Allister refers Farm Modernisation criteria to Equality Commission
01 March 2010
Responding to Minister Gildernew’s published criteria for Tranche 2 of the Farm Modernisation Scheme, TUV Leader Jim Allister said he was appalled on four scores.
“First, she has bulldozed ahead without any or adequate consultation with stakeholders. Second, she has deliberately embedded disadvantage for the highest modulation contributors into the scheme, the lowland farmer. Third, she has given no preference to those who missed out last time and fourth, she is pushing ahead without equality proofing the policy in circumstances where the prima facie evidence is of sectarian unfairness.
“Some tell us they have put in place political controls to block such solo runs by Ministers, well, let’s see those curbs now activated, if they exist?
“The Minister by her precipitative and discriminatory action demonstrates her contempt for both the due process of consultation and the ethos of equality of opportunity which she should be pursuing.
“I challenged DARD some weeks ago as to why this policy has not been equally-proofed. The response which I have received from the Permanent Secretary is a pitiful attempt to duck the issue by claiming the original FMS scheme was equally proofed, but the point – not addressed by DARD – is that this discrete policy by which they will now implement the second tranche has not been equality proofed and it is it which is visiting inequality on the farming community. I, therefore, continue to believe that the Minister is in breach of her Section 75 obligations.
“Section 75 of the NI Act 1998 places a statutory obligation on the Department and Minister to carry out their functions having due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity. In developing a policy which discriminates against lowland farmers I believe they have utterly failed to live up to their non-discrimination obligations.
“I am therefore referring the matter to the Equality Commission and inviting it to investigate if a) equality proofing ought to have been conducted and b) if discrimination will result from this DARD approach.”
