THROUGHOUT the 'Final Straws for Rural Tyrone' series, one common denominator has consistently popped up during any interviews I conducted – the perception farmers now have of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.
The current feeling amongst the agricultural community is that DARD has changed from an organisation which once prided itself as being a champion and friend of the farmer to a uncompromising enforcer.
Most now see DARD as the 'enemy'; with goldplating, mounting bureaucracy and increasing legislation given as the reasons for their change of heart.
My initial reaction was one of scepticism, thinking this was just another opportunity for members of the farming community to let off steam or have another good old whinge. However, a number of incidents in recent weeks would suggest that maybe there was an element of truth in the case being made by my interviewees.
Take for example the decision to publish the Single Farm Payments, for the second year running, of every farmer in the North on their website. What is that all about? Is this a deliberate attempt by DARD to further tarnish the image of the farmer? Why else would they do it? What possible purpose could it serve? What was their motive?
The respective ministers for agriculture (Lord Rooker and David Cairns), justified the actions of DARD by claiming that taxpayers were entitled to know what their money is being spent on. Very admirable. So why then has no other government department ever attempted to publish the monies being handed out to its recipients? Why has no other government in the EU moved to enlighten the general public of the amount of subsidy being paid to individual farmers?
Let's face it, Joe Bloggs has little or no knowledge of farming or the stress associated with working long hours, dealing with increasing bureaucracy and continuing low incomes.
Most farmers would suggest that DARD is doing its damnedest to feed the theory "where there's muck, there's money". The uninformed taxpayer still typecasts farmers as similar to the characters portrayed in such TV programmes as the Darling Buds of May or All Creatures Great and Small.
Even at face value, it seemed a mischievous action. The powers that be published the figures in the order from highest to lowest, knowing full well that hungry hacks in the media would seize on the fact that one producer got paid over £300,000.
Anyone who has examined the figures more closely will know that in total there are 757 pages detailing the payments to some 40, 000 farmers.
By the time you scroll down to page 75 (10%) the average figure, if my memory serves me right, was around £15,000 and by the time you get to the bottom of the pile the figure was £1.80. Yes, £1.80. I don't recall any of the other newspapers publishing that particular figure!
And lost in the whole debate is the very fact that the average farmer still earns less than the minimum wage.
Scrolling down the first few pages, one can't help but be amazed the amounts of money being paid out in subsidy. The fact of the matter is that those who have banked themselves what to most would seems like a nice little earner, simply followed the guidelines to establish subsidy payments, as set out by, yes, you guessed it, DARD.
Last year, when the figures were first published it sparked much interest amongst the farming community. I remember distinctly a conversation with one man. Having been struck down by the 'nosy neighbour syndrome' I said to him did you see Mr X received a payment of £200, 000 plus. My compatriot informed me that this same individual was paying almost double that to his local feed merchant. Now how many wages did that pay at the end of the month?
The decision to publish these figures is certainly beyond my comprehension. The only explanation that comes anywhere near the mark was a wild rumour I heard recently. It was suggested that at one point last year Lord Rooker and the North's leading lobbying body for farmers were at loggerheads. It is alleged that after chucking his dummy out of the pram, the then minister responsible from agriculture gave the green light to publish farmers' payments on the website. Could it really have been the case that a minister was prepared to settle a petty squabble by going down this particular avenue? Surely not.
