Agricultural Partners under Pressure

AuthorIan Bradbury,Neil Collins,Andrew Charlesworth
DOI10.1111/j.1467-9256.1990.tb00170.x
Date01 April 1990
Published date01 April 1990
Subject MatterArticle
AGRICULTURAL
PARTNERS
UNDER PRESSURE
ANDREW
CHARLESWORTH,
NEIL COLLINS
and
IAN
BRADBURY
THE
DISTINCTIVE
feature of post-war British agricultural policy and
politics has been the partnership between the
state
and the National Farmers
Union (NFU). The background
to
this close relationship
was
fully
documented
by Self and Storing
(1962)
but over
20
years later, despite much changed
circumstances for British agriculture, Pye-Smith and Rose
(1984,
p
22)
could
write: ‘MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food) policy
is
often
little more than
an
official government statement of the desires of the
NFU’.
In
thepost-war yeamprior
toBritishmembershipoftheEuropeanCommunity
(EC)
in
1973,
no
single aspect typified this partnership better than the
Annual Price Review
(APR)
(Self and Storing,
1962).
The long negotiations
between the
NFU
and the
MAFF,
carried out behind closed doors, during the
APR
exemplified the
state’s
relations with a privileged ‘insider‘ pressure
group, but the relationship with MAFF also shaped the internal decision-
making process
within
the
NFU
itself.
Once Britain became a member of the EC, and the decisions
on
most major
commodities were made in Brussels rather than Whitehall, the relationship
between MAFF and the
NFU
began
to
alter.
Nevertheless, what Grant
(1983)
refers
to
as their ‘symbiotic relationship’ did not cease at that time,
as
the
exchange
of
personnel between them attests. Cox
et
aZ(1985,
p
139)
have
observed: ‘Although the importance of the annual “ritual” has declined since
...
1973
it
has been replaced,
if
anything, by a more continuous involvement’.
The new context
of
the Common’ Agricultural Policy
(CAP)
brought further
opportunities
for
consultation between
MAFF
and the
NFU
and indeed the
very fact of
this
continuity prevented the NFU from adjusting
to
the new
European realities.
In
the mid-l980s, however, with the EC finally addressing
the problems of over-production, the British government’s response has
ohn
been at odds with the
NFU.
That response
has
been conditioned by the fact
that government
is
now dealing with
a
more environmentally conscious
electorate than formerly and
is
itself committed
to
fiscal
restraint.
The new context
of
the
1980s
has rudely awakened the
NFU
and its
membership
to
the price of ‘insider status’. The mechanisms
of
the
APR,
which underpinned the
NFU
side
of
the arrangement with
MAFF,
are
now
in
disrepair, and the result
is
severe strain
on
the agricultural partnership.
As
a delegate
to
the NFU annual general meeting in February
1989
noted:
‘If
MAFF
is supposedly in
our
pockets, how come
our
pockets are empty’.
In
attempting
to
characterise the nature of the
changingrelationshipbetween
the
NFU
and MAFF,
it
is necessary
to
consider the annual ritual of the
APR.
3

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT