Wild birds: Daera 'possibly failed' to comply with environmental law
The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (Daera) may have failed to comply with environmental law, according to a new report.It is in relation to special protection areas for at-risk wild birds, such as puffins, whooper swans and light-bellied Brent geese.An investigation from the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) had been previously launched in March 2024, following potential failures to implement recommendations given by a conservation body. Daera said it welcomes the OEP's work and will be "considering the investigation findings", whilst recognising "that there is much more to do to protect our natural environment and the habitats that wild birds and other wildlife need to survive and thrive".
The OEP has issued Daera with a notice, which they must respond to within two months. A full response will be delivered by the deadline of 5 August
Helen Venn, the OEP chief regulatory officer has said that the government has a legal obligation to maintain populations of wild birds and ensure they have enough suitable habitat.Ms Venn said "our investigation has found what we believe to be possible failures to comply with environmental law by DAERA relating to the protection of wild birds".She noted the decline in wild birds across Northern Ireland, adding that recent studies have placed "a quarter of birds found on the island of Ireland on the Birds of Conservation Concern Red List".
The investigation in March 2024 looked into failures to implement recommendations given by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) and other conservation public bodies on the classification and adaptation of Special Protection Areas (SPAs)
A parallel investigation is looking at the same issues relating to England, and information notices have also been issued to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Secretary of State (SoS) and Natural England.
What is the OEP?
The Office for Environmental Protection, external is a new environmental governance body, which holds the government and other public authorities in England and Northern Ireland to account on their environmental protection and improvement.It also covers reserved UK-wide matters.It advises the government and Northern Ireland Assembly on any changes to environmental law.It has statutory powers to investigate and enforces compliance with environmental law where needed.That enforcement can include legal action if unresolved through compliance with recommendations.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Palestine Action to be banned after vandalism of planes at RAF base
The Home Secretary is preparing to ban Palestine Action following the group's vandalism of two planes at an RAF base. Yvette Cooper has decided to proscribe the group, making it a criminal offence to belong to or support Palestine Action. The decision comes after the group posted footage online showing two people inside the base at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire. The clip shows one person riding an electric scooter up to an Airbus Voyager air-to-air refuelling tanker and appearing to spray paint into its jet engine. The incident is being also investigated by counter terror police. A spokesperson for Palestine Action accused the UK of failing to meet its obligation to prevent or punish genocide. The spokesperson said: 'When our government fails to uphold their moral and legal obligations, it is the responsibility of ordinary citizens to take direct action. The terrorists are the ones committing a genocide, not those who break the tools used to commit it.' The Home Secretary has the power to proscribe an organisation under the Terrorism Act of 2000 if she believes it is 'concerned in terrorism'. Proscription will require Ms Cooper to lay an order in Parliament, which must then be debated and approved by both MPs and peers. Some 81 organisations have been proscribed under the 2000 Act, including Islamist terrorist groups such as Hamas and al Qaida, far-right groups such as National Action, and Russian private military company Wagner Group. Another 14 organisations connected with Northern Ireland are also banned under previous legislation, including the IRA and UDA. Belonging to or expressing support for a proscribed organisation, along with a number of other actions, are criminal offences carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison. Friday's incident at Brize Norton, described by the Prime Minister as 'disgraceful', prompted calls for Palestine Action to be banned. The group has staged a series of demonstrations in recent months, including spraying the London offices of Allianz Insurance with red paint over its alleged links to Israeli defence company Elbit, and vandalising Donald Trump's Turnberry golf course in South Ayrshire. The Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) welcomed the news that Ms Cooper intended to proscribe the group, saying: 'Nobody should be surprised that those who vandalised Jewish premises with impunity have now been emboldened to sabotage RAF jets.' CAA chief executive Gideon Falter urged the Home Secretary to proscribe the Houthi rebel group and Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, adding: 'This country needs to clamp down on the domestic and foreign terrorists running amok on our soil.' Former home secretary Suella Braverman said it was 'absolutely the correct decision'. But Tom Southerden, of Amnesty International UK, said the human rights organisation was 'deeply concerned at the use of counter terrorism powers to target protest groups'. Mr Southerden said: 'Terrorism powers should never have been used to aggravate criminal charges against Palestine Action activists and they certainly shouldn't be used to ban them. 'Instead of suppressing protest against the UK's military support for Israel, the UK should be taking urgent action to prevent Israel's genocide and end any risk of UK complicity in it.'
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
This ticking timebomb of an assisted dying Bill will lead us to a moral abyss, writes professor DAVID S. ODERBERG
The passing of the euphemistically named Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is a terrible milestone in the decline of medicine and medical ethics in the UK. MPs voted for it by a very narrow margin after some withdrew their support following the second reading, and the Bill will now head to the Lords, where it is unlikely to be significantly amended. Much of the impassioned debate revolved around crucial questions regarding safeguards against abuse, worries about possible coercion, and the need to focus more on palliative care, among many other legitimate and serious concerns. What seems largely to have escaped scrutiny is this simple fact: our MPs have approved a piece of legislation that is a euthanasia Bill in all but name. Let me explain why. The Bill makes it clear in multiple places that the person's death must be 'self-administered'. Clause 23 is explicit that the 'coordinating doctor' is not authorised by the Bill to administer the lethal substance. All they are allowed to do is 'prepare' the substance for self-administration, 'prepare a medical device' to enable the patient to self-administer, or 'assist' the patient to do so. The death-dealing act itself must be performed by the patient. Hence there is, technically, no euthanasia – no killing by the doctor of the patient. There is, however, the smallest of hints that all is not quite as it seems. According to clause 11, the 'assessing doctor' must 'discuss with the person their wishes in the event of complications arising in connection with the self-administration of an approved substance'. What could that mean? Well, the patient may, quite simply, find it difficult to self-administer. They might bungle it, as should be expected in such a fraught and stressful situation. Suppose they fail to self-administer despite making all the right requests at the right time. Or, even worse, suppose they partly self-administer but do not finish the job, and they are writhing in agony, not dead but in a terrible state. What then? I am no prophet, and I will not put a precise timeline on the following – save to say that it will all become clear in a handful of years. This Bill will be modified to allow active killing. Imagine a patient with motor neurone disease, or advanced multiple sclerosis, or late-stage Huntington's disease. Suppose, as is likely, they cannot self-administer, yet their request for 'assisted dying' is lucid, fixed, and follows the procedures in the Bill. By the letter of the law, their request must be denied. Yet surely this, from the viewpoint of the legislation's supporters, would be a perverse outcome. Here is a person in an awful state, who fits the Bill's definition of someone who is terminally ill (death reasonably expected within six months). Their circumstances are no different from anyone else entitled to request assisted dying except for the fact that they are physically unable to kill themselves. Should they be denied the right to a so-called 'peaceful death'? If so, the supposed injustice would be obvious: they would be, effectively, punished for their own misfortune. Through no fault of their own, they do not meet the Bill's criteria. Yet their medical condition could be, in terms of disability and subjective suffering, much worse than that of someone who does fit the bill and is allowed an assisted death. Could such an 'unjust' outcome be what Parliament intended? Clearly not. So what will happen is that euthanasia advocates will, as sure as night follows day, bring a test case involving someone with a dreadful affliction such as one of the ones I just mentioned. They will say to the court: 'Your Honour, it is simply unjust and perverse that my client can have no access to assisted dying, simply through no fault of their own, and even though their suffering is among the worst imaginable.' A judge will then do one of two things. They might appeal to clause 11 and 'read into' the legislation an implied legislative intent to allow active killing – euthanasia – in such a 'rare' case, and in similar ones. But I think this would be a stretch too far, judicially speaking. It is more likely that they will disallow euthanasia in the case before them but refer the matter back to Parliament for reconsideration, so as to remedy the unfair and unreasonable outcome of a badly drafted Bill. Badly drafted with intent? That is not for the judge to decide. So it will go back to Parliament, the boosters of euthanasia will storm the gates (metaphorically), and a sympathetic MP will table an amendment to remedy the injustice. And, hey presto, you will have euthanasia. The active killing of patients will be the law of the land. Our legislators, who once presided over a system that was the envy of the world for its palliative care, its hospices, its help for the most vulnerable to live out their days with dignity, should hang their heads in shame. The fact that yesterday's decision followed Tuesday's appalling vote to decriminalise abortion up to birth means we have descended yet further into the moral abyss.
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Lime bikes dumped in canals and rivers 'posing pollution risk'
Hundreds of Lime e-bikes have been dumped in rivers and canals since hire schemes were introduced across England - raising concerns about pollution and Canal and River Trust said it was a national problem and was having to spend thousands of pounds retrieving the bikes from waterways. The charity said Nottingham was a particular hotspot, with eight or nine Lime bikes pulled from the canal each the US company that runs the hire scheme in Nottingham and other cities, told the BBC it is working with various authorities to tackle the problem. According to the Environment Agency, electric bikes pose a pollution risk because the batteries contain substances that can enter a watercourse if they remain submerged in Canal and River Trust said the number of Lime bikes being dumped nationally "could be into the thousands"."Whilst the quantities are a concern, and this is a drain on our resources, it's worth remembering one bike alone can easily cause thousands of pounds worth of damage to a boat, tens of thousands of pounds of damage to canal infrastructure, and an incalculable value of damage to wildlife," said Dick Vincent, the charity's national towpath charity has asked Lime to cover the cost of retrieving the bikes, but an agreement has not been reached."If I'm being honest, I would like them to answer their emails and get back to us," said Mr Vincent."They seem to be ignoring this as a problem, and that's a real shame." Toni Robinson, founder of the Little Litter Pickers of Nottingham, said her group had retrieved 23 Lime bikes from just a short stretch of the River Leen, in the Bulwell area of the said she had written to Lime but the company had not responded to her."I would like them to stop them ending up in the river," said Ms Robinson."We're trying to keep the river clean from pollution and then we've got these bikes that are polluting the river more than probably any rubbish we've ever found was."Ms Robinson is particularly concerned because e-bikes are powered by lithium-ion batteries, and she is worried about substances entering the believes Lime should have docking bays to keep the bikes locked up unless people pay to ride them."I think young people get bored and think 'I'll throw it in the river'," said Ms Robinson."It's just been ongoing. We pick one out and there's another one in there." Ethan Radford, deputy leader of Nottingham City Council, is so concerned he has been putting on waders and entering the River Leen himself to retrieve the Lime said it started happening after the Lime scheme was introduced two years ago, in spring 2023."On one particular occasion I think we pulled out about five bikes in one day," said Radford, who has been helping Ms Robinson's group."There's obviously the environmental concerns. These things don't belong in the river. It's a natural habitat." The Environment Agency said it was in the process of setting up a meeting with Lime following "repeated attempts" to do so."The disposal of electric bikes or other waste into rivers can cause environmental damage, affect water quality, and harm aquatic life," a spokesperson said."Whilst we have pollution concerns, we primarily remove the Lime bikes from the River Leen in Nottinghamshire and other watercourses in the area such as Nethergate Brook and Ouse Dyke, to prevent blockages and reduce flood risk to local communities." Who is dumping the bikes? The consensus is Lime bikes are being dumped in water by people who steal them, rather than paying bikes do not need to be physically locked in place at parking locations, which makes it easier to steal bikes do have a pedal-locking mechanism, but this can be "hacked" so that people can ride them without Robinson said she had witnessed this herself."I know people can ride round with them with the alarm going off, so they can still use the bike without inputting any details," she said."There are often kids going past me on the street and it's going 'beep beep', and they're riding past as normal."In a statement, the city council's transport team said: "Evidence shows that it is exclusively non-customers who are causing issues, including abandoning bikes or dumping bikes in rivers and canals."Radford agreed. "It's not the people who are using the scheme that are causing the problem," he said."It's people who come along after that, see a row of bikes, take advantage and do something stupid." Can anything be done to prevent thefts? Radford believes the problem could be resolved if Lime required customers to lock the bikes in bays, as some hire bike operators do."There's nothing stopping you from pushing it around, putting it on the floor, putting it in the road, taking it over to the river, for example, if it's not locked into place," he Robinson added: "It would stop them being stolen and polluting our rivers."The BBC put this suggestion to Lime, and asked why it does not require customers to lock bikes up.A spokesperson said: "Lime has operated a mandatory parking scheme in Nottingham since the launch of our e-bike service here two years ago."This is enforced by accurate on-vehicle GPS technology and our new mandatory end trip photo process. Users that leave bikes outside of designated parking locations are warned and fined, with repeat offenders banned." How widespread are these problems? The Canal and River Trust, which manages waterways in England and Wales, said it was a problem wherever Lime had hire of the Lime bikes are concentrated around London, but there are also schemes in Greater Manchester, Nottingham and Milton previously ran a hire bike scheme in Derby, but pulled out due to what it described as "persistent issues with vandalism and antisocial behaviour".This included bikes being thrown into the River Environment Agency, which is responsible for managing large rivers in England, said it "regularly" pulled bikes out and took them to designated drop-off points. What has Lime said in response? Lime says it is "the largest provider of shared electric vehicles in the world", and it claims to provide a "sustainable" mode of transport by replacing car working with the agency and Canal and River Trust, Lime said: "We have engaged in ongoing conversations with the Environment Agency and Canal and River Trust and are eager to finalise a collaborative plan to address these issues."Lime says anyone who sees a submerged bike can report the location, and it will "recover it as soon as possible". "We always aim to promptly collect obstructive or misparked bikes reported to us via the 'report bad parking' function in our app within a matter of hours," a Lime spokesperson said."To improve our response time, we have significantly increased our on-street team by more than double in Nottingham."On pollution and environmental concerns, Lime said the deliberate dumping of bikes was "totally unacceptable"."It harms the environment and undermines our mission to create sustainable urban transport," the spokesperson added."We are committed to working with the local community, Environment Agency, and the Canal and River Trust to stop this behaviour."
