I agree with that, but how does culling improve badger health? Professor Woodroffe states unequivocally that it does exactly the opposite and that "all the evidence shows that culling badgers increases the proportion of badgers that have TB". Yet the Government's approach ignores that evidence. As with the ISG trials, conditions have been imposed to try to limit the effects of perturbation, such as identifying natural barriers to badger movement, but these have generally been less rigorous than those recommended, with farmers essentially being encouraged to develop a "not in my back yard" approach to cattle TB without any real thought for the long-term impact on rates of the disease elsewhere. Earlier this week, the Secretary of State warned that the cost to the taxpayer of tackling bovine TB will rise to 1 billion over the next decade if the disease is left unchecked. I agree that that is a very alarming prospect. That is why it is crucial that on this, as well as on the scientific evidence, he listen to the experts who, let me remind him, have concluded: "The financial costs of culling an idealized 150 km (2) area would exceed the savings achieved through reduced cattle TB, by factors of 2 to 3.5." DEFRA has tried to keep the costs down by allowing licensed farmers to do the culling in its planned pilots and allowing for the licences to permit shooting, but by cutting corners in that way it undermines the very effectiveness that it claims