Debate contribution: Bovine Tuberculosis: Wildlife Interventions
Debate contribution by Mr Andrew Muir on .
- MLA
- Mr Andrew Muir
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 15 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Bovine Tuberculosis: Wildlife Interventions
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5613530
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Tackling bovine tuberculosis is a key priority for me as Minister. The impact that the disease is having on the farming community is unacceptable. The cost to individual farmers and government is unsustainable. I was therefore pleased to endorse the 'Bovine Tuberculosis in Northern Ireland: Blueprint for Eradication', which was co-designed alongside key stakeholders on the TB partnership steering group that I established last year. The public consultation on potential wildlife intervention options, which is a key pillar of the 'Blueprint for Eradication', alongside measures on people and cattle, is being finalised. I expect to launch that consultation in the next few weeks. The consultation, which will be open for a 12-week period, will provide stakeholders and the wider public with the opportunity to consider the available evidence and share their views on the options set out. The responses received will help to inform my decision on the way forward. As I have said previously, any decision that I make will be guided by the science and the available evidence. There is no preferred option at this juncture. I encourage all interested parties to participate in the consultation to ensure that their views are fully considered as part of the process.
201 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.02 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.69).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.69 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 1.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:48 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.