Debate contribution: Bovine TB

Debate contribution by Miss Michelle McIlveen on 19 November 2024.

MLA

Miss Michelle McIlveen

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

19 November 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Bovine TB

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4666253

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I beg to move the following amendment:

I thank the Members who tabled the motion for highlighting this important issue, which faces livestock farmers across Northern Ireland. All of us who represent rural constituencies are acutely aware of it, and many of us have referred to it in other debates and in questions to the Minister. The eradication of bovine TB became departmental policy in 1964, but, 60 years later, the incidence of the disease remains high. Sadly, the Department's efforts have been largely unsuccessful. In 2023, TB herd incidence exceeded 10%, and, in the first half of 2024, a 22·5% increase in TB reactor animals was seen. In the UK, only Scotland is officially tuberculosis-free. The current departmental policy is a continuous cycle of testing, removing and compensating. While that has slowed the spread of the disease, it has not eradicated it. If figures for this year are indicative of a trend, we are now at risk of seeing the disease spiral out of control. A key factor is the transmission of TB from wildlife to cattle and vice versa. Ideally, we want to see healthy, thriving wildlife and healthy, thriving cattle that are free from TB. An outbreak of bovine TB has devastating consequences for farm businesses. It has not only a significant financial impact but an emotional impact. I know that to be so from visiting farms around the country during my time as Agriculture Minister and from those in my constituency who have come to see me as their local MLA. Not every farm has a handling pen, and those that do may have only one in one area of their farm. That could result in a farmer spending the day gathering up cattle for testing. There are further costs in setting up isolation units, and there are cash flow problems if cattle fail a TB test. Our farmers are desperate for support and an effective plan to eradicate bovine TB. The status quo will continue to cost the taxpayer millions of pounds each year that could be spent in other ways if the disease were brought under control. As we know, all TB reactors are removed for immediate slaughter, which may sometimes include full herds, if that is deemed necessary to stop the spread of the disease. We also know that the Department pays compensation at 100% of the market value for animals testing positive for TB. We know that the Department spent just under £55·7 million in tackling the disease last year. Given the increase in the numbers of TB reactors that have been seen so far this year, that figure will rise further. Bearing in mind the rising cost to the public purse, the Minister needs to look at a range of options to address the problem, and that includes wildlife interventions. Badgers are much-loved animals and are symbolic of the British countryside. However, we know that the presence of badgers or access to badger-contaminated material such as silage clamps is one of several risks that increase the likelihood of infection. Farmers are, of course, alert to the need for biosecurity. Other risks include slurry spreading and the nutritional status of the animals. The scientific literature on the subject repeats that time and again. A review of the risk factor literature relating to the UK and Ireland was carried out by the Animal and Plant Health Agency. It reviewed 4,255 papers and concluded:

"Despite differences in study design and location, some risk factors are consistently identified, e.g. herd size, bTB history, presence of infected wildlife".

Therefore it would be foolish, when bringing forward a comprehensive and holistic bovine TB strategy, to ignore the need for some kind of wildlife intervention. Hence the need for that to be explicit in the motion. Important work on genotyping isolates of TB has been carried out and informs research on the subject. That has shown that strain families can be identified that show that TB infection is local. It also shows that the strain types found in badgers very closely match the strain types found in cattle in the same location. That indicates an intimate connection between the species and the transmission of infection. However, it does not explain the direction of infection. Genome sequencing has indicated that transmission occurs both ways. Disease modelling consistently shows that having a wildlife reservoir of infection is key in maintaining the bovine TB epidemic. O'Hare and others advise that the simplest scientific explanation is that the reservoir is the infected badger population. Crispell and others reached the conclusion:

"transmission occurs more frequently from badgers to cattle" —

in fact, 10·4 times more frequently, and —

"control operations should target both cattle and badgers."

Downs and others stated:

"Britain and Ireland may occupy a 'goldilocks zone' for bovine TB. Factors highlighted in this review include the presence of a sufficient wildlife reservoir".

That shows why it is important to address the problem in wildlife as part of any strategy. Intervention is shown to have a measurable effect on bovine TB, and that is an important indicator of the contribution that badgers make to the spread of infection. There is a range of measures relating to wildlife intervention that could be looked at beyond a simple cull. Culling, whilst seen to be effective within those cull areas, can have a detrimental impact by disturbing badger social groups and increasing the ranging of badgers. That could spread TB to new badger groups and put other areas at risk. Furthermore, culling is not a long-term solution. Alternatively, there is vaccination instead of proactive culling. However, vaccinations are only effective on uninfected animals, meaning that a vaccination strategy would leave a large number of infected badgers, which, in turn, would lead to ongoing transmission of TB between badgers. The alternative that could be considered is a test, vaccinate, remove (TVR) approach. That requires all, or almost all, badgers in an area to be captured and tested. The test must also be very accurate in correctly identifying those badgers that are infected and those that are not. This approach was trialled in Northern Ireland over a five-year period as part of a research project, rather than a pilot intervention or DAERA intervention policy. The effectiveness of the approach has not been tested appropriately to produce reliable data, as too few badgers in the local area were trapped, meaning that a significant proportion of infected badgers would still have been at large. The test, vaccinate and remove approach comes with significant costs, and it is very intensive. The cost of the research project over five years, covering an area of 100 square kilometres, was around £4·5 million. It resulted in 108 badgers being removed, out of a total of 1,240 that were captured, at a cost of around £3,700 per intervention. The stated direction of travel in England and the Irish Republic seems to be vaccination following a reduction in the badger population. This still requires a substantial proportion of the badger population to be vaccinated over significant areas to ensure that the desired result is achieved. The DUP recognises that vaccination will play a key role in long-term strategies to eradicate bovine TB in our herds and in the wider wildlife population. We also recognise that that is some way off. If there is to be a deliverable strategy to address the continued rise of bovine TB in Northern Ireland, the Minister will have to make some difficult decisions. Those may be decisions that he personally is uncomfortable with, but they are needed to address this problem for the good of the industry and wildlife in general. We need to see meaningful progress. We need a balanced strategy with the aim of eradicating the disease, rather than managing a failed policy, which is costing tens of millions of pounds every year. The Minister must also look at all the evidence and bring forward a delivery plan and, potentially, legislative provisions that will deliver the best outcomes for farmers and for our wildlife. There is an acceptance by the farmers of what they need to do and what they are doing, but the Department needs to address the fundamental and underlying problem. I look forward to the Minister's proposals over the next few weeks.

1,377 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:37 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.

Challenge this classification