Paul Murphy Challenges Department on Thousands of Badgers Killed

Thanks a lot. Thanks a lot for coming before us. My first question is, do you have the figures yet for how many badgers were killed under the bovine TB programme by the department in 2025? I'll ask Dr Fanning to come in on this, please. Thanks. So, Deputy, was it 2024 or 2025? Okay, well, 2025, we mightn't have the full, there might be still a few returns that we wouldn't have in, but the provisional figures that I would have are the total number of badgers captured was 12,811. So, the total number of those badgers that were vaccinated was 3,039. And then the total number of badgers removed, and that's including from vaccine areas. So, this would have been animals that were positive within, so positive badgers within vaccine areas. Removed from vaccine areas was 2,548. And then from removal areas, there was 5,187. So, that's a total of badgers removed. It's 7,735. So, when you say removed, you mean removed from this earth? Euthanised, yes. Killed, yes. Okay. 7,700 and? 35. That's not a final figure for 2025. For 2025, no, it's not a final figure. That's up from... There may still be... 2024, it was 7,319, I think, according to an article in the Journal. And over the past 10 years, over 66,000. Over the past 10 years now, on the base of these figures going up, it'll be even higher. Why is the public paying to kill so many badgers, which are a protected species? So, Deputy, if I could take that, and Dr Fanning might add to my reply. So, the TB program necessarily requires a wildlife strategy, which includes the removal of badgers from areas where there has been a TB outbreak. And as we've discussed already, the number of TB outbreaks has increased significantly over the last years. That requirement arises as TB is present both in cattle and in badgers, and both species share the same environment and the same strains of TB. The current policy was introduced in response to research conducted over many years by the department, which clearly demonstrates that the eradication of TB is not practical unless and until the issue of the reservoir of infection in badgers, which is seeding infection into the cattle population in some areas, is addressed. But, I mean, you're telling me that you're killing more and more badgers each year, but at the same time, you're also telling me that the incidence rate of TB in cattle is increasing. It's not working, is it? So, as we've discussed, the TB is a multifactorial disease. I think some of the practical communication messages that we've given to farmers in how they can better manage that interaction of cattle and badgers will be an important part of this. But there are a number of strands to the TB response. I mean, to quote the Comptroller and Order General report, the department noted that the removal of milk quotas in 2015 led to a significant expansion of the Irish dairy sector. Dairy herds are at higher risk for bovine TB due to longer residency times, increased movements, higher stock density and larger herd sizes. For 2023, even though 12% of all herds were dairy herds, 35% of all cattle were in dairy herds. And that there's evidence of TB spread within and between herds. I mean, is the driving factor of the increased incidence of TB not the increased intensification of dairy farming? I think there are a number of factors, Deputy. So, increased intensification, greater movement are one factor, and I might ask Dr. Fanning to expand on that. And as the Secretary said, there are a number of factors, and that is why the Action Plan looks at all those factors. TB is not something that we can eradicate from either population, either badgers or cattle, without addressing the problem in both species. So, it is, and they do share, I suppose, common habitat from anywhere there's badgers in the country. It is generally grazing land. There are measures in the Action Plan that, I suppose, refine our wildlife program in particular in that, in vaccine areas, that all badgers will be tested prior to vaccination, to ensure that only healthy badgers are vaccinated, to ensure that the population of badgers can be sustained. The herd, not the herd incidence, the incidence in badgers is up over 20% of badgers are positive, which is a very high level of disease. So, as you're saying to me, 80% of the badgers who are killed don't have TB? Well, I don't have the exact figures in front of me, but we don't test all the badgers that are culled, so we don't, but it is an estimated level of about 20% in badgers, which you have to deal with. This is a very chronic, debilitating disease, which, from the badgers' protection point of view, we have to address it in both populations. But, I mean, we're the only country in Europe which is committed to the large-scale, publicly-funded slaughter of badgers, and we're also the worst country in Europe in terms of incidence of TB, and it's not getting better, it's getting worse. Why aren't we just vaccinating the badgers, or certainly overwhelmingly vaccinating the badgers, and why is the ratio between vaccination and killings getting worse over time, despite a, the Minister has said on the record, just vaccinating the badgers, or certainly overwhelmingly vaccinating the badgers, and why is the ratio between vaccination and killings getting worse over time, despite a, the Minister has said on the record of the Dáil, the aim is to move towards vaccinations, not to kill so many badgers. Why is that the case? I think one point, Deputy, is that, as Dr Fanning has said, if the rate of TB in badgers is 20% of those, of those we test, and sorry, I'm getting the figures wrong there somewhere, there's a very high rate of TB in badgers. About 20%. I don't think that's, anyway, I'm open to correction on that, but where a badger has TB, then euthanising that animal is the correct course. But we're killing a majority, a big majority of the animals that are caught, and yet only 20% have it, so that doesn't add up. The calls are taking place in areas where the disease spread has been attributed to wildlife. So it is only by dealing with all strands of the disease and the risk factors that we can address, and ultimately drive down to eradication. Sorry, you're telling me that the 7,735 killed in the first whatever time of last year, they all would have tested positive for TB, that's why they were killed? As I've said, we don't test all of the badgers for TB. How many of those tested positive before they were killed? They wouldn't have been tested prior to culling. How many tested positive then after being killed? As I said, I can get you the figures on how many were tested, but we don't test all of the badgers. It is... It's a sampling. Yeah, it's a... Well, it's a... It is... Badgers are culled in areas where there are hot spots of TB. Yes. And therefore, they have been shown to be involved in the spread epidemiologically. Just to move on. I mean, one of the things that strikes you as crazy when you read this is that we're spending over 100 million euros a year on a bovine TB program. And yet, in 2024, sorry, there still is no target time for reactor removals, which as I understand, the reactor is a cow that has been tested to be likely positive to TB, apart from the 30-day legal minimum. And obviously, it can spread from one cow to others. I mean, I don't understand how there isn't a target time and how the average time, the national average removal time for 2024 was 18.3 days. So, the average cow was not removed for a majority of a month. It seems crazy to me. I suppose, Deputy, one important point is that when an animal tests positive for TB, they are isolated on their farm of origin and the other animals are also isolated. So, there's a limited danger of TB spreading from those animals to other animals. And you ensure that's the case? Yes. And you have accepted the recommendation from the Controlling and Ordering General to introduce a target timeline, I think. Yes. Why did you accept that? I think that forms part of our consideration in terms of the action plan, that we're taking that multifactorial, multi-strand approach to addressing the disease in all its aspects. And when is that going to be implemented? So, we would hope to have – I think it's recognised that we are not going to make the 2030 target that had been set. And we are looking at the impact of the individual actions within the action plan and would hope to have revised targets by the end of Q1 this year. My question is, when will the Department set target timelines for the removal of reactors? Well, we have target timelines. Yes, sorry. So, the updated position on that, Deputy, is that a target of 100% of reactors removed in compliance with the statutory requirements. That's just the law, like – Yes. Just 30 days. So, the – sorry, to answer your question directly, Deputy, the timeline for agreeing that the target – new target timelines is the end of Q1 of this year. Okay, well, you haven't done that yet. Just a final question. The EU used to co-fund this programme. And in reading the audit report from September 2025, talking about the search for consensus with key stakeholders failing to lead to progressive increase in disease levels, to respond to it, respond to progressive increase in disease levels, and the financial compensation arrangements do not incentivise herd owners to follow disease prevention actions recommended by the Department. In addition, there are no financial disincentives for behaviours associated with increased TB risk. It appears that the EU effectively got fed up funding you to pay for a scheme that is not very effective. Is that accurate? I don't think that's accurate, Deputy. I think the EU funding in respect of animal diseases is quite limited. And if we look across the EU as a whole, they have had very significant disease outbreaks to deal with and to contribute to compensation of, including African swine fever, highly pathogenic avian influenza and other diseases. And that has essentially used up a large proportion of that EU funding that was available. I mean, the audit report doesn't sound like they think it's a particularly effective programme. Would that be fair to say? Have you responded to the audit report? We've accepted the findings of the audit report and have provided an update, which I think has been given to the committee in respect of where we are in acting on those findings. It looks like there will be more for you.