The National Farmers' Union
(NFU)
Profile
By Corporate Watch
UK
Completed July 2003
Who does the NFU represent?
A democratic organisation?
"The National Farmers' Union is the democratic organisation representing
farmers and growers in England and Wales" states the NFU's
strap line. However, some farmers claim that the NFU is not a democratic
or representative union at all. One Council member of the NFU describes
it as "totally removed from the reality of grassroots farmers
and not working for British farming".
Another farmer has this to say of the NFU Council,
'Eighty-nine decrepid, unimaginative, superannuated, self-important
male ex-farmers and one woman sit round a table playing the game called
Buggin's Turn. The rules are as simple as they are stultifying.
All office-holders move slowly up the totem pole and - provided they
don't say anything which will upset anyone - they take their turn
near the top.'
Such a view was reinforced in a recent 'office holder' election scandal.
When a vacancy for vice-president arose in 2000, one of the candidates
was Devon farmer, Richard Haddock, whose advocacy of direct action
made him popular with NFU grass roots members. When he stood in the
regular elections earlier in the year, he polled 81% in a Farmers
Weekly leadership poll.
However, in the election for vice-president, he was defeated by Michael
Paske, 'a little known horticulturalist...who cultivates asparagus,
sea kale and globe artichokes' - hardly key crops for farmers.
However, Michael Paske was chair of the NFU's parliamentary, land
use and environment committees, and also served on the policy committee.
The undemocratic nature of the NFU can be partly explained by the
self-selecting elitism of its structures. In order to be on the Council,
farmers regularly have to spend a couple of days in London, if necessary.
This means that only farmers who are doing well enough to employ someone
else on their farms are able to take up such positions.
The same goes for office holders. In the words of Marie Skinner, a
popular farming activist and grassroots candidate (i.e. non-council
member) for the Deputy Presidency in 2002, “The problem is
they like to have office bearers who fit the mould of traditional,
non-working farmers, who enjoy a two-day jolly in London.”
This structure inevitably excludes the smallest and poorest farmers.
Skinner, who was attempting to become the first female senior office
holder in the NFU also accuses the union of an 'anti-women mentality'.
Skinner also lambasts the secretive, biased and archaic voting system
for office-holders. “People wheeler-deal in this Council...They
don’t even disclose the voting details, there is no democracy
in this system.”
The ballot is held behind closed doors and only NFU council members
are entitled to vote.
Another reason that some farmers consider the NFU to be undemocratic
is its historically close relationship with government, often parroting
the Government or MAFF line. Indicative of this is the fact that successive
presidents have received knighthoods or greater honours. Whether this
is a cause or a symptom of the NFU's general complicity with government
policy is unclear.
Many farmers also testify to witnessing a 'corporate transformation'
as their regional directors make their way up the ranks, abandoning
their grassroots origins, and end up towing the party line in Shaftesbury
Avenue.
In 1997/98 the NFU claimed that they wanted to make their agenda more
public. Farmers, however, claim that despite this, items passed to
Shaftesbury Avenue for discussion at national level still do not appear
on the national agenda.
All this gives the impression of an organisation that is remote from
its grassroots members, over influenced by its wealthy members and
generally unwieldy in decision-making. It is very difficult for an
ordinary farmer to have an effective voice within the organisation.
In the words of Marie Skinner, whose radical ideas for change did
not win over the notoriously conservative NFU council,
"...until it tackles its own internal problems, it will not
be able to offer effective leadership to a headless, worried industry
and the next generation will continue to walk away from the land".
The NFU’s response to criticism about the way it operates
In October 2002, the NFU agreed to debate a one-member-one-vote resolution
for the election of President at its 2003 AGM. However, on 22nd
November the NFU backtracked, blaming a new junior member of staff
for mistakenly believing that the resolution would be debated. Dick
Lindley, a West Yorkshire farmer who submitted the resolution to let
farmers choose their president said,
“We are saddened by this move because we thought we had succeeded
after 6 years of campaigning. We thought the NFU had agreed to give
us democracy”.
The proposal for a 'one-member one-vote' debate was again vetoed at
a Council meeting in January 2003. Council delegates agreed, however,
that it would be better to discuss a more general resolution put forward
by the East Anglia branch about the need for a review of the whole
organisation, as this could also cover democracy issues. It was hoped
that this discussion could feed into a strategic review of the NFU
already started by director general, Richard Macdonald.
NFU 'overhaul'?
In March 2002, the NFU announced that it
would reform its Board structure 'to allow the NFU to operate like
a modern corporation'.
On 10th July 2003, 'the most radical changes in the union's 95
year history' were announced as part of this strategic review.
These include working more closely with the Country Land and Business
Association and moving the Union's headquarters out of London to new
premises in Warwickshire, either at the National Agricultural Centre
in Stoneleigh or near the NFU Mutual's Stratford office. This will
mean leaving behind their newly purchased £20 million property
in Shaftebury Avenue, London. The 30 or so sectoral committees will
be replaced by 6 commodity boards, and their will be some redundancies
as part of internal 'restructuring'. The union has gone out of its
way to state that this is not the result of a cash crisis, although
these changes will undoubtedly save them millions.
Whilst the union has introduced greater democracy in ensuring that
all council members will be elected through their counties by one
member one vote, once again they have denied ordinary members the
right to vote for top office holders.
