Glen
Black
14th May
2019
MPs
debated the impact and legality of anti-bird netting on
13 May. Anti-netting campaigners welcomed the debate, which came after a
petition gained more than 355,000 signatures. But the way it ended left
campaigners absolutely fuming.
The issue
Labour MP
Mike Hill led the cross-party debate on netting. Developers use the practice to prevent birds from nesting in their
chosen location such as trees, hedgerows, rafters and cliffs. Interfering with already-nesting birds
is illegal under the Wildlife and Countryside Act
1981. So developers get around this law by putting up nets that stop birds from
being able to nest in the first place. But conservationists and other wildlife
advocates have condemned netting for seriously disrupting birds’ natural
breeding patterns. Furthermore, as Hill said in his introduction to the debate:
the issue
goes well beyond the detrimental effect of netting on nesting birds; netting
affects the wellbeing of other wildlife, as well as having environmental
consequences.
The
debate took place after a petition on
the government’s website reached more than 355,000 signatures. The debate noted
this display of public concern. Conservative MP Cheryl Gillan, for
example, said that more than 1,000 of the signatures came
from her constituency alone and this reflected a “great concern” for the
environment. And Hill described the petition as having “raised plenty of
interest… and strong feelings”.
Agreement
across the floor
MPs
across political lines broadly agreed with the sentiment of the petition.
Liberal Democrat MP Norman Lamb highlighted the use of netting on cliffs
in Bacton, north Norfolk, and emphasised the need for “close collaboration” between councils
and groups such as the RSPB to “absolutely properly… protect birds”. Meanwhile,
SNP MP John McNally said that his “feeling is that this practice is
in no way acceptable”. And Luke Pollard, a Labour Co-operative MP, said:
No comments:
Post a Comment