The Big Debate
Alice Barnard Interview
Alice Barnard is the newly appointed Chief Executive of the Countryside Alliance and The Countryside Alliance Foundation. Six weeks into the job, she talks to Midge Todhunter on what the CA is doing for a repeal on the Hunting Act 04
Alice Barnard Hunting | www.mattbarnard.co.uk
At the job interview, what fresh ideas did you say you could bring to the job?
What happened at the interview is confidential. Our main focus next year will be campaigning on hunting, shooting, food and farming, and education. I’m very passionate about all four of those, and particularly on hunting. I have a steadfast commitment to repeal of the hunting act, and the methods we go about that.
Isn’t this - more of the same? I repeat: What fresh ideas can you bring to the job?
Hunting is my main passion, and has been since I was a child, so my commitment to hunting is 100%. But hunting can’t be taken in isolation from all the other activities that we do. Communicating with the public, the media, and the politicians; hunting must be seen as a part of a critical path of the entire countryside. So I while I will be doing lots to push forward the cause for repeal it might be in a wider concept and I think that’s good for hunting. Hunting must be seen as an integral part of the countryside: you can’t simply pick and choose the bits you like; each part of the countryside is interlinked with others. You can’t take farming away, or hunting away, and not expect to have a knock-on effect within the rural community.
We will continue lobbying for hunting as before, both those MPS who are solid, and the new intake of MPs who are less familiar with hunting and the process we went through with the ban. And we will continue to lobby at a local level. We will continue to engage the hunting fraternity in that process: for example, Boxing Day we are doing a lobbying postcard which is going to be sent out via the hunting community to their local MPs reminding them on the case for repeal and reminding them why repeal is so estential, particularly for the practitioners of hunting.
Hunting is all about keeping the momentum. We are in a process at the moment whereby the repeal of the Hunting Act is not on the immediate agenda. What we have got to do is be aware that it is coming, and that we must stay ready. Keep pedalling the message, keep working hard, and when the time is right – the hunting community, together with membership of the Alliance will be there when the time matters to achieve repeal.
At the risk of sounding like Jeremy Paxman, I still don’t see any fresh thinking? What new sparkle? What new avenue - is being explored under your new leadership, to get us (hunting) out of the mess we are in? What are YOU now going to bring to this campaign?
The focus for me, for hunting, is repeal. Repeal is not new, and I can’t make it new and shiny. Repeal is my - and my team’s focus. What we don’t want to do is re-invent the wheel. We know what works, and we know our best way of achieving repeal – so there’s no point in me trying to make it gold and shiny. We have to go for the tried and tested methods we know are most likely to achieve our aims.
So yes, that does mean doing Hunting Newcomers Week; yes it does means bringing more journalists out and letting them get involved with hunting, meet the community; yes it does mean talking about food and farming – it’s all about reconnecting people back with the British countryside, and understanding that when having your roast beef for Sunday Lunch you are complicit with a bullock dying somewhere in the process of all that.
It’s all about taking some of the fluff out of the countryside. But am I going to reinvent the way we lobby for repeal? No. It is tried and tested, and we know that’s what works. And it’s so important that this time we don’t look for gimmicks, we stay solid, and continue to do the job sensibly.
Will I bring energy? Will I bring excitement? Will I bring drive to the cause? Yes I will. Will I reinvent the way in which we go about lobbying the media and the MPs? No. It’s tried and tested, and really important we get it right.
So what are you doing about lobbying MPs?
We are not trying to achieve repeal at this moment. We continue to lobby the new intake: they are so less aware of what happened last time around. They weren’t involved in bringing through the ban on hunting; they weren’t involved in the whole emotional roller-coaster of both sides. These new MPs need to understand hunting, and we are working on that, to a) establish a good working relationship, and b) the background and failure of the Act. Every single day these people are coming to us, and we are approaching them, to set out the facts and making a judgement on that. And every single day more people are saying – I understand the Act is not working, when repeal comes before the House - and now I have the facts, and now I am equipped - and I will vote with you on it.
But that is an on-going process. Because we are not asking people to vote on repeal now, because we are doing all the background work now – we will, when the time is right, be absolutely ready, and of course the numbers who will vote for us will be right.
It’s not about singling out anybody in Parliament. It’s about talking to them all across the board, as it’s really important we continue to work with those people who worked with us previously. And indeed, engaging with those people on the Labour side who have opposed us in the past; especially post-Tony Blair statements, as some of those are starting to see that this law clearly hasn’t worked, it does need re-addressing, and their communication with us is really important as it’s all about dialogue. It’s not about narrowing out or selecting a few MPs to work on - this is about a continual process right the way across the House. It’s not a Conservative activity, this is a cross-Party activity, to make sure people understand the background of the Act, why it has failed, and why it needs repealing.
Why was hunting affiliated to the Tory Party at the last election? We were all told that only the Tories understood our views, and we must work to get them elected. Now, post-election, many people are saying it has been a mistake to be affiliated to the Tories?
Well they are wrong. Hunting has never been affiliated to the Tories and whoever are saying that are very short sighted. With all due respect, that is not a fair perception. Our chairman is a current, well respected, Labour MP. Our president is a very well respected Labour peer. We are in no way a mouth piece for, or are overly associated with, the Conservative Party. That is an absolute a miss-conception, incorrect, and quite frankly downright wrong.
There’s talk of hunting is in need of a new representative body. That the CA cannot be all things to all men. There’s talk of something on the lines of BASC which is very highly effective in what they do.
That would be suicidal for hunting. And as I’m a hunting girl through and through, that would be very misguided. Hunting must be seen as part of a wider rural activity; it must be seen as part of the rural community. If hunting wants to stand alone then I believe the chances of securing its future…would be zero.
The name Countryside Alliance speaks a thousand words. It’s about a community, it’s about an alliance of people who have a common vision, a common feeling of what is good and right for the countryside. So everything from conservation, to education of young people, through to public services in the countryside, through to looking after the individual needs of people’s field sports – that’s hunting, shooting, fishing, whatever it is – the Alliance is there to protect and promote your field sport.
You can’t blame people for being disillousioned and being disappointed when time after time they are told everything is under control. They feel they have been sold down the river so many times, they feel the time is right for some drastic changes?
They shouldn’t be downcast, and they shouldn’t be disappointed in the Countryside Alliance. The CA is working stoically for repeal. We didn’t get a Tory majority in May, which is an outcome neither the CA nor anyone else in the wider public can be held responsible for. If there had been a Conservative majority they would not have pushed through the repeal straight away, as they would have needed to address everything that was going on countrywide as far as economics etc are concerned. So we would still have had to wait. We have to wait for the right time.
The hunting fraternity have a lot to be excited about, on every level. They have survived the ban on hunting as a result of the work the CA has done, together with the MFHA. The CA has assisted every single hunt who has been subject to prosecution under the Act. We have supported them financially, and in terms of making sure they have the very best lawyers for the very limited convictions they have.
Countryside Alliance has recently suffered a 20% fall in membership?
That’s nonsense. Our membership has increased and has its highest level since 2006. And our membership is increasing despite the current recession. I’m setting a goal of increasing our membership up to 110,000 by the end of 2011.
Countryside Alliance’s finances are said to be: “shaky to say the least?”
The CA will continue to fund itself through membership and donations, and we will continue to do so. And we are financially stable.
So the CA is healthy enough to tackle all these hunting issues, and we can look forward to a repeal…any timescale?
It would not be helpful of me to set a date, as mainly and ultimately that’s down to the Government. But of course it will be in this Parliament – that’s for sure: assuming this Parliament goes the full term.
The most important thing right now is patience. Please bear in mind people are losing their jobs and the economic crunch is only now starting to tell. If we push for repeal right now we will be seen as clearly out of touch with the overall suffering of both urban and rural people at this time.
We have had a commitment from David Cameron himself, and a commitment from the Coalition, to allow a free vote on repeal of the Hunting Act. There is no reason for us to doubt that commitment. If we need to be taken seriously, then we need to do this at the right time.
“When the time is right – we will achieve repeal.”
Midge Todhunter
Click here to: Have Your Say!
What You Said
Dear TMV, I don't agree with David Seymour. This interview was not at all unfair, it simply asked Barnard as the new CEO to outline what new thoughts and ideas she was bringing to the table to meet the CA's current challenges. These include the call for repeal and a perceived public silence from the CA on the matter. Membership and financial challenges and a growing view amongst some that a dedicated pro-hunting group mirroring BASC (the relationship with which is an issue in itself) in the shooting sector, may represent the case for hunting more effectively.
The fact that the interviewer pressed her when she did not appear to have anything new to say and simply advocated maintaining the status quo is to be expected. The CA's 80,000 paid up members have a right of know what exactly the CA's new CEO is going to do in order to further our interests and deliver the key objective, namely repeal. David Curran
Dear TMV, The thing that always strikes me is the fantastic PR that shooting puts out. The public believe that shooting is all wonderful for conservation of wildlife and the countryside in general, and no one ever mentions alleged cruelty, or rich people dressing up and shooting pheasants. Compare this to what the public believe about hunting. I know we have come a long way, but far more should be done to get the message out that it is in fact hunting that is the countryside's best friend, and that hunts look after the coverts, hedgerows, etc. so that all wildlife can live as nature intended.
Hunting is the fox's best friend too, but that message is lost. The CA should, in my view, be doing more to make people aware of the way hunting actually works. The public's perception is that a pack of hounds chase a fox flat out across country with 50 or so riders, all dressed up in silly costume, and all of them toffs, all whoop whooping after them, until the fox is caught or run to ground, when some believe it is always dug out and thrown to the hounds.
If I didn't hunt and knew no better, I would vote for a ban with that limited information. We who hunt know that it is nothing like that, but until people understand what we are about, we will never have enough support. I am not against shooting, far from it, but there are more big money people involved in shooting than hunting, by far, but the PR machine for shooting is absolutely brilliant. The CA and the MFHA should take note. Harry J Stephenson MIRTE MSOE MFH
Dear TMV, The interview was fair and so was Alice's response. The Media have respect for the CA and it is they who run the country as much as, if not more than, the politicians. So we have to bide our time ... the pro MP we supported in the election campaign tells me that the numbers are not right in the Commons .. and perhaps, I surmise, the numbers will not come up to a majority of pros in this parliament unless the lobbying becomes more penetrating.
Just one thing that I see has been picked up already by Harry Stephenson and with which I agree entirely: the pro- campaign has, historically, focussed on control of the quarry and not its conservation and welfare. There needs to be a commitment to focus the campaign on these issues. This may be something that comes hard to a fell foxhunter, but it is that emphasis that will win over The Media. Martin Adam, Kent
Dear TMV, I have to say I was most disappointed by the tone of the interview with Alice Barnard in the latest issue of The Master's Voice. I felt it was unnecessarily aggressive and has handed ammunition to the League Against Cruel Sports when now more than ever we should be showing a united front.
I have worked closely with Alice in her former role as Director of the Eastern Region and have complete faith in her abilities to lead the Countryside Alliance through the next phase of rural campaigning. Claire Wright BA (Hons); MSc (Hons); MRICS; MRAC
Dear TMV, The interview with Alice Barnard seems to be pitched as if the CA is the only organisation actively pursuing the case for Repeal. This is not so. But first it is important to understand the status the debate has reached during the years since the Ban was introduced. When it came in, we had strong support among Hunting folk but the rest of the world was far from endorsing who we are and what we do. Since then, there has been a relentless programme of education led by the CA (and what a debt we owe to Kate Hoey, Simon Hart, John Gardiner and their staff for all they have done) of the Public, the media, of MPs and of Peers, so that it is now widely understood that the case for Hunting has been made. Because of the way we have all campaigned, with a lead from the CA, the Hunting Associations, Vote OK and not least, individual Hunts up and down the land, I believe that public opinion is much more on our side than ever before. Prosecutions have been brought and mostly failed, appeals have been won and cases have been dismissed. This has depended on the greater knowledge gained from campaigns run by the CA and our other friends.
Conservative Party policy up to the last election was to allow a free vote on Repeal. We all worked hard to try to see a Conservative government elected. This did not happen. Had it done so, the pre-election sums showed there would have been a Parliamentary majority in favour of Repeal. However we now have a coalition government and a membership of the Commons that makes it dangerously uncertain at this stage to seek a vote. Furthermore the House of Lords, previously our staunch supporters, is now stuffed with Blair appointments so that House can no longer be guaranteed to support Repeal. So what must be done?
First, and whatever else we might feel, the key to a solution lies in Parliament. It is here that the crucial battle will be fought. There is a well-organised campaign of briefing of MPs and Peers, coordinated by the Alliance, to make sure that when a vote is called, we will have won enough support to win and Repeal will take place. If this does not happen at the right time, the case for Repeal will be set back immeasurably. So the continuing work must go on until we know the sums stack up.
The Hunting world has been commendably patient. Everyone is trying their best to make sure nothing is done to make it any more difficult for David Cameron in particular to see Repeal comes about. In the meantime it is essential none of us does anything to compromise Hunting`s future and that we continue to support all the CA is doing to secure it. Our friends are hard at work. Let us make sure we do not by thoughtless word or deed make their task impossible. John Parkes
Dear TMV, I believe that Repeal could be a 'minefield'. Reasons are in the sent letter below.
Dear Mr Herbert,
I am writing to you as a putative Cabinet Member covering Rural Affairs. If you can afford the time to glance at my website http://www.foxmanonline.org.uk/ you will see that I have hunted for many years. I was involved in the defence of our sport as a member of the Countryside Movement (recruited by Sam Butler) and the BFSS/CA (recruited by Martin Scott). I am delighted to read of the intent of a Conservative Administration to repeal the Hunting Act and to establish regulation of our sport. However, I am concerned that we might miss this opportunity to establish the soundest possible defences against what I am afraid is an inevitable eventual return of an Anti majority in Parliament.
Existing proposals for a Hunting Regulatory Authority are based on Codes of Conduct established and enforced through the Council of Hunting Associations. Such self regulation would be almost impossible to defend against the foreseen renewal of attacks by the so called "Animal Rights"movement. It seems important, therefore, to make it difficult to impugn the impartiality of the Hunting Regulatory Authority by decreasing its direct association with the "Hunting World". Ideally, it should be seen by:
a. The Public to be truly balanced between those representing Hunting and those representing "animals rights" .
b. The Hunting "world" as fully in possession of all relevant facts about the details of Hunting.
c. The Animal Welfare "world" as fully in possession of all relevant facts relevant to the welfare of the species.Such a "Hunting Regulatory Authority" (HA) might be drawn from:
a. A representative of the judiciary concerned with human rights, ( to chair ).
b. Relevant sectors of agriculture and business significantly involved, culturally or economically, with Hunting.
c. Representatives of each type of Hunting.
d. Persons experienced in maintaining the welfare of species of wild mammals (Vets, Zoologists, Environmentalists etc.)
e. Representatives of the "Animal Rights" movement.The Department responsible for Rural Affairs would seem to be the best choice to sponsor such an HRA. It could be tasked with:
a. Setting and maintaining a "Code of Conduct", for each type of Hunting, that aimed to ensure that it is carried out in a proper manner. That is to say "does not inflict unnecessary suffering" ( is not cruel) and "does not interrupt the good order of Society" (is ethical).
b. Proposing and maintaining a Statutory Licensing System that required the actual "hunters" (i.e. Hunt Staff, not the followers) to hold a licence from the H.R.A. before a wild mammal could be deemed to have been killed "in a reasonably swift and humane manner", please see The Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 para' 2(b). Such licences would require that any " licensed hunter" abided by the relevant Code of Conduct, enforced by the sanction of withdrawing a Licence to Hunt. The System would make the use of any deliberate means (e.g. a dog, a gun, a ferret) to kill a Wild Mammal while hunting without a licence an offence under The Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996.
c. Implementing, through local representatives of the HRA, the necessary monitoring and instigation of sanctions aimed at precluding Unlicensed Hunting and breeches of the Code of Conduct.Please promote these ideas, or others similar, to ensure that any HRA is readily defensible for the long term.
Should you need more, please contact me via atqs65@dsl.pipex.com or
01453 810001 or 17 Marybrook St, Berkeley, Gloucestershire. GL13 9AZ.Good Hunting, E. Waller
Trying to help, Ted Waller
Dear TMV, In effect, as you imply, Alice Barnard is coming up with 'more of the same'. Governments react to 'bother'. Look at the student riots for example: they were noticed. I am not advocating the same tactics, but we need to get 'noticed', and we are not. Out of a hundred thousand members or supporters - remember there were 400,000 at The March - surely there are some who would support 'direct action'? Perhaps we could form an action group who would make life hell for any anti-hunting minister or even MP who ventured out of London? What do others think? Hoaroak Stony
Dear TMV, I read HoarOak Stony`s call for `direct action` with interest and I have to say I think the course he/she proposes is wrong. Sure the student protesters were noticed but they did their cause a great deal of damage among the taxpaying public by virtue of their mindless rioting and deliberate ignorance of the situation concerning tuition fees. It did not help that their protests were infiltrated by thugs who were out for a violent outcome, whatever happened.
So the call that hunting supporters should take `direct action` seems to me to be counterproductive. If we try to make the life hellish for any minister or MP leaving London, we would seem to be wilfully ignoring the battleground where the war for Repeal will be fought; it will take place in Parliament. The thought that we might alienate MPs who might be on the margins or others who, even if they are anti-hunting might still be susceptible to education seems to me to be crass folly. But more important, the general public whom we have all tried to convince that the picture painted of us by the antis is a false one, will look again and might well see us as they now judge the students.
The campaign is once again at a turning point. If we can hold our nerve and convince Parliament by rational argument that Repeal is justified, we will not undo all the good that has so far been done. Impatience, while understandable, will surely pull the rug from under the feet of those who will win our battle in Parliament. John Parkes
Views on TMV pages are verbatim of letters sent in by the public. TMV does not condone violence in pursuit of any goal.
Dear TMV, That is a very unfair interview with Alice Barnard. Strangely enough, the chief executive of the Countryside Alliance can't wave a magic wand and get repeal. Only Parliament can do that and the result of the election has made achieving repeal even trickier than we thought it would be. We have to stick together, stay focussed and keep on going for our objective. If the hunting lobby now turns on itself, the antis will have won. David Seymour, Board member, CA