Debate contribution: Bovine Tuberculosis

Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on 27 April 2026.

MLA

Mr Robbie Butler

Party at the time

Ulster Unionist Party

Date

27 April 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Bovine Tuberculosis

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5508721

Read the official Assembly record

Text

There are things that we do in the Chamber regularly, and this is one of them. As the proposer of the motion initially said, this is a topic that has come up time and time again. Wildfires are another issue that we have been talking about. We really need to get to grips with many of the things that we just rinse and repeat every year. I support both the motion and the amendment, and I commend both Sinn Féin and the DUP in that space. As the Member from the Alliance Party has also outlined, it is an ambition that each of us has, and we need to get serious about the actions. I record the Ulster Unionist Party's thanks to the Andersons Centre for the report that it compiled, which makes for stark and, frankly, sobering reading. For years, in the Chamber, we have talked about bovine TB in terms of compensation, reactors and headline figures. However, the report, which many of us have read, clearly and powerfully moves the conversation beyond the visible costs and shines a light on the true burden carried every day by our farming families. I have to be clear: that burden is immense. We already know from DAERA's figures that bovine TB will cost the public purse in excess of £60 million this year. We know that tens of thousands of cattle — around 20,000 animals annually — are slaughtered as reactors or direct contacts. We know that herd incidents continually sit stubbornly high at around 10% or more in recent years. However, those are only the headline numbers. The Andersons Centre's report tells us that, behind those figures, there is a much deeper, much more personal cost — one that is largely hidden, largely unmeasured and, until now, too often overlooked. The March 2026 assessment makes it clear that farmers bear the largest share of the total economic cost of bTB, not the Department, not the system but the farmers. The report highlights that, for many farm businesses, the indirect costs of such things as loss of productivity, extended calving, disrupted breeding programmes, additional feed, additional labour and movement restrictions can run into tens of thousands of pounds per breakdown. In some cases, those hidden costs can be equal to or even exceed the compensation that the farmers receive. So, when we talk about the £60 million-plus problem, we are only telling part of the story. The real cost, the true cost, is significantly higher, and it is being absorbed quietly, relentlessly and invisibly by farm families across Northern Ireland, and that matters. It matters not just economically but environmentally. The motion rightly recognises that high levels of animal disease undermine sustainability. A herd under restriction is an inefficient herd. More inputs are required per unit of output, more feed, more time, more emissions — all for less productivity. If we are serious about climate targets and about sustainable food production, we must also be serious about eradicating bovine tuberculosis. It matters for animal welfare. As Mr Blair, the chairman of the all-party group on animal welfare, and I, as vice-chair, say, we have to care about all animals equally. Michelle McIlveen talked about the public love and understanding for the badger, but we have to look at them in the same way as we in the farming family look at cows. It matters for public health also. That was picked up in the amendment to the motion. The figure of three human cases locally adds a wider context of concern for all of us. Crucially, it matters for mental health, because, behind every statistic, there is a farmer lying awake at night, a family dealing with uncertainty and a business under pressure with no clear end in sight. When that news drops onto a farm, it does not disappear overnight; in fact, it extends into weeks and months of worry and leaves an indelible scar. The Andersons report also gives voice to those experiences and confirms what many of us already knew but could not prove. We have the evidence now, and we cannot ignore it. The amendment strengthens the motion, and we support it. It rightly recognises the broader economic impact not just on farms but on agri-food supply chains, rural employment and local livestock marts. It acknowledges the blueprint from the TB Partnership Steering Group and welcomes funding through the Shared Island initiative, whilst it also reflects genuine and valid concerns from the Ulster Farmers' Union about whether the pilot area is truly representative of the problem that is facing Northern Ireland. That point should not be dismissed lightly, because, if we are to succeed, any intervention must be evidence-based, regionally appropriate and delivered with the confidence of the farming community. That brings me to the central issue of action. The time for reports alone has indeed passed. We do not lack understanding; we do not lack evidence; we do not lack recommendations; and we do not lack Adjournment debates, Members' statements or motions tabled by parties. What we have lacked consistently is decisive implementation. The Andersons report is clear that compensation alone is not enough, and farmers know that. What is required is a comprehensive, science-led eradication strategy that includes all necessary measures, including wildlife intervention. As I have said, that does not come without its controversy, so we need to step in line with that. To sum up, our farmers are not asking for sympathy. They would rather not ask for compensation. They are asking for leadership and for a plan that works, for timelines that mean something and for partnerships and not platitudes from us.

940 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:32 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