Accessibility navigation


A ‘little Neddy’ for agriculture? ‘Sit on the hornet’s nest but don’t stir it up’

Swinbank, A. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2526-2026 (2024) A ‘little Neddy’ for agriculture? ‘Sit on the hornet’s nest but don’t stir it up’. Agricultural History Review, 72 (2). pp. 278-302. ISSN 0002-1490

[img] Text (Permanent publisher embargo) - Accepted Version
· Restricted to Repository staff only

75kB

It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing.

Official URL: https://www.bahs.org.uk/AGHR/ARTICLE.html?ID=763&M...

Abstract/Summary

When the National Economic Development Council (NEDC) and its administrative office (NEDO) were established, farmers were concerned that agriculture was not directly represented. NEDO needed policy information and data on the sector. Initially this came from government (the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: MAFF), a meeting with agricultural economists, and a so-called joint committee, orchestrated by the National Farmers’ Union (NFU), into which farm workers’ unions and landowners had some input. This was not the tripartite body envisaged for other sectors, bringing together employers, workers and the sector’s sponsoring department, which NEDO could attend. Neither MAFF nor the NFU favoured the formation of an Economic Development Committee (EDC) for the agricultural industry for fear that this would weaken in the annual review of agriculture: i) the NFU’s privileged access to government, and ii) MAFF’s negotiating stance. With the change of government in 1964, MAFF’s position began to shift, but it was not until November 1965 that the NFU could be persuaded. It then took a further year before a chairperson could be appointed. When the EDC met for the first time it decided that one of its first tasks would be to study ‘the role of agriculture, with particular reference to import saving.’ Its report published in June 1968 (Agriculture’s import saving role) raised expectations in the farming community, and some concern internationally and within MAFF. Despite the NFU’s earlier reservations, it had secured support for its protectionist policies. Moreover, the minister said it was ‘one of the most important reports ever produced on British agriculture.’

Item Type:Article
Refereed:Yes
Divisions:Life Sciences > School of Agriculture, Policy and Development > Department of Agri-Food Economics & Marketing
ID Code:119689
Publisher:British Agricultural History Society

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

Page navigation