Debate contribution: Bovine Tuberculosis
Debate contribution by Mr Andrew Muir on .
- MLA
- Mr Andrew Muir
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 16 February 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Bovine Tuberculosis
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5391513
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will answer questions 6 and 7 together. The surveillance of bovine TB in the badger population in Northern Ireland is primarily collected through my Department's road traffic accident survey. Over the past five years, the survey has indicated that TB prevalence in badgers is at a steady rate of around 19%, rather than there being a new or emerging outbreak. In April last year, the TB stakeholder body that I established on the recommendation of our Chief Veterinary Officer produced a new blueprint for tackling bovine TB here. I was pleased to endorse the blueprint, which includes actions on the role played by wildlife as one of three pillars of eradication alongside cattle and people measures. As part of the blueprint's implementation, my officials are preparing a new consultation on the full range of potential wildlife intervention options for launch in the spring. Once that concludes, I will be much better placed to make an informed decision on the best way to address the spread of TB between badgers and cattle. My Department is also working with our stakeholders to prioritise other blueprint actions, and I have instructed my officials to establish a TB transformation programme to oversee that work. In addition, alongside my counterpart in the Republic of Ireland, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Martin Heydon, I will be launching an innovative cross-border regionalisation initiative supported by Shared Island funding to tackle bovine TB.
244 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 (0.73).
- 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 | 0.73 | 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 | 0.99 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:53 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.