Farm Modernisation funding sullied by sectarian discrimination - Allister
18 October 2010
Statement by TUV Leader Jim Allister:-
“The announcement that Tranche 2 of the Farm Modernisation Programme is to finally open, several months late, would have been better news if the Minister was still not insisting on entrenching sectarian preference in how the funds will be allocated. Her deliberate prioritising of this aid to LFA farmers is not a rational and equitable distribution, but her wrong-headed way of ensuring favour for one section of the community over another. The socio-politico reality means that excluded lowland farmers are more likely to be non-Catholic.
“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?
“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.”
