TUV attacks Gildernew's attempt to discriminate
03 September 2010
Submission by Jim Allister on behalf of Traditional Unionist Voice on the Equality proofing of DARD’s Farm Modernisation Scheme Tranche 2 proposals
“When the Tranche 2 proposals were first published I challenged DARD as to why this policy had not been equally-proofed. The response which I received from the Permanent Secretary was a pitiful attempt to duck the issue by claiming the original FMS scheme was equality proofed, but the point – not addressed by DARD – is that this discrete policy by which they proposed to implement the second tranche had not been equality proofed and it is it which is visiting inequality on the farming community. I, therefore, welcome the fact that the Minister was forced to retreat and submit to Equality proofing. However, in the public interest she should now publish the legal advice, belatedly obtained, which forced her hand.
“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 reiterate my strong view that the present proposal is blatantly discriminatory. By prioritising the spending of modulation funds on the sector which contributes the least into the kitty, knowing the politico-sectarian benefit which this bestows to the detriment of high contributing lowland farmers, the Minister is not providing for balanced and non-partisan delivery. The blunt truth is that Protestant farmers will be more disadvantaged by the Minister’s methodology of distribution than Catholic farmers. The Minister must know this and, yet, with that knowledge she sets about such a patently discriminatory distribution of funds. Why?
“Having made a spectacle out of how the first tranche of money from the Farm Modernisation Scheme was distributed, it is utterly unacceptable that DARD’s proposals for the second tranche will, at a stroke, disadvantage many deserving farmers.
“Without adequate consultation – including ignoring the UFU – DARD came up with a proposition which reeks of discriminatory intent. By tilting the scheme to favour LFA farmers, through a weighted scoring mechanism which deliberately favours such areas, DARD is consciously discriminating against lowland farmers, where there is a greater preponderance of Protestants.
“The Tranche 2 proposals illustrate a Minister who is pursuing a narrow jaundiced agenda, with sectarian overtones. She knows that in prioritising LFA farmers – who certainly deserve fair and adequate assistance, the very recognition which lies behind LFA status – she is deliberately giving preference to one community over the other. Whereas, a system which would give priority to those farmers who were not successful in Tranche 1 would spread the money equitably and in a non-discriminatory fashion.
“Under the Minister’s approach some farmers will get a second pay-out under FMS while others, predominantly from lowland areas, will for the second time get nothing.
“Maximising economic output should be a tangible product of modernisation, but that cannot be arbitrarily restricted to one classification of farm. This is what the Minister is seeking to do. She should desist and recognise DARD is supposed to champion the needs and interests of all farmers, without favour.”
“If, as she ought, she had equality proofed her plan in the first place, or better still abandoned her discriminatory proposal, the 2nd tranche of FMS would already be in payment, instead of languishing months behind schedule. This delay is entirely down to the Minister’s wrong-headed intent to favour one section of the community over another and her ‘head in the sand’ refusal to face up to the equality implications. Once more the farming community is paying dearly for this Minister’s political agenda.”
