With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Government’s plans for tackling bovine TB in England. In doing so, I would like to thank the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs both for its comprehensive and thoughtful report and for allowing me additional time to respond to it, which I have now done. I am also grateful to Professor Bourne and the members of the Independent Scientific Group for their thorough scientific study.

Bovine TB is not a new problem. For more than 70 years, successive Governments have implemented cattle controls based on surveillance, testing and the slaughter of reactors. Those have been designed to protect public health, reduce the economic impact of the disease on farmers and, more recently, to comply with our obligations under European legislation. By the mid-1970s, the incidence of TB in cattle had reached an all-time low. However, since the 1980s, disease incidence has increased again—with a significant rise following the 2001 foot and mouth epidemic—and last year, nearly 3,200 new TB incidents were recorded and 18,543 reactor cattle were slaughtered in England.

Bovine TB is a serious problem, particularly in the south-west and the midlands. Although more than 90 per cent. of herds are TB free at any one time and some significant cattle farming areas are largely without the disease, I know from listening to farmers living with it just how difficult it is, and, for those most seriously affected, I know that the economic and human consequences are simply devastating. That is why we should take the right decisions to help.

Bovine TB is transmitted between cattle, and between cattle and badgers, but what has dominated the debate is whether badger culling could be effective in controlling the disease. The 10-year randomised badger culling trial overseen by the Independent Scientific Group on cattle TB, culled some 11,000 badgers to discover what impact it would have. The ISG’s final report, published last year, concluded that reactive culling—killing badgers in areas where there had been local TB breakdowns—made the problem worse; and that proactive culling, which involves taking an area of about 100 sq km and repeatedly culling badgers over a number of years, produced only marginal benefits because although TB was reduced in that area, it increased outside of it because of the disturbance and movement of badgers.

While scientists agree that a prolonged and effective cull over even larger areas—some 250 to 300 sq km—could reduce the incidence of bovine TB, the ISG’s judgment was that the practicality and cost of delivering a cull on that scale meant that

“badger culling cannot meaningfully contribute to the future control of cattle TB”.

Having listened carefully to a wide range of views from scientists, farming, veterinary and wildlife organisations, and many others, and having considered all the evidence, I have decided that although such a cull might work, it might also not work. It could end up making the disease worse if the cull was not sustained over time or delivered effectively, and public opposition, including the unwillingness of some landowners to take part, would render that more difficult. It would not be right to take that risk. Therefore, in line with the advice that I have received from the Independent Scientific Group, our policy will be not to issue any licences to farmers to cull badgers for TB control, although we remain open to the possibility of revisiting that policy under exceptional circumstances, or if new scientific evidence were to become available.

This has been a difficult decision to take, and I know that farmers affected will be disappointed and angry. We all want the same thing—to beat this terrible disease—but I have had to reach a view about what will be effective in doing so, guided by the science and the practicality of delivering a cull. Having made a commitment to farmers and others that I would take a decision, now that it has been made, we need to put all our efforts into working together to take action that can work in all affected areas.

I have therefore also decided to make vaccination a priority, as recommended by the Select Committee. Effective vaccines could in future provide a viable way of tackling disease in both badgers and cattle. We have invested £18 million in the past 10 years in vaccine development, which has delivered good results, including: evidence that vaccinating young calves is effective; making progress towards developing a test to distinguish between infected and vaccinated cattle; showing that injectable BCG can protect badgers; and developing oral badger vaccine baits. I now intend to increase significantly our spending on vaccines by putting in £20 million over the next three years to strengthen our chances of successfully developing them. I will also provide additional funding to set up and run a practical project to prepare for deploying vaccines in future.

It could be some time before an oral vaccine for badgers, or a cattle vaccine, becomes available, so for now we must reduce the spread of the disease, and try to stop it becoming established in new areas. We have cattle controls in place to tackle TB, and have strengthened them in recent years with the introduction of pre-movement testing and the targeted use of the more sensitive gamma interferon test. But the action that individual farmers take, in particular to deal with the risk of importing disease into their herd, will also remain critical.

Disease control is not just a matter for Government, notwithstanding the considerable cost. Farmers have the main interest—the burden of controls falls most heavily on them—and they must be involved in working out how we go forward. It would be possible to tighten cattle measures still further as recommended by the ISG report, but that would come at a high cost. Whether it would be worthwhile is as much, if not more, a question for the industry as it is for Government. There is a choice to be made. That is why I have decided to set up a bovine TB partnership group with the industry to develop a joint plan for tackling bovine TB. We will discuss with the industry who should be on the group and how it should work, and I want to get started as quickly as possible.

The group will have full access to information on the TB budget and will be able to make recommendations about its use. It will be able to propose further practical steps to tackle the disease, including, for example, whether there should be tighter cattle controls. It will help to reach decisions about the injectable vaccines deployment project. It will be able to look at ways of helping farmers to manage the impact of living under disease restrictions, for example by providing incentives for biosecurity, or maximising the opportunities to market their cattle by looking again at the restrictions around red markets and encouraging the establishment of more exempt and approved finishing units. I am prepared to make additional funding available to support such initiatives if the group makes a strong case for doing so.

The House is united in its determination to overcome bovine TB, and much as we would all wish it, there is no quick or easy way of doing so. But our best chance is to work together, and I therefore hope that the industry will respond to my proposals so that we can get on with it.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and for allowing us prior sight of it. I also congratulate the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on its report.

This is the Government’s response to a consultation on badgers that began three years ago. Never have three years produced so little substance. Can the Secretary of State explain why he waited until the day after the royal show before making his statement, given that its contents were widely known during it? Was the reason that he did not wish to upset farmers before he attended?

Given that Lord Rooker has said that the EFRA Committee report was “absolutely first-class”, that the “buck stops here” and that

“the present situation is unsustainable”,

and given the widespread rumours of threatened resignation, can the Secretary of State assure us that his statement has the full support of his ministerial team in both Houses? Will he also confirm that since 1997 more than £600 million has been spent on combating the disease and 200,000 cattle have been slaughtered—for what benefit?

In that time, as the Secretary of State has said, the Government have produced just two initiatives, pre-movement testing and gamma interferon. Last year another 28,000 cattle were slaughtered, and perhaps the Secretary of State will confirm that according to figures for the period up to the end of April we are on course to slaughter 40,000 this year. There have been more than 1,400 new incidences this year, and nearly 5,500 herds were affected at the end of April. What would the Secretary of State say to a farmer to whom I spoke recently, who had just had a number of pedigree cattle taken? Yes, she had been compensated, but her complaint was about the waste of good cattle and taxpayers’ money, and about the fact that we were getting nowhere.

The Secretary of State referred to the budget. Is he now able to answer the questions to which he has so far been unable to provide written parliamentary answers? How much is he planning to spend on TB in each of the three years of the current comprehensive spending review, and what is the projected number of cattle to be slaughtered in the setting of those budgets? If the number does rise to 40,000 or more, how will he accommodate that—or will he cut compensation further? According to Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ 2004 paper “Preparing for a new GB strategy on bovine tuberculosis”, the annual costs will rise to more than £300 million by 2012-13. Is that still the Secretary of State’s estimate?

The Secretary of State obviously pins his hopes on vaccines—rightly, in some ways—but his predecessors have done the same. In 1998 the Government had a five-point plan, one of whose points was “developing a vaccine”. In 2003, the right hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said

“The development of a TB vaccine is one of the key objectives of our TB research programme.”—[Official Report, 1 April 2003; Vol. 402, c. 638W.]

In 2005, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett) announced a 10-year framework, which stated

“We will actively continue with vaccine research looking at options for both badger and cattle vaccines.”

Can the Secretary of State tell the House how many cattle he expects to be slaughtered annually by 2013, even if an oral vaccine is available then, and how much of England he expects to be infected? Is it not the case that, given a public service agreement to limit the spread of the disease to no more than 17 new parishes this year, the Government have effectively given up on any hope of control?

The Opposition have consistently called for a comprehensive package of measures to combat this disease. We do not believe that simply targeting badgers is the solution, but even Professor Bourne has said that the disease cannot be eradicated unless the wildlife reservoir is addressed Let me therefore ask the Secretary of State some questions about the components of such a package.

Now that pre-movement testing has been in place for two years, is the Secretary of State satisfied that it is cost-effective, and that farmers are not moving stock without tests? While we welcome the extra resources for vaccine development, given his predecessors’ commitments, how much more quickly does he expect it to produce results? What steps is he taking to examine other factors, such as the role of maize and possible trace element deficiencies in the spread of TB? Does he believe that the current frequency of testing is adequate, especially in areas that are adjacent to infected areas? Let me also ask him about the European context. Is it not the case that we are required to have a programme to eradicate TB? Has he discussed his statement with the European Commission to establish whether the Commission believes that his proposals have any hope of success?

The Secretary of State has set up yet another new study group. Have not the industry and most vets already told him what should be in the plan? What powers will the group have to do anything? He spoke of more money being available. Will he tell us how much, and where it will come from?

The right hon. Gentleman, as he said, has declined to control badgers and, in doing so, has gone against not only the demands of farmers but the recommendation of the Select Committee, the advice of Sir David King and even the evidence collected by the ISG. [Interruption.] It is true. Did not that evidence show clearly that removal of badgers in hot-spot areas caused a reduction in incidence and, most importantly, has not the continued monitoring of those areas since the final report now shown a reduction in incidence in excess of 50 per cent.? Would not the suggested area in north Devon have been an opportunity to run a selective removal programme, either using local knowledge—as the proponents suggest—or to validate the use of the PCR—polymerase chain reaction—test to establish whether setts contain infected animals? If it can be shown that removal was primarily of infected animals, would not that make it more acceptable and in the interests of badgers as well as cattle? I know that some of the right hon. Gentleman’s advisers will say that the PCR test is not sufficiently accurate, so why is he content to slaughter thousands of cattle using a test with a sensitivity of only 80 per cent.?

Nobody wants to remove large numbers of badgers but the Secretary of State cannot deny that this is also a disease that affects them. Badgers with TB die a nasty, lingering death. They are evicted from their family setts and wander around the country spreading the disease. Surely it is in the interests of a healthy badger population, as well as a healthy cattle population, that we tackle the disease from all angles. It is clear from the statement today that the Government are not prepared to do so.

Some three weeks ago, the farming press carried a comment by me about the Secretary of State, in which I said that he is a nice man who has failed to deliver. I am grateful to him for proving my point.

First, I am happy to confirm that the statement represents the Government’s policy on what we should do. The hon. Gentleman did not really respond to the question about badgers and the evidence. I disagree with his interpretation. In the end, it is no good taking a decision to allow something to happen that might not deliver the desired effect. The ISG report came as a great surprise to lots of people, as the hon. Gentleman will be only too well aware, and Professor Bourne made clear that what it found was counter-intuitive. But in the end the ISG’s conclusion was, and I repeat it, that badger culling cannot meaningfully contribute. I have listened very carefully to that advice and have formed my judgment. I remain very clear in my view that it is the right decision to take.

Secondly, the budget will depend on the progress of the disease, so it is not possible to give a forecast of the spend. It will depend on what happens, and the same is true for any forecast about the number of cattle that might be slaughtered. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures for England over the last five or six years, he will see that the number has gone up and down during that time. Investment in vaccines will give us greater prospect that a usable vaccine will be found and, in the end, we need to focus our effort on something that will enable us to deal with the problem of bovine TB in all the areas where it is to be found. Even those who advocate selective culling would recognise that that is not a policy that would work everywhere. We have absolutely not given up on control, and the PCR test is not capable of being used in the way that the hon. Gentleman described it.

On the effectiveness of our current measures, these are precisely the questions that I want to put, but not to another “study group.” The hon. Gentleman will be aware of how we have worked with the industry in tackling bluetongue, and that has been a successful partnership group. Why? Because we have sat down together, put the problems on the table, shared the responsibility and taken decisions accordingly. That is exactly the model that I wish to use now that I have taken a decision about badger culling.

The hon. Gentleman asked about Europe. I am happy to tell the House that I spoke to the Commissioner earlier this afternoon.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and his response to the Select Committee report. Does he accept that bovine TB is the biggest challenge facing our livestock sector? Over the past five years up to last March, it has cost the Government well over £400 million, and in addition there is the huge commercial cost and the misery and suffering resulting from herd breakdown. Will the Secretary of State say a little more about not only cattle-to-cattle spread, but herd-to-herd spread?

I agree with my right hon. Friend about the impact of the disease and the effect it has on the farmers who are suffering as a result of it. We need to take all the measures that the evidence says will work and which are effective in dealing with the problem. That is why we have made changes in recent years, including bringing in the pre-movement testing which began for animals over 15 months of age in March 2006, and then extended to all cattle aged over 42 days. The straight answer is that it is probably still too early to tell exactly what the impact of that has been, which is why we must continue to monitor. It is important that we maintain the controls we have in place, and have an honest conversation with the industry about whether further cattle controls is the right step to take. I think it is right and proper to ask the industry what its view is precisely because of the impact on farmers, as opposed to me standing before the House today and saying that I have decided to impose those controls myself.

I thank the Secretary of State and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman for their kind words about the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s report. However, I must tell the Secretary of State that as a result of what he has said today there will be anger in the hot-spot areas and there will be fear in those areas where TB has yet to arrive. He said nothing in his statement about epidemiology. What steps will he take to address once and for all the question of how the disease is transmitted, for without that understanding there can be no effective biosecurity measures, and what specific proposals does he have to help farmers, particularly in the hot-spot areas, deal with biosecurity measures at a time when the livestock industry is under great financial pressure?

I know there will be anger—indeed, I referred to that in my statement—because I know how strongly lots of people on both sides of the argument feel about the issue. However, in the end I have to follow what the science says and make a judgment about the practicality and effectiveness of a course of action, and that is what I have done. The group that I will establish will look at precisely the question the right hon. Gentleman raised, including what further steps might be taken to support farmers in providing biosecurity and also including better evidence. I agree that it would be good to understand better the precise means of transmission, but all I can say to him on that is that, as his Committee’s report set out very clearly, we still do not know quite a lot and it is important to continue with research to try to find the answers, but it is even more important that we make sure that effective controls are in place.

I should like to thank the Secretary of State for giving me an early sight of his statement. I also wish to draw attention to my declaration of interests in the register, and to say that the farming business for which I have a responsibility recently underwent a tuberculin test and three cattle were found to be reactors and the results for 11 were inconclusive. That is the first time that that herd and that farm have experienced TB for more than 50 years.

I commend the Secretary of State for one thing this afternoon: that he has come to a decision. It is difficult to know, however, whether that decision was made on the grounds of populist appeal or sound science.

Following the Bourne report, Sir David King propounded a larger scale cull to overcome the reservations of Bourne’s conclusions, but the Secretary of State has completely ignored Sir David King’s views. The EFRA Committee suggested a pilot large-scale cull, possibly in the south-west, to test Sir David King’s views, but the Secretary of State has also ignored its recommendations.

The Secretary of State says that further evidence may reverse the decision on culling. Where does he see that evidence coming from, and what research has he commissioned on that? The right hon. Gentleman says he will invest more money in vaccine development, yet the Select Committee was given evidence that the limiting factor in vaccine development is time, not resources. He says that some landowners may not have supported the badger cull, but how many farmers will support the proposed bovine TB partnership group when they feel so let down and demoralised at the moment? With outbreaks of bovine TB increasing rapidly, what will the cost to the country be over the next three years? Will the Secretary of State revisit the compensation payments for pedigree and highly valuable stock?

The situation of the farming industry and the Government is very sad, and no one would wish to cull wild animals for the sake of it. But the role of badgers as a reservoir for TB infection is unquestioned, and the Secretary of State has no answer on how to eliminate it.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman when he describes the situation as very sad, and I am sorry to hear about the effect on his herd. However, the answers were not based on populism: they were based on an assessment of the science. I assure him that I ignored nothing. I apologise to the House for having taken a year to reach a decision on this issue, but I took the responsibility placed on me very seriously. I have looked at all the evidence and I have talked to all those who have a view.

Sir David King looked at the science and said what the effect would be if we met all the conditions. By his own acknowledgement, he did not consider the practicality. In reaching a decision, I am bound to consider both the science and the practicality. Self-evidently, if all the badgers were, for the sake of argument, to be culled—[Interruption.] I know that no one has argued for that, but my point is that the science only takes us so far. I also have to consider practicality and effectiveness, and whether a cull could be delivered. My judgment is that it might not work in those circumstances. The evidence base is strong, because the one substantive bit of evidence that we have about the impact of culling is the randomised badger trials, which were carried out over 10 years.

I met the teams who are working on the vaccines about six weeks ago. The advice that I have received is that putting more money in will help to improve the likelihood of getting a successful vaccine, but will not of itself speed up the process. On the issue of compensation, we are awaiting the outcome of a judicial review, and it would be prudent to see what that judgment is. How many of those in the industry will support the group that I am establishing? I hope that people will support that group, because whatever the anger, disappointment and other strong feelings that they will have about the decision that I have made—and announced to the House today—the disease will remain, we will have to deal with it, and we will be able to do that only by working together.

I thank my right hon. Friend for listening to the totality of the ISG report, rather than picking parts of it. I also thank him for ignoring the former chief scientist, because some of us have grave doubts about the part that he played and the way in which he chose to reinterpret the evidence. Will my right hon. Friend say something more about the vaccination programme? He will know that I have part of it in my constituency. As much as time and money are of the essence, surely there is a need to test the vaccines in several different places and ways so that we can find the solution—and the only solution is vaccination—as soon as possible?

I thank my hon. Friend for his words, although I must point out that I have not ignored anyone’s opinions, including those of Sir David King, but considered them all extremely carefully. There is a three and a half year injectable badger vaccine field trial under way, and work is also going on to develop an oral bait. The demonstration project, which I wish to work with the new partnership group to put in place, is intended to build confidence in the industry in the potential of vaccines to help to deal with the problem.

In the case of a cattle vaccine, which is a bit further away, the first requirement is for an effective DIVA—differentiation of infected versus vaccinated animals—test to distinguish between infected and vaccinated animals. Secondly—and this will be an issue that the House will need to address—European legislation forbids the vaccination of cattle to deal with bovine TB. If and when we get a vaccine and a satisfactory DIVA test, I would hope that the whole House would think it sensible to argue the case for vaccination as a better way to deal with this disease in the medium to long term than culling, of cows or badgers—when the science shows that that could make things worse.

Farmers in the intensely infected area of Devonshire that I represent will regard this decision as a spineless abdication of responsibility. Why, if the considerations that the Secretary of State has taken into account are so compelling, have the Welsh Executive decided to pilot a trial of just the type that the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, on which I have the honour to sit, has recommended to him?

With respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I do not accept that characterisation of my decision. The Welsh Assembly Government have made their own decision and of course I considered that. I weighed very carefully in my mind what the Select Committee had to say. It was an outstanding report, but, in all honesty, I formed the judgment that I have, which I have told the House about today. The judgment had to be made about whether, in the light of the science, it was worth taking the risk when one could not guarantee that a cull on such a scale could be sustained given the strength of feeling about the question on both sides of the argument. That was the judgment that I formed and the decision that I took.

Representing as I do a hot-spot area, I know that many farmers will be disappointed by this decision. May I invite the Secretary of State to visit a hot-spot area such as mine to discuss with farmers a number of issues, including the level of compensation for farmers, particularly those with pedigree animals at risk, and biosecurity measures, as we have had a huge increase in the number of badgers in farms? How will he monitor the cull in Wales and draw lessons from it so that we learn from that initiative?

On my hon. Friend’s last point, the Welsh Assembly Government have announced that a cull in one area is intended to form part of their intensive treatment programme. We do not yet have any details about where that would be or how it would be undertaken. Of course, I will look carefully at the effect of that. That is why I said in my statement that we would revisit the decision if the scientific advice changed.

I am always happy to visit and to talk to farmers. At the royal show on Friday I talked to a couple from Devon who have been badly affected by bovine TB. I have visited a farm as part of the process of gathering evidence and views in order to take the decision. We will, as I indicated earlier, have to work with farmers in all parts of the country, particularly in the hot-spot areas, to find effective ways of dealing with the problems that they are experiencing.

Having been a member of the Government who set up the original Krebs inquiry, I was disappointed that Krebs did not take into account the work done in the Republic of Ireland by the East Offaly project. The Secretary of State says today that proactive culling gives only limited benefit, but why has he not looked more closely at trials in places such as the Republic of Ireland and modelled his project on well-researched and long-established work done just across the Irish sea?

I have looked at all the evidence. Clearly, the circumstances in the Republic of Ireland are different from those in England. It is true that the Republic has culled badgers. As the hon. Lady will be aware, herd incidence fell from 6.4 per cent. in 2002 to 4.9 per cent. in 2004 in the Republic. It has subsequently risen again to a provisional figure of 6.1 per cent. in 2007. Based on those figures, it is difficult to form a judgment about the impact of culling or other measures that the Government in the Republic of Ireland are taking. I draw the hon. Lady’s attention, too, to the experience in Northern Ireland, where, as she will know, there has been no culling. Cattle measures were tightened in Northern Ireland and the herd incidence decreased from 9.9 per cent. to 5.4 per cent. between 2002 and 2007. That tells us just how complex the relationship is between the policies that are pursued and the outcome in terms of disease control.

I congratulate the Secretary of State on making the decision, because it must have been very tempting to kick the issue into the long grass and go on holiday. Time will tell whether the decision is right or wrong, but is not the reality that the science did not justify a cull, and that the practicalities make a cull impossible? Many of us believe that the Welsh decision will never be implemented. Does he not think that more money should have been spent on research into a vaccine long before now?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will believe me when I say that the easiest decision that I could have taken would have been to announce another study, another review, another piece of work—[Interruption.] No, I could have done that, as opposed to finally taking a decision in light of a 10-year scientific study, in which the Government have invested £50 million, or we could have culled badgers to see what the impact would be. The study is our strongest evidence base from which to work. We have already invested a lot of money in vaccines, and I hope that the House will welcome the fact that I have announced a significant increase today.

Words will not describe the despair of the farmers in Eddisbury and Cheshire at the uncharacteristically weak and gutless arguments advanced by the Secretary of State today. They will be looking for reassurance that he has a sufficiently open mind to allow them, as an earnest of intent, to volunteer their area as a pilot area, or hot spot, for the removal of badgers to limit the spread. That is a sensible idea, as Cheshire is contiguous with Wales. It would be a good test bed for the same reasons as Wales is, which he hopes to monitor. May I ask him to comment on that?

I am the first to understand how the decision will be received by those who think that culling is the right thing to do, but that does not change my decision, because I have weighed all the evidence. In the end, my responsibility is to take decisions to do things that will be effective, and not to take decisions that might result in the disease being made worse. We have an evidence base, on which I have drawn in reaching that view. On whether I have an open mind about the future, I hope that the hon. Gentleman knows me well enough to recognise that I do. I have had to take the decision on the basis of the evidence that we have thus far. That is why I have taken the decision that I have.

I thank the Secretary of State for receiving representations from many of us with concerns on the issue, and for taking this courageous decision. He is putting scientists before pressure groups, in contrast to both the main Opposition parties, whose motto in these matters is, “If in doubt, kill something.”

I thank my hon. Friend for acknowledging that the decision that I have taken is based on the science. This has been an exceptionally difficult issue to grapple with, and an exceptionally difficult decision to take. No matter what has been said in the Chamber today, many hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise the difficulties of the question. In the end, we have to respect the different conclusions that we have drawn, but it does not mean that either of the views taken are wrong in their own terms, and I stand by the decision that I have reached.

There will indeed be a great deal of anger among people in the farming communities in the west country, not least among those who, like several of my constituents, run closed farms. There are cases where there has been no cattle movement on or off a farm, and where all the biosecurity measures that can legally be taken have been taken, yet TB has appeared within a dairy herd. They will not know what to do next. May I raise a question, asked by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) on the Conservative Front Bench, about the welfare of the badger population? We have a large number of badgers in Somerset, and TB is endemic among them. Is nothing to be done to rid the badger population of bovine TB?

They are suffering.

The hon. Gentleman talks about the suffering of badgers. As he will be aware, section 6 of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 allows someone to put down a badger if it is seriously injured or in such a condition that to do so

“would be an act of mercy”.

That is what the law currently says.

I understand the frustration felt by those with closed herds, but the evidence from the randomised badger culling trial was that the reaction would be, “I’ve got a closed herd, there are badgers, it must have come from them, let’s cull them.” That is reactive culling, and the evidence was very clear that reactive culling makes the disease worse. That may not be what people would assume to be the answer to the question, but it is. A lot of badgers were culled in order to provide that information, on the basis of which I have made my judgment.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s measured statement. It is clear that he has considered the overwhelming scientific advice and the conclusions of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report. Will he join me in regretting the statement made last week by the National Farmers Union, which described the culling of cattle as a

“needless waste of productive animals”?

Does he agree that, while the NFU has a job to do in reflecting the genuine concern and distress of its members, it should not pretend that the culling of badgers is some sort of panacea? It should be well aware of the evidence and therefore know that it should not pretend that there is any realistic prospect of culling doing anything other than making the situation even worse.

Nobody wants to cull any animals unless it is necessary. At the moment, the culling of cattle is an important part of the disease control system for bovine TB that we have in place. We have already discussed at some length the evidence regarding the culling of badgers. I agree with my hon. Friend. As I said, we should all want to be able to move to a different way of dealing with this disease. That is why a significant investment in vaccines must be the right thing to do for the medium to long term. As in other areas, as vaccines are developed, we can provide protection without having to resort to culling, and that is surely the way that we should go in future.

Devon has been savagely hit by this disease. Many thousands of animals have been destroyed and multi-millions of pounds have been paid in compensation. If the badgers cannot be culled and there is not to be widespread inoculation against TB, what are farmers supposed to do?

I accept entirely the difficulty faced in Devon and other hot-spot areas, and I recognise the frustration that farmers feel because they think that culling is the way to deal with the problem. All that I can do is to draw attention to the experience of trying to respond by culling, which can be found in the RBCT report, and to the conclusions of Professor Bourne. That is not what people expected, but it is what was found, and I must act on that judgment. I recognise that it is very difficult. We know that badgers are infected and are a source of infection—no one argues about that. The question is what is the effective way of dealing with it, and the only way to do so currently is to seek to develop a vaccine. That is why one of the things that I want to do, working with the new partnership group, is to develop the vaccine deployment project. Perhaps that could be tried in Devon; I am open to suggestions.

The Secretary of State is to be warmly congratulated on his courageous decision, which is evidence-based and science-based. He has taken on the irrational claims of Opposition Members, not one of whom has given any examples of how culling works. It has never worked anywhere. It did not work in Ireland, where there are hardly any badgers left but there is still a high level of TB. Is not the best way forward to attack the real problem—cattle-to-cattle infection—by having farmers insure their own sheep instead of relying on compensation, and to cut down the number of animal movements to markets and shows, many of which are unnecessary?

We need to use all the measures that will be effective, including the cattle controls to which my hon. Friend refers, but it will also be important, as I have acknowledged, to find a way of dealing with BTB infection in badgers. The evidence is that culling is not an effective way of doing so; vaccination could be, and I hope that the House will support it.

I refer hon. Members to my entry in the register.

What will be the statistical measure of the success or failure of the Secretary of State’s policy: the number of cattle infected or culled, the geographical spread of the disease, or the financial cost? Will he agree to come back to the House if the point is reached, based on any of those three criteria, where it is apparent to the wider public that his policy has failed?

I am happy to come back to the House on any occasion to report on the progress made in fighting bovine TB, and to be held to account for that and for any other decisions that I make. However, having formed a judgment that the course of action that some have urged upon me would not help us to deal with the disease, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand why I have taken the decision that I have. Why would I want to do something that might make the matter worse, leading to more cattle being culled and more money being spent on compensation?

May I invite the Secretary of State to emphasise that his statement today was not about whether we should kill or not kill animals, but about which animals we should kill? So that we can educate our constituents more fully, will he remind us—for the last period he has easy access to—how many animals were killed, and what the cost of that was to taxpayers?

For England, the number of cattle slaughtered in 2007 was 19,800. The previous year it was 16,000; the year before, it was 23,000; the year before that, it was 17,300; and the year before that, it was 17,551. The House will see that the numbers go up and down, depending on the progress of the disease. The total cost of compensation in 2006-07 was £24.5 million, but that is a Great Britain, rather than an England-only figure.

I call Mr. Liddell.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Liddell at your service.

Will the Secretary of State accept that the march of TB across Exmoor and into the Levels, which the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) represents, has become absolutely unstoppable? It has got into areas of my constituency that have not seen TB for over a generation, and it is getting worse. Since the Secretary of State has mentioned it twice, will he come down to Somerset and meet some real farmers on Exmoor? They want to know why they should be in livestock production when every time they test their herds, they find TB again, and they go round in a circle of slaughter and re-equipping. Will the Secretary of State meet those farmers?

I would be happy to do so. I spend quite a lot of my time meeting farmers, and I am very willing to do so. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), has met farmers in Exmoor to discuss the problem.

I welcome today’s announcement that the proposed cull will not be going ahead. I welcome, too, the Secretary of State’s commitment to work with the industry and to consider funding practical measures to deal with bovine TB. Recent media reports, however, have suggested that some farmers may be tempted to take the law into their own hands. Will he join me in making it clear that the full force of the law should be brought to bear against anyone who kills badgers illegally?

The legal position is extremely clear under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. I very much hope that no one will be tempted to do what my hon. Friend described, with regard to the controls in place. Whatever the strength of feeling, which I acknowledge, it is important that we keep the current controls in place because they are the best hope that we have of dealing with the disease.

Although the Secretary of State is a very reasonable man, farmers in Gloucestershire, where the hot-spot areas are, will greet his announcement with absolute dismay and annoyance. In the past 10 years, 200,000 cattle have been slaughtered and we may be on course for 50,000 cattle to be slaughtered this year alone. That is a huge cost in human and animal misery, and in financial terms. The Secretary of State said, even today, that a proactive cull with hard boundaries may well produce some results. Why has he rejected that option?

Because, in the end, I have made a judgment about the likelihood that such a cull could be successfully delivered. It may be successful, and it may not. I say to the hon. Gentleman that his constituents would not thank me if I pursued a policy that ended up making the disease worse. That has weighed heavily on my mind in taking this decision.

I sympathise with my right hon. Friend, who has had to make a very difficult decision. He has made the right one, and done so on the basis of practicalities as well as scientific evidence. Was one of the practicalities that he envisaged that, in constituencies such as mine, with a densely populated centre surrounded by great swathes of countryside, it would be very difficult to undertake a cull and persuade people in the densely populated centre that that was the right thing to do?

That was one factor that I was bound to take into account in reaching my decision, because there are strong views on all sides and public opinion can have an impact on the practicality of a cull. It was entirely legitimate for that to be one of the factors that I weighed up in my mind, but above all the decision has been taken as a result of the science.

The dairy farmers in Cheshire to whom I spoke on Saturday were disappointed and angry at the lack of progress made on this important matter in more than a year. While prime dairy cattle are being put down and farming businesses put into limbo, the badger population is rising exponentially. Why are the epidemiological studies referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, only now being set up? Why have they not been done before? If a vaccine is eventually produced, what guarantees are there that the European Union will allow us to use it?

On the last point, we would have to argue our case, and I am sure that the hon. Lady would join me and others in doing so vigorously. Why would we not want to pursue a vaccine if it could be shown to work?

What would they do?

The EU could change the current rules that forbid it.

Are there guarantees?

There are no guarantees in dealing with this disease, but that should not stop us trying to pursue the right policy. We will be in a much stronger position to argue the case for changing that European rule when we have a vaccine. I look forward to going with the hon. Lady to argue our case when we have the opportunity.

Having served on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee since its inception, I am in a reasonable position to say that our report had more effort and energy put into it, under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), than any of our other reports.

A chilling statistic that we found in the epidemiological evidence was that the rate of infection was doubling every four and a half years, with every potential to speed up. We said that culling could never be the cornerstone of TB control, but what priority has the Secretary of State told the partnership group to give to our suggestion, which should be pursued, that post-movement testing of cattle moving from high-risk to low-risk areas should be accelerated if it is possible and effective?

I am happy to say to my hon. Friend that I personally undertake to put that, and all the other suggestions that have been made about further steps that we can take, on the partnership group’s agenda, so that we can discuss them. It is right to do so with the industry instead of my deciding now to impose them. All the controls have a cost for the industry, which is already bearing a considerable cost. It is right and proper that we should sit down with the industry, consider them all and decide between us what is the best thing to do. Most hon. Members recognise that that is right.

As chairman of the all-party group on dairy farmers, I am absolutely devastated by the Secretary of State’s decision. No doubt it will have to go to judicial review and be decided in the High Court. There will be extraordinary anger among dairy farmers in Shropshire, many of whom are on their knees as a result of bovine TB. There is an extra six-week waiting list there for infected animals to be collected.

Will the Secretary of State initiate an inquiry into the leak of this announcement? Why did we yet again have to hear about such a matter on the BBC over the weekend? Why have we learned very little in the House over and above what we found out from the BBC? That is an absolute disgrace, and I want to know who leaked the information.

I would like to know that, too, but I take seriously my responsibility to come and report first to the House on the decisions that I have reached. That is exactly what I have done today.

We will be having an inquiry into that, then, won’t we?

The Secretary of State’s decision has been described as “courageous”. When Sir Humphrey used such terminology in “Yes Minister”, it was normally to dissuade his Minister from making that decision. Is the right hon. Gentleman certain that he has made the right decision? If 18,543 cattle were culled last year and he says that he will keep the decision under consideration, how many cattle will need to be culled before he revisits it?

A number of adjectives could be used to describe the decision that I have reached. I have thought long and hard about it and I am convinced that it is right. That is why I am standing before the House to report it.

As I said earlier, the number of cattle that may be culled depends on the progress of the disease. However, that would not change my view about whether badger culling can “meaningfully contribute”, in the words of John Bourne. I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman and I ask him to have another look at the ISG report. It is a thorough, 10-year study and, although it did not produce the result that people expected, when the science shows that a course of action that people believe to be right turns out not to be, we should all give that careful attention, and that is what I have done.

I understand that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) wants to make a point.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, before I responded to the statement, I omitted to remind hon. Members of my declaration in the register, for which I apologise.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on biofuels.

There is widespread agreement in the House and the country that we must step up efforts to tackle climate change through dramatic and global cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

One of the most difficult challenges that we face is the use of fossil fuels for transport. Our cars and other forms of transport are the third largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in the UK. That is why the use of a clean, renewable energy, which can partly replace carbon-based fuels, was seen by experts, environmental campaigners and Governments around the world as a welcome and practical way of slowing emissions growth.

In March 2007, after four years of encouraging biofuel use, the EU went further and set an ambitious target of 10 per cent. of transport fuel from renewable sources by 2020. In the UK, the Government introduced the renewable transport fuel obligation, which came into force earlier this year. That requires biofuels to make up 2.5 per cent. by volume of road transport fuel sales in the UK, increasing by 1.25 per cent. a year to 5 per cent. by 2010-11.

The UK has also been at the forefront of global efforts to develop robust, and workable, sustainability standards for biofuels. As part of the RTFO, we introduced a requirement that transport fuel suppliers should report on the environmental performance of their biofuels. That will give us evidence on the impact of biofuels, as well as creating an incentive for suppliers to source the best biofuels.

We also made a commitment to introducing at the earliest opportunity legally enforceable standards, which will ensure that biofuels are produced sustainably. However, in recent months questions have been asked about the more intangible, indirect effects of biofuels on food supplies and prices and on deforestation, and their overall impact on greenhouse gas emissions.

I am sure the House will agree that our policy on biofuels should be based on the best possible science. So in February, I asked Professor Ed Gallagher, the chair of the Renewable Fuels Agency, to examine the latest available evidence. I welcome the publication of his report today and want to thank Professor Gallagher and his team for their thorough work on a highly complex matter.

Let me outline Professor Gallagher’s main findings. Overall, the report confirms that biofuels can play a role in tackling climate change and that

“there is a future for a sustainable biofuels industry”.

It finds that by 2020

“biofuels have the potential to deliver annual global greenhouse gas savings of approximately 338 to 371 million tonnes of carbon dioxide”.

But Professor Gallagher also concludes that there is a risk that the uncontrolled expansion and use of biofuels could lead to unsustainable changes in land use, such as the destruction of rainforest to make way for the production of crops. That might, in turn, increase greenhouse gas emissions, as well as contributing to higher food prices and shortages. The Gallagher report therefore concludes that the introduction of biofuels should be slowed until policies are in place to direct biofuel production on to marginal or idle land and until these are demonstrated to be effective. The detail of these control mechanisms would need to be agreed internationally.

However, the report rejects calls for a moratorium on biofuels. It concludes that

“a moratorium will reduce the ability of the biofuels industry to invest in new technologies”

and

“will make it significantly more difficult for the potential of biofuels to be realised”.

In short, the report concludes that

“the Government should amend but not abandon its biofuel policy”.

The report recommends that the rate of increase in the RTFO in the UK should be slowed to 0.5 per cent. per annum, so that the RTFO reaches 5 per cent. in 2013-14, rather than in 2010-11 as currently planned.

At the EU level, the report concludes that a mandatory 10 per cent. renewable transport fuel target is not currently justified by the scientific evidence, but that a target of 10 per cent. by 2020 could be possible if a number of important conditions are met. Those conditions include sufficient controls on land use change being enforced globally, as part of a new climate agreement, and new evidence providing further confidence that the target can be met sustainably. In the meantime, Professor Gallagher says that a more appropriate range for the 2020 biofuel target would be around 5 to 8 per cent. by energy.

I agree with those key findings. Given the uncertainty and the potential concerns that Professor Gallagher sets out, it is right to adopt a more cautious approach until the evidence is clearer about the wider environmental and social effects of biofuels. We also need to allow time for more sustainable biofuel technologies to emerge. I therefore intend to consult formally on slowing down the rate of increase in the RTFO, taking the level to 5 per cent., as Gallagher recommends, by 2013-14, which would be subject to further confirmation in 2011-12.

Professor Gallagher’s findings are particularly significant in the context of ongoing debates about biofuel targets across the EU. To help to ensure that sustainability is put at the heart of those debates, the Environment Secretary and I are today jointly sending a copy of the Gallagher report to the relevant European Commissioners and to all EU Environment and Transport Ministers. In response to those concerns, including over rising global food prices, the Prime Minister has today been pushing for the G8 to work to develop new global benchmarks for sustainable biofuel production and use.

The Government believe that the EU target of 10 per cent. renewable transport fuels by 2020 can remain an overall objective, but subject to clear conditions. I would like to set those out. First, the EU-level sustainability criteria currently being negotiated must address indirect, as well as direct, effects on land use. Secondly, the 10 per cent. target must be subject to rigorous review in the light of the emerging evidence, so that we can make an informed decision at EU level in 2013-14 about whether the target can continue. As Professor Gallagher also suggests, I agree that we should aim to target support on the development of lower carbon and other so-called “second generation” biofuels.

Looking ahead, we will continue to work with our international partners and the scientific community to decide what further work needs to be done to reduce the uncertainties in the science and ensure that the right biofuels are supported. We will also continue to investigate other technological solutions that have the potential to deliver a low-carbon transport system, such as hybrid and electric vehicles.

I believe that the approach that I have set out today is the responsible one. It acknowledges that biofuels can have an important role in reducing carbon emissions and combating climate change, but also recognises that we need to proceed cautiously until we can be certain that their expanded growth and use maximises the benefits and minimises the risks to our world. As I have demonstrated today, I will not hesitate to alter our policy if that is what the science suggests is appropriate. I commend this statement to the House.

I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of her statement. The Opposition have been telling the Government for months to think again on their biofuels policy. The Conservatives were the only political party to vote against the renewable transport fuel obligation. Although we believe that biofuels can have a role to play in tackling climate change, there must be safeguards to ensure that they come from sustainable sources and we must address the impact of biofuel production on land use and fuel prices. Frankly, the RTFO does neither of those things, and the statement provides only limited reassurance. The RTFO has come under sustained attack from groups such as Friends of the Earth, Oxfam, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Royal Society and the Environmental Audit Committee, and today the Government’s own Gallagher report confirms that biofuel targets set by the Government could lead to unsustainable changes in land use, higher food prices and a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has acknowledged today that there is a serious problem with her biofuels policy, but what have we actually got from her statement? We have got another consultation, and a review of the 5 per cent. target in 2011-12. I certainly welcome the slowdown that the Government have suggested they might undertake in relation to the 5 per cent. target, but a partial retreat is not enough. I repeat today the question that I asked the Secretary of State in January: will she now suspend the RTFO, in the light of the serious problems revealed by the pressure groups and confirmed in many respects by the Gallagher report?

The fact is that a mere slowing down of the targets will not address the problems that are occurring today. The rain forest is under threat right now, and the habitat of orang-utans is being wiped out right now by palm oil plantations. When will the Secretary of State introduce the vital binding rules on sustainability? Why were they not in her statement to the House this afternoon? Why did she not commission and publish this report before designing the RTFO and bringing it into operation? Why did she steam ahead without carrying out a thorough investigation of the facts?

Will the Secretary of State tell us how many litres of biofuel covered by the RTFO have been imported since its inception in April, and from which countries? What can she tell us about the source of those imports? Were any of them instrumental in deforestation? How many of them are made up of palm oil, a substance that Friends of the Earth says has been responsible for 87 per cent. of the recent destruction of the rain forest in Malaysia and Indonesia? Why did she introduce the RTFO before conducting a thorough assessment of the impact of the displacement of crops to areas where they could cause deforestation?

When is the Secretary of State going to start publishing this kind of information and an analysis of how the RTFO is operating in practice today? How many litres of biofuels from unsustainable sources does she expect to have been imported into this country before we get real, lasting and serious reform of the RTFO? How can she possibly justify the Prime Minister’s posturing about this issue on the international stage while at home she presses ahead with policies that encourage the use of biofuels that could actively damage the environment?

The Gallagher report is an admission of failure by the Government. Their RTFO biofuels policy is a failure. It has failed industry and farming, because the uncertainty caused by Government dithering is jeopardising investments, not only in existing programmes but in second generation biofuels and in renewable and green technology generally. It has failed the poor of the developing world because it was introduced without safeguards to tackle the problems that are caused when biofuel crops compete with food production. It has failed the environment because it contains no effective measures to guarantee that the biofuels it promotes come from sustainable sources. The Government have made no move to address those failures today.

It is deeply irresponsible to press ahead with a policy that risks driving up food prices and actively encourages people to rip up the rain forests, with the consequent loss of hugely important carbon sinks and wildlife habitats. Why will the Secretary of State not address the facts that are staring her in the face, admit that she has got her policy on biofuels seriously wrong, and suspend the operation of the RTFO?

The hon. Lady has posed a series of questions, and I will answer as many as possible in the parliamentary time available. Let us avoid political point scoring for a moment and take a step back to look at the report in front of us. Surely she and her colleagues will acknowledge that—as Gallagher found in his comprehensive review of the evidence—there is a future for a sustainable biofuels industry. Indeed, just three years ago there was consensus on the issue among the Government, industry, environmentalists and, of course, her own party. It was only at the end of 2005, at a speech to the Renewable Energy Association, that her party leader, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), said:

“Five per cent. of all fuels sold in the UK to come from biofuels is a start, but it is a minimum step: we will need to go further in the future.”

The hon. Lady must also acknowledge that the UK has been at the forefront of efforts to promote sustainability in respect of biofuels. She asked why we did not set up the review to examine indirect land use change before we introduced the RTFO. When she has time to read the Gallagher review, she will see that it says very clearly that the RTFO was established before evidence of the scale of possible indirect effects was known. Indeed, a particularly influential paper from a US economist in February changed the terms of the debate, and the evidence has changed very rapidly over the past few months. It was precisely because the scientific evidence had been changing that I asked Professor Gallagher to review the evidence—the latest evidence—and to make recommendations about the way forward.

We now face a clear choice: either we do as the hon. Lady suggests—abandon our biofuels policy and put the RTFO on hold or, indeed, abolish it—or we amend our policy and proceed more cautiously while collecting the evidence, narrowing the range of uncertainties and putting in place the appropriate safeguards. Professor Gallagher is very clear about the responsible way forward, and he thinks we should continue with our policies because there are such things as good biofuels. We need to encourage them and to put in place the sustainability that the hon. Lady and I both want, but we cannot risk all the investment in the sector, not only throughout the world but in our country, which might make it possible. Biofuels have the potential to produce very serious greenhouse gas emissions reductions if indirect land use change is avoided. That is the Gallagher review’s overall finding, and it is one I accept.

My right hon. Friend refers to investigating other technological solutions. Will she outline the additional resources that will be employed in doing so, and exactly what she means by that statement?

My hon. Friend will know that I have committed the Government to work with their international partners, particularly in the European Union but further afield as well, to ensure not only that we understand the indirect land use change effects more fully and put in place global mechanisms to try to prevent such land use change, but that we encourage the industry to innovate and to produce second generation biofuels that will not by definition avoid land use change but may help in producing greater greenhouse gas emissions reductions. One recommendation of the Gallagher review is a specific target, negotiated at EU level, to try to encourage the production of advanced or second generation biofuels. We all need to think about that very carefully.

I welcome the early sight of the statement from the Secretary of State for Transport, although I saw most of it in the Financial Times this morning. If one knows where to look, one can generally find Department for Transport statements in the press before they are delivered to the House. Will she take steps to ensure that the House is informed before the press about statements on such important matters?

I broadly welcome the statement, although it might have been made a little earlier. The Environmental Audit Committee reported on the matter quite thoroughly, but the Secretary of State went to Professor Gallagher, who has come out with roughly the same statement as the Committee. Nevertheless, the broad conclusion that we should not abandon but amend the policy on biofuels is correct. Clearly, some biofuels are being produced unsustainably, but we should not throw out the biofuel baby with the bathwater, as some apparently would wish.

I have some questions. First, will the right hon. Lady provide a figure for the impact of biofuel production on food prices? The estimates seem to vary widely, and I have seen figures of between 3 and 75 per cent. in various reports. Secondly, what steps is she taking to improve the sustainability criteria and certification of existing biofuels so that there are no problems with them, given the poor EU regulations on the matter?

Thirdly, what discussions is the Secretary of State having with businesses involved in the development of second generation biofuels, which we all agree we should promote? There is an opportunity to progress that, and I hope that she can take it forward. Fourthly, what is she doing about what I think are the improper subsidies for biofuels from the US? I am thinking particularly of corn-based ethanol and the disgraceful splash-and-dash arrangements, which mean that adding 1 per cent. of US diesel qualifies the fuel for subsidies when it comes into this country. That is bad for climate change as well as for the economy.

Lastly, I welcome the Secretary of State’s recognition that the transport sector has a major role to play in tackling climate change. Is she seeking to replace the carbon reduction losses that there will now be as a consequence of the reduction in the biofuels target? Will she apply the logic behind trying to ensure that the transport sector deals with carbon emissions to her aviation policy as well?

First, I should say to the hon. Gentleman and the House that I take my obligations to the House extremely seriously. The press speculation about the content of this statement was not always well informed and certainly did not reflect the detailed content of the report. However, I welcome the tone of the hon. Gentleman’s comments.

We do face a choice whether we should abandon the greenhouse gas savings that may come from biofuels—if not now, then potentially in the future—or whether we should scrap our commitment to biofuels and argue that Europe and the wider world should do so too. As I said, Professor Gallagher is clear about his view: we should proceed, albeit more cautiously than we had assumed we should in the past.

The hon. Gentleman asked about food prices; the report has a chapter about the impact of biofuels on those. Professor Gallagher is clear that biofuels are not the only reason food prices have increased in recent years. Other, more important factors include smaller harvests last year because of droughts, higher fertiliser prices, rising gross domestic products and changing diets in the far east. The Gallagher review concludes that increasing demand for biofuels contributes to rising prices for some commodities, notably oil seeds. However, it says that the price rises are rarely more than 5 per cent. for most crops. That is one of the reasons it is suggesting a more cautious approach. In some areas, there is a marked impact, particularly in the short term, on particular populations in respect of some crops and some biofuels. That is why Professor Gallagher says that we ought to identify those specific effects and take global action to try to mitigate their impact.

The hon. Gentleman asked about sustainability criteria. We are currently negotiating such criteria in the EU context. The renewable energy directive, which should conclude later this year, will propose sustainability criteria. We want to insist that it should now also include the indirect effects of biofuels use. He also asked about second generation biofuels. One of the more surprising conclusions of the Gallagher review was that such biofuels do not always have a clear advantage over first generation biofuels, particularly when land use change is taken into account.

First generation biofuels often produce co-products that can be used as a protein substitute for animal feed—as will happen at the Ensus plant in the north-east, for example. When such use is made of co-products, the impact on land use change can be minimised. Overall, the picture is much more complex than it sometimes appears at first sight; nevertheless, there is potential in exploring further the contribution of second generation biofuels.

We will use the report to try to influence the debate at EU level and in the US. The hon. Gentleman asked about the contribution of the transport sector in tackling climate change. The Gallagher report says that a 10 per cent. transport renewables target could still be appropriate, provided that certain evidence emerges and that appropriate safeguards are in place. It is important, of course, that we should keep that under rigorous review and take any necessary action if evidence emerges that the target is too ambitious.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the enormous problems created by the production of maize-based ethanol, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker)? In central America, the price of tortillas has gone up by 35 per cent. in the past year, causing real hardship to the very poorest people. Have we not an obligation to do all we can to reduce the production of maize-based ethanol, which is neither particularly effective nor particularly efficient and damages the livelihoods of many of the poorest people all around the world? The whole strategy ought to be about reducing the consumption of fuel by private road transport. It seems obscene that we should allow people in central America and other parts of the world to go hungry to feed the gas guzzlers of the United States and parts of western Europe.

My hon. Friend gives a very specific example of bad biofuels. He is absolutely right to suggest that we have a moral obligation to try to weed out, as it were, the impact of bad biofuels on food prices, as well as the potential risk of increasing overall CO₂ emissions. The Gallagher report is clear, however, that there are sustainable biofuels and that we should direct their growth on to idle and marginal land. That is one way of minimising their impact.

My hon. Friend also asks about reducing the consumption of fuel, and my answer is that he is absolutely right to say that biofuels are part of a much wider and bigger picture. How do we feed the world’s poor in years to come? The answer does not lie in biofuels or necessarily in the contribution of the transport sector, although it has a role to play. We have sizeable moral obligations as Governments across the world to try to think through the wider implications of how we feed the world.

What extra incentives are the Government going to introduce to encourage innovation in the hybrid and electric vehicles that the Secretary of State mentioned?

It is true that hybrid and electric cars may well have an important role to play in the future. Indeed, Professor Julia King, who looked into the fuel efficiency of cars and potential technological solutions in future as a means of minimising the impact on the environment, suggested that those vehicles could have an important role after 2020. I have already had conversations with people who are interested in bringing more electric vehicles into the country. It is not necessarily a matter of financial incentives, as it is more about facilitating, particularly through the planning system, the infrastructure necessary to promote the use of those vehicles. Clearly, when people drive such a car, they need somewhere where they can plug it in to charge up. We are having discussions about this issue across government, but it is absolutely right to say that electric cars could have an important role to play in the future.

I hear what my right hon. Friend says. Speaking as someone who saw the advantages of the RTFO, I have not quite changed my mind, although I can also see some of the dangers. The reality of the statement is that we should be entering into international discussions with countries such as Brazil, where the biofuels industry is a major factor in development, and try to persuade them to look at using waste products such as molasses rather than corn or wheat, which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) mentioned, as a way of producing biofuels—with all the consequent dangers to the Amazon. We should be doing that as a matter of priority, so I hope my right hon. Friend will take it into account.

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. One of Gallagher’s interesting conclusions is that the best and worst forms of greenhouse gas savings on biofuels are currently achieved from sugar cane. Even within Brazil, there are very good examples of biofuel production that are energy efficient and high yield. Some Brazilian mills even export electricity to the grid. What we need is a debate in global forums as well as within the EU about how to encourage the use of sustainable biofuels. One challenge that we have set the Renewable Fuels Agency, which will operate at arm’s length from the Government, is to use the report and work with our international partners to establish more evidence and to try to encourage people to think differently about the way biofuels are currently grown.

How will the Secretary of State ensure that all future crops for fuel in this country are grown on currently idle land?

The right hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point. In the north-east of England with the Ensus site, but also on other sites, the production process has very substantial direct greenhouse gas savings from well to wheel. Part of the reason for that is, as I have explained, that the co-products are also used to substitute for animal feed. What it does not take into account is the indirect impact. The report suggests that even in those cases we ought to think through the indirect impact. Clearly, we do not currently have a mechanism for measuring the indirect impact, or for safeguarding against the potential greenhouse gas consequences or the increase in food prices that might result. In future, however, we should aspire to that. The report sets out a cautious approach that will give us time to have those global negotiations to put in place progressive measures to control land use, and to make sure that as far as possible—it will not always be possible—first or indeed second generation biofuels are produced on idle or marginal land.

Does the Secretary of State share my concerns about the conclusions of the Environmental Audit Committee, which came out in favour of a moratorium? Does she not agree that the way forward is through greater and better certification and regulation? The consequence of throwing the baby out with the bathwater is that without investment in first generation biofuels, damage will be done to the potential for future investment in second and third generation biofuels, which are likely to have a much more beneficial impact.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who makes an important point. The reason that investors are prepared to invest in clean technology and think about second generation biofuels is that there is a market for biofuels. Part of our approach must be to take that into account and to think about how the risks can be minimised, while examining the evidence and collecting the data necessary to make good judgments in future, and ensuring that sufficient investment takes place in those innovative technologies.

The rush to biofuels seems to have led to at least three unexpected consequences: first, higher food prices; secondly, deforestation; and, thirdly, a sliver of sanity belatedly creeping into the Government. The Secretary of State knows that the 10 per cent. by 2020 target is dear to the heart of José Manuel Barroso, the European Commission President. Although she is clearly doing the right thing in sending out signed copies of the report to any interested parties in the EU, she must also remember that the largest biofuels producer is France, which has just taken over the presidency of the EU. What else will she do to ensure that a sliver of sanity also breaks out in Brussels, and that it reconsiders its targets on biofuels?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I will seek to persuade my European partners and the European Commission to take such evidence seriously, and to encourage them and their scientific experts to work with those in the RFA in examining it. However, to say that biofuels inevitably increase food prices is a bit simplistic. One of the messages of the report is that some biofuels have a significant impact, especially in the short term and on certain types of rural poor. In the longer term, the effects are much mitigated, and the world should perhaps be thinking about policies to mitigate those impacts in the short term too. It is important to have a balanced approach, and to encourage France and Italy, which are already showing signs of working with us in this area, to continue the pursuit of a sustainable biofuels industry.

Following that reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), does the Secretary of State recall that when the House debated such matters last month, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform willingly signed up to and endorsed the 10 per cent. target for biofuels in transport fuels by 2020. A month later, the Secretary of State is resiling from that, saying that it is unsustainable and unobtainable. Given that the decision on the draft EU directive will be taken by majority voting, what confidence does she have that her new conditionality and different target will be accepted, as the directive is, after all, mandatory?

I said that we should be arguing for a non-binding target, but a target of 10 per cent. conditional on certain elements: first, second generation biofuels should emerge; and secondly, unsustainable land use change should be avoided and sustainability safeguards adopted. I said that we should review the evidence in 2011-12, and again later, to confirm those targets.

That is an approach for which we shall negotiate very hard in Europe. I believe that it is beginning to gain currency in France and Italy, and I hope that other countries will also see the merits of adopting a conditional rather than a binding target.

Will the Secretary of State explain why she has confidence in the sustainability criteria that she is currently negotiating with the European Union? I should like to know why she feels that she could possibly have confidence in those. Will she also tell us what direct control she will exercise to ensure that biofuels used in the United Kingdom come from sustainable sources?

The hon. Gentleman asks what confidence I have in the sustainability criteria that are currently being negotiated. The report concluded that they ought to be made more sophisticated. Although we have tried to capture the direct impacts on greenhouse gas emissions from well to wheel, we have not yet attempted to calculate the impact of the indirect effects of biofuel production, which is an incredibly difficult calculation. Before January this year, hardly anyone with an interest in the subject even considered the possibility of significant indirect effects on either greenhouse gas emissions or food prices. One of the challenges that we face is to work with our European partners intensively over the next few months to develop a set of sustainability criteria that include a measure of indirect impact.

The Secretary of State admitted a moment ago that growing food shortages and soaring food prices had rendered the redirecting of cereal and root crops to biofuel production highly questionable. She is presumably aware that much of our current biodiesel production results from the refining of used cooking oil. Can she tell us what percentage of it comes from that source, and has she any idea of the potential annual tonnage?

I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the figures that he seeks today, although I shall be happy to provide them if they are available. However, I have talked to suppliers about their innovations in that regard. The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that the current developments are having an impact—particularly in Scotland, I understand. This is what is typically known as second generation biofuel. Again, the impact on both greenhouse gases and food prices will depend on the indirect effects, which are not currently captured in our sustainability reporting mechanisms, although that is what we aspire to for the future.

I listened to the statement with growing concern. Last year, I purchased a biofuel car believing that I was saving the planet. Could the Secretary of State give me some clear advice? As she will know, a biofuel car can run on biofuel or petrol. When I next pull into Morrisons in Welingborough, should I go to the petrol pump or the biofuel pump?

My advice is that the hon. Gentleman should adapt to the evidence, as the Government have. However, let me make a serious point.

The Gallagher review has made it clear that investment in biofuel production should be encouraged, and in particular that it should rise above the current level of 2.5 per cent., so that investors are confident enough to proceed with the investments in bioethanol that are planned in the United Kingdom.