Debate contribution: Bovine TB
Debate contribution by Mrs Deborah Erskine on .
- MLA
- Mrs Deborah Erskine
- 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 4666320
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the debate. At the outset, I declare an interest in that my husband's family has a farm. In the Chamber previously, we have mentioned the very real challenges that TB places on farms in Northern Ireland. In the past year, one in 10 farms has experienced the difficulties associated with TB breakdown. As has been discussed in the Chamber today, that takes a toll mentally and physically. We have the highest rates of bovine TB in Europe, according to the UFU. The bottom line is that the status quo, whereby we do the same thing but expect different results, is no longer viable. The continuous testing and removal of animals and paying of compensation has far from dealt with TB. Instead, it wrecks family farms and surrounding farms. When you look at the cost to the public purse, you see that it is an issue not just for farms but for all taxpayers. Miss McIlveen mentioned that in her speech. In my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, which has very high rates of TB, I have seen the very real consequences: farmers are at breaking point and unable to cope with the situation. Farmers care — they care about their animals — and they cannot bear the effects of this any more. I want to briefly point to what some Members have said in the debate. Declan McAleer talked about wildlife intervention and said that it must be humane. That has come up in the Chamber, and Members have agreed on it. I apologise to Miss McIlveen and Mr Blair that I was not here to hear what they said, but I welcome the Alliance Party's support for our amendment. I know that Miss McIlveen is deeply interested in this issue and knows an awful lot about it. I welcome her passion. She really wants to make sure that the issue is dealt with for farmers in Northern Ireland. I have not had an opportunity to formally welcome my constituency colleague Diana Armstrong to the Chamber. I welcome Diana to the Chamber, and I look forward to working with her on Fermanagh and South Tyrone issues. This is an issue that really affects our constituency. Patsy McGlone touched on the impact of the loss of herds on farm families and what it means. He mentioned deer, which is really important. I have seen wild deer in my constituency. They are quite prevalent, and it is important that he pointed that out. I thank him for that.
Yes.
When a debate on a hunting ban comes to the Floor, we will see where Members stand on that. Nicola Brogan commented on biosecurity and the importance of support to farmers, which is vital. I thank William Irwin for his contribution and for pointing out the compensation levels and the impact that any reduction in them will have on our farming families. Sian Mulholland pointed out the stress that bovine TB causes and the impact of that. We need to have effective measures in place to help with that. I congratulate Robbie Butler on his elevation to Chair of the AERA Committee. Let us hope that we get this issue sorted out. I welcome the Minister's comments on the impact and cost of bovine TB and what it means for the economy, because it also impacts on our agri-food sector and we have to take cognisance of that. Timothy Gaston referred to the infection levels in badgers that were recorded in roadkill post-mortems, herd incidence and the evidence of that, which was a vital contribution. There will be very difficult decisions to make on the issue. Looking at wildlife intervention is emotive, but we cannot do nothing. We have to move on this, and it is vital that we do so very quickly because time is ticking for our family farms and what it means for them.
652 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: 0.03 (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 (0.81).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.81 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 | 0.85 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.14 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:38 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.