Book Read Free

In Search of the Promised Land

Page 22

by Gary Murphy


  The absence of an influential agrarian party can be put down to the relative political maturity of rural Ireland, wherein all parties espoused some degree of interest in agriculture and made ritualistic references to traditional rural virtues.79From the 1950s on, farmers avoided party and parliamentary politics, organising instead in pressure groups and seeking to build up the muscle to take on the Government in pursuit of their demands.80Events were to show that the established political parties were slow to recognise the decoupling of farm issues from the party system. The organisation of such farmer groups had its genesis in the foundation of Macra na Feirme in 1944, whose original purpose was to bring young farmers together to discuss modern ideas on farming. Macra promoted the strategy of economic specialisation and organisation as a response to what it saw as the pressures to modernise Irish agriculture. One of these pressures was the increasingly fraught relationship between the farming community and the Government. Nevertheless, Macra was not prepared to transform itself into a producer group with a specific economic purpose and a mandate to negotiate with the Government to directly influence state agricultural policy;81instead, it promoted the formation of the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers’ Association (ICMSA) and the National Farmers’ Association (NFA) as associations of farmers representing economic interests in Irish agriculture. In their capacity as economic-interest groups, the two organisations focused much of their attention on the way the state regulated the agricultural economy. From its inception, the ICMSA was a militant, agitating organisation concerned mainly with those who produced milk for manufacturing purposes. Early on, it defeated a Government proposal for a cut in the price paid to dairy farmers for milk, and in 1953 conducted the first milk strike in the country, which lasted sixteen days and was hailed a success as the farmers secured an increase of 1¾ pence per gallon for their milk.82Of even more significance was the emergence of the agricultural strike, a weapon hitherto the preserve of the trade unions.

  The NFA was the main focus for negotiation with the Government during the period. Its influence spread rapidly in the years after its foundation, and it was far more aggressive in its championing of farmers’ issues than any other organisation. While numerous attempts were made over many years to unite the NFA and ICMSA, this never happened. Once the ICMSA opted to remain independent, the NFA set about building up its own organisation on the lines of the Macra parish network, and by the autumn of 1955, it was reported that 350 branches had been set up.83Though impressive, there was an uneven spread of branches, with a marked weakness in the poorer farming areas of the west of Ireland. As for the leadership of the association, in general, most had been members of Macra, whose main farming interest was beef. For instance, Seán Healy, the first general secretary of the NFA, had served with Macra since 1948, becoming general secretary of that organisation in 1950, from where he played a crucial role in the setting up of the NFA.

  The NFA’s influence quickly spread, and by the late 1950s it had become the focal point through which farmer discontent could be aired. By this time, two issues had emerged that were to be of fundamental importance to the NFA and the farming community in general, and which were interrelated: the low level of agricultural income, and the impact Irish entry into any European economic grouping would have on those incomes. The NFA took a decided stance on both issues. In an address to NFA members in Kildare in 1958, the NFA’s first president, Juan Greene, from Athy, asserted that ‘the pulse by which we must assess the economic health of this country is to be found in a prosperous rural community’. He also maintained that farmers should enthusiastically support some form of European economic integration: ‘European integration is more than our challenge, it will be our salvation if we wish it so … If we are to survive it will be as a partner in a larger viable economic unit of an international character.’84Regarding agricultural incomes, the NFA had since its inception been extremely critical of Government policy in agriculture. There was an increasing perception within the agricultural community that Fianna Fáil under Seán Lemass’ stewardship of the Department of Industry and Commerce had become a party driven by industrial considerations.85Things came to a head early in 1958 when a motion of no confidence in the Government was passed at a special meeting of the NFA’s council. Greene wrote to the Taoiseach, Eamon de Valera, to say:

  The council of the NFA unanimously passes a motion of no confidence in the attitude of the Government towards the present agricultural situation and that the council asks that an interview be sought with the Taoiseach to place before him their views on the very serious crisis that has now arisen. The council further decided that it is vital that farmers throughout the country be more clearly acquainted with the situation and is to arrange for public meetings in each county.86

  This was an important milestone in state–farmer relations, in that it was the first time that such a motion had been passed criticising the entire thrust of Governmental policy, and demanding a complete reworking of such. Relations between the NFA and Fianna Fáil had been fraught since the latter returned to office in 1957, and the motion of no confidence only heightened the tension. While the NFA mistrusted Fianna Fáil over general agricultural policy, Fianna Fáil’s antipathy towards the NFA ran much deeper. In a speech in Wexford in 1958, the Minister for Finance, James Ryan, criticised the NFA, claiming that it was merely a pawn of the Fine Gael party:

  I can recollect three or four Farmers’ unions in the last forty years; they all began by telling us they were non-political and non-sectarian but they all ended where they belonged in the ranks of Fine Gael.87

  The Irish Times in an editorial entitled ‘Politics and policy’ came down in favour of the NFA, and criticised Government policy towards farming in general, stating that there was a complete lack of evidence that agricultural decisions were dictated by the balanced needs of a planned agricultural policy: ‘When can we expect a Government which will begin to treat agriculture as what the party hacks are saying it is – our major industry on the planned prosperity of which our economic survival depends?’88

  A former senior advisor to the NFA recollected that agriculture ministers of both parties thought of politics first and agriculture second: ‘you had all sorts of accusations. Dillon used to say that the NFA was nothing but a Fianna Fáil rump while Ryan and others thought of the NFA as Blueshirts’.89

  Denigrate and besmirch the department

  By September 1959 relations between the farm organisations and the Department of Agriculture had deteriorated to the point where Greene wrote to the minister, Paddy Smith, stating that ‘if good relations cannot be established between the two, then I am at a loss to know where we are going’.90There were a number of reasons for the NFA’s disenchantment. The NFA had come into existence with a clear set of priorities. High on the list, it claimed, was the establishment for the voice of organised farming of a more progressive relationship and understanding with ministers and their respective departments, in particular those most closely associated with the agricultural industry. The NFA declared itself determined to prove its worth as a partner with the Government in formulating a predetermined progressive agricultural policy for the country. For J.C. Nagle, a former secretary of the Department of Agriculture, there was in this phrase a hint of undemocratic thinking within the NFA, and he maintained that it ‘did not seem to realise the full implications of a Government singling out one organisation as partner over another’.91Nagle – who became secretary at the Department in 1958 – played a key role in negotiations with the NFA in this period. He was described by the British Ministry of Agriculture as:

  … at first sight a lugubrious-looking individual – responsibility for maintaining Irish agricultural aspects in the face of [the] European economic grouping from which the Republic is excluded is a daunting one – his gloomy appearance conceals a sharp intellect and a considerable flair for patient and astute negotiation.92

  The NFA, in a 1959 Quarterly Supplement, asserted that its willingness to be a partner
with Government would require more on its part than the mere passing of wishful resolutions that ‘we wanted more cash per unit of production’. This the organisation was willing to do, but it should be armed with the reason why, and – more importantly – the answer as to how this was to be done in the context of the Irish economy.93It argued that in all its dealings at Governmental level, it had been confident in the knowledge that it had answered these questions. In attempting to gain a better deal for its members, the NFA stated that it recognised early on during its own activities that new attitudes would have to be developed if its membership and the country at large were to fare better than they had in the past, and that the NFA was supported in this by public opinion. This was important, as without it:

  … there was almost nothing to hope for, for the very good reason that the future prospects of improving our whole economy are very largely dependent on vocational groups being willing, encouraged and even assisted, towards doing something for themselves. There is a duty for all of us now to determine what progress if any we are making in this direction. NFA opinion is disappointed, often even discouraged, in having fallen short of the target we set ourselves.94

  While claiming that its objective was to expose the deficiency rather than determine where the fault lay, the NFA had no doubt where the blame belonged for the failure to reach its targets. In this context, Juan Greene launched a stinging attack on the Department of Agriculture and, by implication, the other farming organisations:

  By default, in failing to produce from our own ranks many years ago a vocational unified voice for agriculture, we ourselves forced our Department to play a role in farming matters it was never designed to take. Further to this, with the development of a multiplicity of unco-ordinated and often contradictory voices speaking on behalf of the farmer, our Department was further forced to the all-powerful position of sole arbiter, ultimately developing into a closed shop mentality. For very many years the impression created in the public mind has been that of the farmers and their own State Department in a state of continuous rebellion and constantly at each other’s throats. Anything less conducive to rational development of the industry could hardly be imagined.95

  Stating that the NFA was well aware of the difficulties between the department and itself, Greene claimed that he was anxious that people in other quarters would become aware of it. This was seen in the department as some sort of veiled threat, and, if anything, made the Government, and the minister, Paddy Smith, more obdurate in its dealings with the NFA.96The NFA insisted, however, that it was determined to reach its self-imposed targets because if it was not to be regarded as a partner responsible to the industry, ‘it would continue to remain a house divided against itself and might be as well written off as having no important place in the affairs of our country’.97The implication was that the department was wilfully ignoring the NFA, and had offered no response to approaches from it. Greene went so far as to suggest that it was interesting that no other vocational group was so obviously out of tune with its related Department of State than the farming organisations.

  For its part, the Department of Agriculture felt that since its formation, the NFA had adopted a consistent policy of attempting to ‘denigrate and besmirch the Department’.98At departmental level, the complaints of the NFA were treated cautiously, but there was a feeling that the association was engaged in a policy of trying to usurp the smaller farmer organisations, and attacked the department to show its strength.99At ministerial level, however, things were not so circumspect. Smith replied to Greene’s complaints in a handwritten letter just over a week later, and resolutely defended his department’s and his own record while launching a savage attack on the behaviour of the NFA. Claiming that there was absolutely no justification for the NFA criticisms, Smith mentioned that there had been forty-one meetings between the department and the NFA in the past year alone. Furthermore, many of these meetings had been convened on the initiative of the department, and some even at Smith’s own behest:

  Some members of the NFA may take the line that such meetings are no use as the Minister has his mind made up beforehand. But it is just not true that reasonable recommendations and constructive criticisms are ignored by my Department or myself and I can give you a lot of examples of this if you wish. I can even remember a scheme which I accepted against my better judgement, shortly after becoming Minister, merely because discussions between my officials and the NFA which had been going on a long time were approaching final agreement.100

  A point made by both Smith and J.C. Nagle regarding the NFA’s grievances was that the department had many aspects to consider and weigh which the NFA did not have to concern itself with, but which were the Government’s duty to examine. As Nagle pointed out:

  In practice some clashes between the Government and farming organ-isations have to a varying extent been inevitable, given the natural preoccupation of the latter with acquiring power to enable them to influence policy decisions by dint of continuing criticism without detailed and objective examination of the probable cost of their proposals to taxpayers. This is not to question the right of an organisation to use lawful means in pursuit of legitimate objectives, but it must remain a matter of opinion how far such rights should be tempered by reference to the public interest.101

  Paddy Smith’s assertion that his protestations ‘should be taken in good part and not used for the purpose of misrepresentation and abusive attacks in the Farmers’ Journal and elsewhere’ was somewhat over-optimistic since the NFA was hardly likely to see it this way; nor was it entirely convinced by the department’s protestations of putting the country first.102As a former NFA advisor, Louis Smith, remarked:

  All we were ever told at our meetings with the department was that they had to think about the country as well as agricultural policy. The point was that the NFA had become a serious threat to the department because we were putting forward policies and wanted serious reform.103

  Paddy Smith also accused the NFA of using its contacts with the department for purely propaganda purposes, and ‘purely misleading propaganda at that’, and complained that ‘while we have on several occasions been complimented and thanked privately by your organisation for various actions and services, I find it hard to remember occasions on which any public acknowledgement was bestowed on us’.104Smith further accused the NFA of using its position in the Farmers’ Journal to put forward statements that had a ‘strong political tinge’. This referred to a dispute over marketing for Donegal oats; the department issued a statement on the matter to the NFA, but this appeared in the Farmers’ Journal ‘under the guise of a mystery being cleared up and referred to misrepresentations and half truths coming from the minister’.105It was the minister’s view that the NFA – and by implication the Farmers’ Journal – was behaving as a pawn of Fine Gael in agricultural matters. However, there are inconsistencies in his stance on this position. He later informed Greene that he was not the first agricultural minister to encounter such problems with the NFA, and was aware that his predecessors also had difficulties with the association. Yet the only other agricultural minister to have had comprehensive dealings with the NFA since its foundation was Fine Gael’s James Dillon.106

  In truth, the NFA as a body was only interested in one thing: the betterment of its members’ livelihoods; it could not really be described as anyone’s pawn. Whether it was a Fianna Fáil or an Inter-Party Government, it was going to press its demands with as much strength and resolve as it could muster. Smith, however, claimed that his grievances against the NFA were valid. He acknowledged that the NFA must be seen to criticise when the occasion demanded, but insisted it stick to the facts as, otherwise, relations were bound to deteriorate. It is difficult to imagine relations being any worse than they were at this point, and Smith seemed intent on letting the NFA know exactly how low its stock was as far as his department was concerned. Relations between the two, he asserted, had been 90 per cent destructive, and he left no doubt as to where he cons
idered the blame lay. He attacked the NFA’s record as a vocational group, claiming that there was not a great deal of evidence of it taking on independently ‘many functions which they could perform and which we would be delighted to see them perform’.107This is something of a moot point, as various farmers’ organisations were in the process of developing policy initiatives on a whole range of farming issues. The department, however, was not so keen on some of the proposals put forward by these organisations. Smith, it would appear, was trying to have it both ways: condemning the farmers on issues of policy and their methods of trying to achieve their implementation, while excoriating them for not carrying out unnamed independent functions.

  This correspondence did not deter the NFA from aggressively pursuing its agenda. It attempted to build up closer contacts with its European colleagues, and began applying with success to the department for funding to attend various agricultural conferences in such places as Italy, India and Yugoslavia.108Louis Smith claims that it was Lemass who cleared the way for the NFA to receive financial assistance, and that Paddy Smith was ‘not one bit pleased with it’. He further argues that the department itself had no real wish to attend international agricultural gatherings, but rather relied on the British to keep it informed.109This was the beginning of a concerted effort by farmers to gain new markets for their produce. Their prime target was to be the EEC.

 

‹ Prev