Debate contribution: Bovine Tuberculosis
Debate contribution by Mr Declan McAleer on .
- MLA
- Mr Declan McAleer
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 27 April 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Bovine Tuberculosis
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5508697
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I beg to move
Go raibh maith agat.
The motion is on an issue of immense importance to the agriculture community. It goes far beyond animal health and strikes at the heart of our rural economy, environment and public health. I will begin by stating that we tabled a similar motion in the House in November 2024, and it is unfortunate that, a year and a half later, we are still having the same debate. Today's motion recognises that high levels of disease, including bovine tuberculosis (bTB), undermine environmental sustainability by increasing resource use per unit of food produced and contributing to higher greenhouse gas emissions. That is not an abstract theory; it is borne out by evidence. Research, including findings highlighted in 'Acting on methane: opportunities for the UK cattle and sheep sectors', shows that premature culling driven by bTB policy is not just an animal health failure but a climate failure. By shortening the herd longevity and forcing higher replacement rates, early removal of cattle increases methane emissions. The Department has acknowledged that bTB-related culling undermines lifetime productivity and can worsen greenhouse gas outcomes, particularly where stocking rates remain high, yet policy continues to prioritise short-term responses over long-term disease control measures that would better serve farmers, the environment and our climate commitments. The scale of the economic burden is stark. A major independent study commissioned by the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU), the Livestock and Meat Commission and the Dairy Council found that the indirect cost to farmers is estimated at £96 million a year, with a total economic cost rising to approximately £156 million annually when departmental spending is included. That underlines the truth that bTB is not just an animal health issue; it is a major economic crisis for our farming sector. More than half of those costs occur in herds that have not even experienced a breakdown. That tells us that the disease creates a constant baseline burden across the entire industry. Farmers are dealing with production losses, additional labour, cash flow pressures, increased biosecurity costs and environmental inefficiencies, even when they are not directly affected by an outbreak. The failure to tackle bTB is also reflected in the growing cost to the public purse. The Department estimates that bTB will cost between £65 million and £66 million in the 2025-26 financial year, which is an increase on the £60·1 million spent last year. A substantial proportion of that is compensation for culled animals. Year after year, costs rise, cattle are culled, and farmers pay the price while the underlying drivers of the disease remain unresolved. That is not a sustainable strategy; it is an expensive cycle that we can no longer afford. We also cannot ignore the human impact. The stress, uncertainty and emotional toll on farming families are very real. It is a long-term structural problem not a short-term issue, and it affects not only farm profitability but mental health, family life and the sustainability of rural communities. Earlier this year, I asked the Department to outline the economic cost of rising bTB levels, and the response was stark. In 2025, more than 20,000 cattle were culled from farms as part of disease control measures. That level of loss disrupts breeding programmes, reduces milk output, delays sales and cuts farm income. Compensation alone is projected to exceed £55 million this financial year. That is an unsustainable trajectory for farmers and the public purse. The impact extends far beyond individual farms; it affects livestock marts, processors, rural employment and the wider agri-food supply chain. It also has implications for domestic food security and the competitiveness of our export. Despite all that, there is a growing perception that action is not matched by the scale of the urgency of the problem. On the issue of wildlife intervention, there has been considerable focus on the judicial review. It is important to be clear that the case was not whether a badger cull should or should not take place. Rather, it was about the process of consultation. The court found that the Department had breached the Gunning principles by failing to provide sufficient information and failing to carefully consider consultation responses. Crucially, the judgement made no comment on the merits of the policy itself. What is required now is a lawful, transparent and robust consultation process without any further delay. If we are serious about eradication, as we must be, we need a coordinated, eradication-focused approach that tackles all drivers of the disease. That includes cattle measures, strengthened biosecurity and targeted, science-led wildlife intervention to reduce breakdown risks. The TB eradication partnership's blueprint provides a pathway forward, and additional funding through the Shared Island initiative is very welcome. The regional cooperation programme, which is backed by €6·4 million in additional funding, is a practical step towards a coordinated cross-border approach. However, concerns have been raised, including by the Ulster Farmers' Union, that the pilot area may not reflect the full reality of the disease across the North. That must be addressed if we are to have confidence in its outcomes. The reality is that the status quo is not working. Costs are too high and the burden on farmers too great. The impacts on our economy, our environment and public health are too serious to ignore when dealing with a disease that affects every part of our rural fabric. It is time for decisive, coordinated action.
899 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Awaiting analysis
This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.