-debate inquiry, I felt it was appropriate to offer our perspective on yesterday's events.