still increases but not by as much as it would have done had the cull not been conducted. This cull is not the silver bullet the Secretary of State makes it out to be. The eminent zoologist Lord John Krebs continues: "The number is not the 30% that the NFU quoted; that is misleading -- a dishonest filleting of the data." -- [ Hansard, House of Lords , 23 October 2012; Vol. 740, c. 148 .] Disappointingly, it appears, judging by his response to the debate in this morning's DEFRA questions, that the Secretary of State has not read the Hansard record of that Lords debate, where the scientists were sitting there. He persisted in misusing a snapshot figure -- the 28% -- instead of using the one figure that the scientists are agreed on, which is the 16% figure. The Minister is looking puzzled. I hope that he is still not confused, because he is going to get a lambasting from the scientists. The Government are cherry-picking the data. Perturbation increases bovine TB, in the perimeter areas, by 29%, but I have chosen not to use that figure in any of the rhetoric or debate on this matter because it represents a snapshot; those perturbation increases happen in the early stages and are not borne out by the reduction that occurs afterwards. Well, that is a relief. I do not know why the Minister has not told the Secretary of State that, because he is reported in Hansard as