Prayers – in the House of Commons am 10:49 am ar 28 Hydref 1998.
As the only general practitioner among Labour Members of Parliament, my main area of interest is health policy: how we treat our citizens when they fall ill or are injured, and how the national health service is organised to meet their increasing needs.
A major plank of the Government's health plans is to improve our health through public health measures and preventive medicine, but it is becoming increasingly obvious that environmental factors have a significant impact on health. The incidence of asthma in children has risen by 50 per cent. in the past 30 years; the next generation is already suffering from the mistakes of the last.
The World Health Organisation claimed last week in The Independent that 30 per cent. of cancers of the breast, colon and prostate are associated with nutrition; the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health has just published a report linking air pollution with some childhood cancers; and holes in the ozone layer are leading to an increase in skin cancer. The fact is that the incidence of cancer is increasing: breast cancer has doubled in the past 50 years, sperm counts are falling and there is increasing evidence that there is a close link with environmental factors; but we do not yet understand the scale and scope of the problem.
It is becoming increasingly clear that, if our initiatives on public health are to bring significant results, "Our Healthier Nation" needs to live within our healthier planet.
My constituents in Dartford regularly raise animal welfare concerns with me, through correspondence and meetings. We are an animal-loving nation and we have many organisations that do important work to protect animals. Environmental, animal welfare and health issues are inextricably linked. Wild animals rely on the environment for their habitats, and domesticated animals are affected by our attitudes to farming and meeting the world's food needs. Our responses to the challenges posed on environmental issues will have a direct impact on the health of individuals and populations throughout the world.
Over the past half-century, our food and the methods used to produce it have changed beyond recognition. The use of growth hormones, antibiotics, pesticides and other chemicals has hugely increased food production and yields but it also affects the health not only of our people but of the planet.
The revolution in food is not over. Scientific advances are bringing further benefits and further threats. Genetically modified food is already on supermarket shelves and seems set to increase rapidly in the future.
New farming methods used in raising livestock have taken our exploitation of animals to extremes that many—some quite literally—find unpalatable. Changes in food production and distribution methods have brought great advantages for consumers. The market now offers consumers an enormous range of food and drink from all continents.
Choice has never been greater, and the great British consumer has learnt to exercise that choice and to use his or her economic power to bring positive benefits. Notably, CFCs in aerosols have been banned, thanks in large part to consumers who switched to buying the less harmful and, importantly, similarly priced alternatives. It is now difficult to find tuna that has not been caught with rod and line, which helps to protect dolphins. Producers have had to change their methods or lose their markets. Cruelty-free cosmetics are continuing their rise in popularity, reflecting the public's concerns over animal testing.
The consumer movement has had its successes and its failures. The markets for environmentally friendly detergents and fairly traded goods have not—so far—developed far enough to bring about the changes in buying patterns needed to transform production methods. Consumer-led changes in the market are possible only when alternative products are available and can compete in the marketplace on both quality and price. There will be occasions when Government action is needed, to offer incentives for certain production methods and disincentives for others.
The marketplace is now global; the problems are global; and solutions must also be global.
Trade is a good thing. Trade liberalisation is, in general, to be welcomed as it increases prosperity. Economic protectionism is almost always short-termist and short-sighted. It is better for all concerned if trade takes place in a rules-based system. A free-for-all leaves weaker economies at the mercy of the stronger. I support the general agreement on tariffs and trade—GATT—and welcome the creation of the World Trade Organisation.
I support the WTO's desire to press liberalisation further in the millennium round, as that could have a positive impact on existing protectionist practices such as the common agricultural policy; but I called for this debate because, in my view, the WTO has failed adequately to address the social, environmental and animal welfare issues in our global trading network.
In fact, I do the World Trade Organisation a disservice. Rather than simply failing to address the issues, it has, through its actions, worked against the implementation of measures introduced to protect our environment.
The essential principle of the GATT system is non-discrimination. Countries are not allowed to discriminate against imports on grounds of country of origin, or to favour their own producers. That does not mean that there are no grounds on which they are permitted to discriminate. Article XX of the general agreement allows exceptions to World Trade Organisation rules under certain circumstances. One such exception is for
measures necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health.
Unfortunately, WTO rulings in practice have often led to judgments that have not protected humans, animals or the environment.
There are many examples: legislators and citizens throughout the European Union have expressed concern over the use of growth-accelerating hormones in cattle. Although there is no absolute proof, there is strong evidence to suggest that those chemicals can cause an increase in cancers and male infertility. In reaction to that concern, the European Union introduced a ban on the sale of meat and meat products from animals on which six specified hormones had been used to accelerate growth—a ban which, it should be noted, was to apply equally to domestic and foreign producers in an entirely non-discriminatory manner.
The ban was challenged by the United States on the grounds that it imposed unfair trade barriers. The World Trade Organisation panel ruled that the ban would violate world trade agreements and was not scientifically justified, but it admitted that the hormones in question have a carcinogenic potential. That decision favoured the US in allowing its hormone-saturated beef into the European market, but the US does not always get its own way. In 1990, environmentalists in America passed an amendment to the Clean Air Act requiring oil refineries to produce cleaner petrol. The law would affect areas such as Los Angeles that are classified as grossly falling below clean air standards. Required improvements were to vary depending on a baseline of standards achieved in 1990.
The problem, and the reason for World Trade Organisation involvement, was that it was impossible to obtain accurate baseline figures for petrol produced in refineries outside the USA. It was decided to use as a base figure the US industry average, which ensured that imported petrol sold from 1990 onwards in areas with specific clean air problems would have to be cleaner than the US average of 1990, while the US industry would have to clean up its own supply in order to access the same markets.
The appeal this time came from Brazil and Venezuela, which claimed that the system unfairly excluded their dirtier and more polluting fuel from the US market—and they won. The World Trade Organisation again sacrificed environmental and public health concerns on the altar of unrestricted free trade. The US Environmental Protection Agency was forced to introduce less effective regulations, thus setting back the aim of cleaner air for American cities.
It must be galling for environmental campaigners to have worked hard for years within the democratic process to implement legislation, only to have all their good work undone.
Much publicity has been given recently to the so-called shrimp-turtle case, in which US measures to ban imports of shrimps caught in nets that also trap and kill turtles were deemed illegal. Free trade ideologues argue that under GATT, a state is allowed to protect only its own wildlife, not that of other countries. The situation is more complicated than it seems, and charges of protectionism have been levelled at the US.
On closer inspection of the details of the shrimp-turtle ruling, it appears that the judgment was not as damaging to environmental protection as the headlines suggest, and that the US was guilty of banning all imports from particular countries without distinguishing between those caught in turtle-friendly nets and those not. I look forward to hearing the Minister's views on the implications of the shrimp-turtle ruling, and a statement from the British Government on their approach to the problem.
This may sound an arcane or academic dispute, but far from it. News came last week that Canada is taking the French Government to the WTO to complain about a French ban on white asbestos, yet in France alone, 2,000 people a year die of cancer caused by asbestos. I urge the Government to support the French case robustly and, more importantly, to introduce a ban on white asbestos in the UK as soon as possible.
There have been threats from American-based multinationals to take the UK Government to the WTO if they seek to limit the introduction of genetically modified crops or food to the UK. I hope that the Government will resist that pressure. If there are concerns about the impact on either human health or the environment, our Government have not only the right but a duty to act.
I accept that the WTO has a difficult job to balance its judgments between extreme protectionism and total free-market deregulation. A third way needs to be found between those two positions; note that I got the third way in there—I thought it important to do so. The WTO must draw a line when deciding which restrictions are justified and on what grounds. It has acted decisively and strongly and drawn a line in the sand, but unfortunately it is in entirely the wrong place.
In these decisions, the WTO seems to be saying that it will not allow Government to have any control over production methods of imported food. It will intervene only when we can prove that food kills people. The bias is weighted too far in favour of unlimited free trade and against our health and environment.
The WTO fails to distinguish between non-product process and production methods. Those are methods of producing goods that cannot be seen in the final product. I could not distinguish by sight or taste between two bananas, the first grown on a small farm in the Caribbean, providing essential jobs and a strong economy for the home nation, and the second grown on a huge, intensively farmed plantation using large quantities of pesticides and owned by a multinational corporation.
The WTO can recognise the differences in process and production methods, but chooses not to. Current practice does not allow distinctions based on different production methods to be made, irrespective of the damage that some methods may cause. My criticism of the WTO is that it has taken anti-protectionism too far and effectively banned the legislation that is needed to improve our environment.
I want the Government to press our European Union partners and other GATT signatories to recognise the right of nations to take action to discourage socially and environmentally damaging processes. It is already accepted that it is allowable to ban goods that are produced by slave or prison labour. It should be equally allowable to ban goods that are produced in an environmentally destructive manner. The Government should press strongly for the right of states to take measures to protect the health and well-being of their populations and environment.
The primary purpose of GATT is to
raise the standard of living, ensure full employment and economic growth, develop the full uses of the resources of the world and expand the trade in goods".
I do not believe that that purpose and social and environmental protection are mutually exclusive. The essence of the third way—I put it in again, please notice—in this and other sectors is that, although we cannot have the best of both worlds, we can eradicate the worst. We can have environmental legislation without preventing the global market from operating effectively. We can accept
the reality and the benefits of trading within a world market economy without sacrificing social and humanitarian values.
Considering its power over everyone's lives, the WTO is a shadowy and secretive body; the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England is a model of democratic openness by comparison. The WTO is staffed mainly by trade professionals who place the goal of liberalisation above all else. It is resistant to the notion of dialogue with civil society. Its appellate body, which adjudicates on disputes, is shrouded in so much mystery and jargon that few outsiders have a chance of understanding what is going on, let alone influencing it.
The British Government should lead a campaign to open up the WTO's workings. These issues are too important to be left to professional trade negotiators. We all have a stake in the outcome. We have a right to know what is going on and to make representations if we do not like the way things are going.
The key to the operation of any rules-based system is, first, how the rules are written and, secondly, who interprets and applies them. There is certainly scope for the GATT clauses on social and environmental protection to be made clearer and less ambiguous, but there will always be room for dispute about the precise meaning, so the role of the WTO and the way in which it adjudicates on disputes is crucial.
Developing countries' Governments are often suspicious of talk of building environmental protection into global trading systems. They see it as yet another way in which the rich north will exploit them: a smokescreen to hide economic protectionism to keep their goods out. There is no doubt that some of those who argue against trade liberalisation on ostensibly environmental grounds are motivated more by selfish than by altruistic concerns.
We need to find ways to structure the system so that developing countries' fears are reduced. More openness would help here, but there is a still greater need for some acts of good faith by the developed world to demonstrate a willingness to dismantle protectionist barriers. In effect, there is a need for a new global bargain, in which the developed world ends some of its existing, unjustifiable discrimination, in return for the developing world accepting the legitimacy of discrimination against products and processes that damage the environment or involve unacceptable social practices.
Financial incentives for environmental, social and animal welfare production methods can be introduced. Technology transfer, aid, grants and loans should be used to assist developing nations to attain the economic growth that they need without a similar growth in pollution. Consumer power must be enhanced with mandatory labelling schemes, so that shoppers are aware of how the products that they are choosing reached the shelf; the emphasis of the WTO must be moved from suppliers to consumers. Most importantly, we must work to establish multilateral agreements on a wide range of issues to ensure that pressure for action on environmental and animal welfare issues is broad based and international and can deliver results.
I ask the Minister to address these issues, in partnership with our friends in Europe, the Commonwealth and the rest of the world, in the next WTO round next year. I believe that a reasonable balance can be found between trade liberalisation and environmental protection and animal welfare. I urge the Government to make that a high priority in their negotiating objectives for the next WTO round and to take the lead in persuading our partners throughout the world to do likewise.
Matters of this importance to the entire global economy and environment must not be left in the hands of unaccountable trade negotiators; such delicate matters must be under democratic political control. Last year, the EU trade commissioner called for a high-level meeting to take the trade and environment agenda forward. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what has happened since, what the UK is doing to ensure that such a meeting takes place and what he proposes to offer for our side of the bargain.
The Prime Minister said at this year's WTO ministerial meeting:
Governments need to consider the environmental impact of everything they do, including in the trade sphere".
I wholeheartedly agree. We also need to ensure that further liberalisation does not undermine existing, hard won standards of social protection. How then do the Government propose to ensure that environmental and social concerns are at the heart of the millennium trade round?
If we get the agenda right, the next 50 years can be as successful in promoting trade as the last fifty. If we do not, we will see a gradual but steady erosion of free trade as the backlash takes hold. We have already seen the beginnings of that with the American public's hostility to the North American Free Trade Agreement. A Government committed to freeing the global economy from restrictive practices cannot afford to ignore people's legitimate concerns to safeguard the environment and social protection. I am confident that this Government will not make that mistake.
May I first say how pleased I am that this debate is taking place and congratulate the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) on his comments? I agree with virtually everything he said. He crammed a lot into 15 minutes. I hope that, today, we will receive some assurances from the Minister that the Government view the matter with the same gravity as the hon. Members who are present in this reasonably well-attended debate on a Wednesday morning. I hope also that he will tell us how they intend to tackle this hugely important matter.
May I remind the Minister that an early-day motion on this very subject, which I tabled with other Members earlier this session, has now been signed by almost 100 Members? It shows clear support and concern for the thrust of this debate—concern that is cross-party, I think—and Members' determination to ensure that the Government take this issue seriously.
I believe that the Government's intentions are honourable and sensible in this matter, but I wonder whether they have the will power; I hope that I will have the assurance today that they do.
The hon. Member for Dartford mentioned genetically modified food. I raised that matter with the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who has responsibility for food safety, in the Select Committee on Environmental Audit. There was great sympathy from him on that occasion, but he said, "We are not in the driving seat"—that was his exact phrase.
That may be true, but the Government must get into the driving seat and ensure that they control events. It may not be easy. There may be opposition from the American Government and others, but the Government have to force this issue and ensure that the environmental, animal welfare and social concerns that all hon. Members share, I think, are taken into account. They must not throw up their hands and say, "We cannot do anything about it." I hope that the Government will take that seriously; I am confident that they will.
Of course my party supports free trade—that is nothing new from Liberals—but we are not Manchester Liberals. We think that the market has to be regulated to achieve social, environmental and welfare ends. Part of the problem with the WTO is that it could stand for Welfare Taken Out, for the reasons cited by the hon. Member for Dartford. We must have free trade, but we must not be afraid to regulate it. There would be no reason for our being here if we simply let the market rule without trying to influence it. That is why we have specific concerns about the WTO and the general agreement on tariffs and trade.
Environmental, social or welfare concerns raised by any nation or group of nations are being challenged across the world. The lowest common denominator will triumph unless our Parliament and the world community prevent that. The basic rules of GATT are being manipulated towards that end, although that is not GATT's purpose. The original purpose of GATT must be re-emphasised.
The hon. Member for Dartford set out his several examples extremely well. There is a conflict between different international agreements. We have WTO and GATT on one hand, and other agreements such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species—CITES—and the biodiversity convention on the other; and we should overcome this disparity. The hon. Gentleman referred to turtles, a case in which the Americans—the good guys this time—are trying to honour CITES and to protect the turtles. Opposition has made protection difficult, however. We must clarify these international agreements.
Then there is the ban on the import of fur derived from the use of leg-hold traps. Hon. Members on both sides find it abhorrent that animals can be trapped in that way. They suffer for days on end, and either have their limbs chewed off by the traps or chew their limbs off themselves so that they can escape. We are importing fur to satisfy consumer demand, but even those consumers who want fur do not want animals to be captured in that way. However, we appear to be stuck with it. European Union attempts to introduce a sensible animal welfare policy on fur trapping have been challenged. It cannot he right that a small group of people who have a narrow vested interest in retaining the status quo can wipe out the rest of the world's concerns. The Government and the EU must have the backbone to challenge that opposition.
Social, environmental and animal welfare concerns also raise what might be called selfish issues for United Kingdom producers. Participants in Monday's agriculture debate may have heard me mention that our farmers produce chickens to given standards, but are being undercut by the import of chickens from Thailand that are processed in the UK, then labelled British. Whenever we accept a lower welfare standard, we fail to raise welfare standards in other countries, and we face the danger that the higher standards that apply here will be driven down. Consumers believe that those chickens are British because of their labels. The consequence will not be that Thai farmers will stop keeping chickens in poor conditions, but that British chicken farming, which has higher standards—although conditions for British chickens are not brilliant—will close down because it is uneconomic.
Parliament should set an example, and should set out the ideals towards which we should strive. Basic decency says that animals should be treated acceptably. We must look after the environment, too. We cannot have standards driven down by international agreements that have been misinterpreted and skewed by small interest groups. If we are not successful in changing international rules, what is the point of having higher standards?
We should take a warning from the case of veal crates. We banned them, but the veal consequently imported from Europe is reared to much lower standards. We must get international agreement on such matters; otherwise, the good work done in the UK will be undermined elsewhere.
I want to mention two measures that the Government could take. First, article III of GATT could be amended to allow countries to distinguish between products on the basis of the way in which they have been produced. Secondly, article XX could be strengthened to allow trade measures to protect human, animal and plant life. Many hon. Members wish to speak in this debate, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) will be able to catch the Speaker's eye.
I want to deal with animal welfare, which is close to my heart. I am a trustee of Animal Defenders, an interest I declare now.
Aside from great political issues, the issue most raised in my postbag, and in those of most Members of Parliament, is animal welfare. Animal rights have come to the forefront over the past decade, and increasingly so during the past year or two. Many of us will remember the recent emotional debates on hunting with dogs, and the substantial vote against it. I was fortunate to be drawn to ask a question at the last Prime Minister's Question Time before the summer recess, and I asked my right hon. Friend to undertake to honour our party's pledge to deal with hunting with dogs, and to bring in a total ban on that detestable and despicable activity. I do not forecast that that will happen in the next Queen's Speech, but I expect it to be in the one after because of indications that have been floated. I am disappointed that the time has not yet come, but it will come over the next couple of years. The House will have another free and democratic vote on hunting.
Debates of this type are understandably emotional. However, we have all witnessed the cruel treatment of animals on our televisions. Experimentation and the transport of live animals for slaughter are unbearable to many people, especially young people—from students to primary school children. The advance of computers and new technology into the classroom has created a growing potential for involvement by those youngsters, and that augurs well for the character of British society. That—if I may use the phrase—is the British way.
Our minimum standards for the export of animals mean that sheep are packed in by the hundred. Huge transporters, four tiers high, are used in Europe. There is supposed to be a mutual agreement that sheep must be watered after eight hours, but it does not happen. The average time without water is between 18 and 24 hours. I am told that sheep sometimes go 36 hours without feed of any kind.
Horses and ponies are sent in their thousands for slaughter abroad. As deputy leader of the British delegation to the Council of Europe, I know that countries have joined that organisation from eastern Europe where, with all due respect, people are indifferent to animal welfare. There are many circuses in that part of the world. We have tried to plead with delegates to introduce a code of conduct and to bring humanity to the care of animals.
To return to an earlier point, because of appalling slaughtering standards, the Government do not allow certain animal exports. The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) noted the existence of conflicting standards.
I cannot mention the establishment in question because it is in the constituency of another Member who is not present, but I recently tabled an early-day motion:
That this House condemns the appalling and deplorable trade practice at establishments that breed cats and kittens for the vivisection industry and sell them to laboratories worldwide; notes that some of these kittens are only six weeks old when they are subject to horrific experiments; and calls upon the Home Secretary to investigate this cruel trade".
Police protection for the establishment concerned has cost £1.5 million of taxpayers' money. There are others, unfortunately, involved in a cruel trade with barbaric practices that puts profit before humanity.
More and more people believe that it is morally wrong to cause animals to suffer and die in the laboratory. We know that laboratory animals feel pain in the same way that we do. The law acknowledges that and science accepts it, too. Thousands of animals suffer and die in research laboratories to test cosmetics and toiletries such as lipstick, soap and shampoo. Many such products, which we use every day, have been paid for with suffering. Drips are put into the unprotected eyes of animals, rubbed into the raw, shaven backs of guinea pigs or forced down the throats of rats. I do not want to describe such things because the result is obviously not beautiful. We must consider when purchasing such things whether we should give the producers concerned our custom.
I want to say a few words about circus animals. Many hon. Members will have seen the recent video "The Ugliest Show on Earth". Only last week, a circus came to the field next to my home. No matter how well housed the animals were, or how much the circus tried to say that their welfare was assured, I could hear animals howling during the night. It was obvious that they were bored. It is a contemptible method of subjecting them to something unnatural. I went to the local authority, which is Labour-controlled, and which I used to lead, and pleaded. I asked why it had given these people a licence but there was no law that could stop it. The land was private. The circus was to stay for seven days. It could apply for 10 days; it stayed a fortnight. Unfortunately, we cannot control these things unless we want to legislate.
Animals do not smoke, drink alcohol, drive, use paints or drop bombs, but we do. If we do those things, why should they suffer for our weakness?
I declare a general interest in that I advise Novartis, a multinational company. It may have an interest in the matter, but I do not know its particular views. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) on his excellent summary of the problem. He reflected the concern of many hon. Members and many among the general public.
We recently debated the multilateral agreement on investment. A broad spectrum of people mobilised opposition to the agreement as it stood, because of concerns about its impact on developing countries and their ability to protect their development in an environmentally friendly way that would be acceptable to most people in Britain. Many were surprised by the breadth of the opposition to the agreement in the form in which it stood, yet the discussion on the MAI was largely on the relatively narrow issue of the rights of developing countries. That is an important issue, but it engages only a certain number of non-governmental organisations.
In the Word Trade Organisation debate, concern comes from a very broad range of NGOs. There are the groups concerned with the environment. We all recognise now that the environment of one country affects the environment of all others. There are groups concerned with development and social issues, both in the third world and closer to home, and groups concerned with animal welfare. The hunting debate showed that the animal welfare organisations can mobilise massive popular support.
I predict that in many countries, but especially in Britain, if those groups together come to the conclusion that our policy on free trade is against the interests of their collective concerns, there will be a massive backlash against free trade, which is not in anyone's interests, because free trade has brought enormous benefits. We must ensure that the free trade agenda is not hijacked by narrow interests that are contemptuous of or indifferent to the concerns that we have raised. In the long run, that will damage us all.
In principle, the WTO and the organisations that expressed concern enjoy broad consensus. Nearly everyone agrees that free trade within reasonable limits is a positive thing, which has brought many benefits. Most people agree that environmental concerns are appropriate. We are all periodically nasty about ruthless capitalist companies that try to exploit the environment, but the reality is that relatively few companies have an active interest in eradicating life and destroying the environment around them, because it is bad for business. The companies accept in principle that they benefit from sensible environmental rules if they are stable, fair and non-discriminatory.
In the same way, in western Europe and north America, but in many other countries as well, it is accepted that it is desirable that production methods do not inflict great harm and suffering on animals. In particular, it is widely accepted that consumers should have the option of avoiding products of whose production methods they do not approve. It is not widely recognised that it may be illegal to inform consumers about the way in which products are produced in certain circumstances.
Most people believe that the rules on free trade simply mean that we must not be discriminatory, that we cannot pass a law saying that we will buy only British beef and stop anything else at the border. Most people accept that that is reasonable. It is not so broadly recognised that, under the rules as currently interpreted, production methods cannot be the subject of national legislation.
The classic example is the battery hen. One cannot tell by looking at an egg whether it was produced by a battery or free-range hen. Under the interpretation commonly applied by the WTO and the general agreement on tariffs and trade, we are not allowed to discriminate against battery hens or battery hen production, because we are allowed to consider only the end product.
The problem is that the overwhelming majority of ethical concerns—social, environmental, third world and animal welfare—relate to the means of production. I do not know anybody who wants to ban eggs, but I know many people who are concerned about eggs produced by intensively reared hens. I should like the Minister to accept that, in the interests of the long-term development of free trade, there is a need to seek a non-discriminatory way of addressing the problem of the means of production.
There are precedents for this. As the hon. Member for Dartford said, when the general agreement on tariffs and trade was set up after the war, prison labour was specifically excluded from the areas in which discrimination was not allowed. It is possible to say that we will not take goods produced by prison labour. That was a specific exemption created during the post-war period, under the shadow of Nazi work camps, and it stands in isolation. As I understand it, it is thought not to be possible to introduce discrimination against products from bonded labour or child labour. There is a clear inconsistency, which I hope will give the Minister some leverage to enable him to make progress.
I should like to ask some specific questions of the Minister. I shall be brief, because I know that other hon. Members want to speak, and I hope that we can leave the Minister time to address the issues.
First, what does the Minister see as the main obstacles to progress? If he accepts that there is a problem, how does he envisage tackling them? Secondly, the European Union has said for some time, through the Commission, that it has been considering raising these issues at a high-level meeting before the next WTO conference. Will Britain take the initiative on the Council of Ministers to instruct the Commission to include these topics in its negotiating package and to prepare proposals to address the problem? In that way, Britain and Europe could be seen to be taking a lead.
Thirdly, will Britain support proposals along the lines urged by Compassion in World Farming and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which have been active in these matters, to reinforce article XX of the general agreement on tariffs and trade, allowing nation states to take account of these matters? That was mentioned by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker). I also agree that article III needs attention.
Will Britain promote discussion of a framework for mandatory labelling schemes for consumer information? Even those who feel reluctant to accept a relaxation in the rules to allow for welfare considerations accept that there is a reasonable case for consumers to know what the hell is going on, and how a product is produced. We need to be able to do that without being subject to international legal challenge. We should accept that the WTO would be able to examine a labelling scheme to ensure that it is not deliberately discriminatory, so that labels do not say, "British" or "Horrible foreign goods". We need to have the possibility of mandatory systems that will provide consumers with the choice they need.
With the failure of the multilateral agreement on investment in the present round, there is now a vacuum in fair trade and fair investment rules. The debate on the multilateral agreement on investment and the current WTO debate show the need for a multi-pronged approach, balancing increasing liberalisation with adherence to agreed minimum standards.
To take a slightly far-fetched parallel, it is a little like the Northern Ireland talks. It is difficult to make progress in one area unless the participants are confident that there will be a balance of progress in another area. The argument that we should agree to total liberalisation, and that the rest can be delegated to some animal welfare organisation, is not accepted by the groups involved, because they suspect, probably correctly, that they will be blocked in the later discussions.
The time is right for the Government to take a lead internationally, and to perform a real service for the world trading community by looking for a framework in which liberalised trade can be supplemented by ethical standards. I believe that most people would be extremely pleased if the Minister and his colleagues would take the initiative. We would all be proud of our country if we could bring about something along those lines to help solve this problem, which ultimately concerns so many people.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) for selecting this topic, and for his coherent and comprehensive introduction to an important debate. He touched on a number of issues, which I hope that the Minister will address in some detail when he replies. In one of those issues—the current case being fought by the Canadian Government against the French on white asbestos—I hope that the Government will do all they can to support our French colleagues in resisting what Canada has done.
I can draw on a recent example in the Council of Europe. The Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), produced a report which would outlaw the use and manufacture of asbestos throughout the Council of Europe area. There was a pathetic display by the Canadian Government, who propped up the Russians. The Canadian Government tabled amendments on which the Russians had not been briefed, and they got the Russians to express points of view which contradicted their own standpoint on many of these issues.
The Canadians and the Russians did all they could to frustrate what was universally accepted in the room, except by those two nations, as something that would benefit the people of Europe. As has been said, asbestos has killed people by the thousand in our country every year, and many of us felt that its continued use was a breach of human rights. It is as much a death sentence as any execution carried out in the Ukraine or elsewhere.
We must be vigilant, and support nations who are prepared to tackle this issue. On this occasion, the Government should do all they can to support the French. More importantly, I hope that the British Government will show initiative in taking on board the resolution of the Council of Europe pretty damn quickly, and bringing it into law in this country.
The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) spoke for the overwhelming majority of hon. Members when he mentioned his frustration at not being able to pursue the hunting Bill. Since we have been back from the recess, we have had two non-working Fridays—presumably there will be another next week—and the House has gone home early three times. There would have been enough time to see that very good Bill go through all its stages. We would probably have had sufficient time to frustrate the frustraters.
That Bill could have become law if the Government had had the resolve that they suggested when they were in opposition. I hope that the Bill will come back. I should like to see it in the next Queen's Speech, but, if the whispers that it may appear in the one after next are correct, I hope that that is a commitment that the Government will not shirk, and that we will see the Bill come to fruition in the lifetime of this Parliament.
For the past 30 years, I have campaigned in my city for the banning of the export of live animals. It came to a head in the late 1970s, when we opened our own ferry port. Nobody who has travelled by car on a ferry containing animals in transit can fail to be moved and emotionally embarrassed by the fact that human beings can allow animals to be transported in such a way. I have been on ships in force eight or nine gales, during which the ferry companies have been embarrassed to allow people back to the car decks because of the noise of the animals. That continues.
Hon. Members have talked about the four-tier lorries transporting sheep across Europe. I witnessed an accident on the border between Romania and Hungary at the end of the winter. A lorry containing sheep had overturned, and 30 or 50 dead sheep were sprawled across the road; blood was pouring into the sand. That was the horrific consequence of a nasty accident. There were at least twice as many animals on the lorry as the law would have permitted in this country.
The ironic thing is that those sheep had originated in the United Kingdom, and had been moved on to the lorry that crashed on the Romanian border. Their onward transhipment was through Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey and then into the middle east. Animals reared in the UK and subject to the law of this country are being taken 2,500 miles across Europe and down into the middle east, and we do nothing about it. Most reasonable people would be horrified to know that such things go on.
In March, I tabled a written question
To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will raise the issue of the effect of the GATT on EU animal welfare directives during the World Trade Organisation Ministerial Conference in May".
The answer was:
The European Communities' final position … is still under discussion."—[Official Report, 24 March 1998; Vol. 309, c. 110.]
We held the presidency at that time. Why on earth did we not take that initiative on?
In July, I tabled a written question to ask the Minister of Agriculture what plans he had to raise the export of cattle from the European Union to middle eastern countries. The answer was:
The Government have no plans to seek an end to the payment of export refunds on live cattle."—[Official Report, 24 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 707.]
It was implied that we should wait for the value of dead meat exports to catch up.
What a pathetic response from a nation that is supposed to care, and a Government who, in opposition, said that they would tackle these issues. It is no good saying that we cannot do it. I am grateful that we have signed up to the convention on international trade in endangered species. It is right that we are able to ban trade in endangered species, but surely we have a right and a duty to ban the cruel and inhumane transport and exploitation of animals that have been raised here. We cannot hide behind others any longer: we have to tackle this issue.
I am bitterly disappointed that, when we held the presidency of the European Union, we did not do more. Organisations such as Animal Defenders, the National Anti-Vivisection Society and Compassion in World Farming have campaigned for decades to make the public understand the cruelty that goes on. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) talked about just some of the examples, including cosmetic testing and the blinding of animals to make sure that humans do not suffer. Most reasonable people are horrified when such practices are exposed, and rightly turn away from those products when they know.
Many people—the Body Shop is a classic example—have made a virtue of establishing their credibility within the marketplace by showing that it is possible to make a profit without inflicting cruelty. It can and should work. We have to make sure that such issues are not ignored in the House.
Too many of the people we represent believe that we have a direct responsibility to do something about animal welfare. I never cease to be amazed at how many times the issues are raised in the House and how little happens. In my previous existence as a Member of Parliament, the Conservatives were in power. What a pathetic example they gave of a party that is supposed to care. Their caring started and ended with the profit motive. They did nothing to establish proper care and responsibility for animal welfare. At the end of this Parliament, I do not want Labour Members who have loyally supported the Government to feel that they have been let down. I hope that the Labour Government have enough resolve and backbone to tackle animal welfare issues.
With so much human talent around, we do not need to exploit animals for our entertainment. Circuses that include animals should become a thing of the past—a thing that people talk about, but are delighted to know no longer exist. The exportation of animals and cruelty in the rearing of animals should be high on the Government's agenda. As many hon. Members have said, it is high on the agenda of many of the people we represent.
I hope that today the message will go out that once again, the House of Commons has spoken on behalf of the overwhelming majority of British people, who believe that it is the right time for the Government to do the right thing, to get behind the public, and fight on animal welfare issues. If that means fighting through the courts of the world, we should do so.
I shall make a short speech, because it is important that other hon. Members make some of their points, and that the Minister has time to respond.
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) on obtaining this important debate. I wish to highlight one or two things, but first I want to set the debate in context. The issues on which we all receive most letters in our postbags are animal welfare and the social and environmental concerns that affect world trade.
When I visit schools or meet children elsewhere, they say things like, "Why is it that we continue to export animals in this way? Why is it that we continue to rape the rain forests? Why do we continue to use child labour to produce footballs or carpets?" When they say that sort of thing, it challenges me as a Member of Parliament or, indeed, as an adult. It challenged me when I was a teacher. I say, "You have to understand that it is a complicated situation. It is difficult to deal with the problem. There are all sorts of laws and difficulties in understanding how trade organisations work. There is something called GATT, and something called the World Trade Organisation." They reply, "But it's cruel. It's not right."
Such challenges from children to Parliament put the debate in context, and show that we really need to be judged by our actions. I sometimes feel that I am making excuses and explaining away something that it is difficult to explain away. I know that the Government are desperate to do something. Ministers do not believe in cruelty. They want to do something about it.
The purpose of today's debate is to generate even more passion, more desire and more determination in the Government to take on people who use—let us be frank—the cloak of free trade and the liberalisation of trade to continue practices that we regard as barbaric. They do not do so because they want to improve the lot of the people they pretend to represent. They do not do so to increase the prosperity of ordinary people. They do it to protect the profit of individuals in those areas, and they want to continue the exploitation.
None of us is opposed to trade. We all know that trade means prosperity. We do not want to pull up the ladder and say, "We are prosperous and well off, thank you very much. We don't want you to develop your industries." It is in that context that we need to discuss the issue.
In the approaching WTO negotiations, it is important that we understand and accept the key argument that the way in which something is produced or made is an important consideration for this country. We want the right to determine whether products are allowed into this country. That requires fundamental changes to our trading arrangements.
Free trade is one thing; the liberalisation of trade is another; but the exploitation of children, cruelty to animals and the rape of rain forests are something else entirely. We have to ask ourselves some serious questions if we, as part of the civilised world and as a civilising influence on the world, are unable to sit down at the table and help to produce an agreement that protects the environment, supports decent labour standards for people in other countries and improves animal welfare standards, while simultaneously promoting prosperity and enhancing worldwide trade arrangements.
When the children I meet ask me what the Government—not the Labour Government, or the Conservative Government, but our Government, and our Parliament—are doing to address those serious issues and to ensure that we no longer have to witness some of the scenes described by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South, I want to be able to tell them that we are trying to achieve something better.
I shall concentrate specifically on live animal exports. In a previous life, I spent almost 30 years in the Merchant Navy, sailing on ships to the far east and crossing the channel. I have seen some of the suffering close up; I have felt it and smelt it and I know what it is all about.
The general agreement on tariffs and trade acts against our ability to ban live animal exports. Every year, about 500,000 animals are exported from the European Union to the middle east. We know about their suffering during the voyage and during their discharge at the end of the journey, in high temperatures and uncontrolled conditions. We know some of their suffering during the act of slaughter. It is beyond belief that the EU does not have the power to stop that evil trade.
That trade takes place much closer to home: every week, many thousands of live animals are exported through my constituency of Dover. I pay tribute to the local animal welfare organisations—especially Kent Against Live Animal Exports, of which I am a member—which have picketed, day and night and in all weather, over the past two years to try to bring an end to the evil trade. Dover harbour board wants to stop the trade and has tried to do so; the mainstream—one might call them "legitimate"—ferry companies want to stop it; yet still the trade continues.
The ordinary people who turn out, day and night, many without a political thought in their head other than the welfare of animals, cannot understand why our Government are unable to ban the trade. They cannot understand why the EU is unable to ban the trade from Europe to the middle east. They cannot understand why the free trade regulations completely ignore any principles of ethics or morality in their application.
I join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) on having covered the subject in depth and on managing to mention the third way twice—now it has been mentioned for a third time. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take to the negotiations the message that there is an urgent need to inject morality, ethics and fairness into all future negotiations.
I speak as no supporter of free trade, and I take some comfort from the fact that the WTO does not believe in free trade either. The latest American research shows that at least 200 international cartels of major corporations are involved in global price fixing, but the WTO has absolutely nothing to say about that. The difference between my position and that of the WTO is that I believe that the next century will demand that we address two issues: one is the agenda for sustainable economics; the other is the need to establish responsible trade and production, rather than have a deregulated world economy that causes greater climate change and plunges us into climatic crisis.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take account of four principles in the negotiations on the revision of WTO rules in which the UK is to be involved. First, we have to make a commitment to honour the achievements of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in the Kyoto negotiations. We must ensure that environmental responsibility and sustainability take precedence over all forms of international treaty that would undermine our ability, both locally and globally, to meet environmental protection targets.
Secondly, after the international triumph of organisations that scuppered the multilateral agreement on investment, which was secretly negotiated within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the UK must not entertain the notion of that being introduced into the WTO by the back door.
Thirdly, we must enter the negotiations with the aim of questioning one of the key forms of protectionism written into WTO rules, which relates to intellectual property rights. The objections of countries in the developing world to the use of biotechnology patents to rape and pillage their genetic inheritance must be heeded. In India, half of the essential herbs that form the basis of ayurvedic medicine have been the subject of patent applications from European and US companies. We must restore the rights of self-development and sustainable development to the third world.
Fourthly, we must extend the rights of consumers to demand protection from the introduction of genetically modified crops, for which there is no public demand and which are the subject of large-scale environmental, health and social concerns that have yet to be adequately answered.
I ask that the UK's negotiating stance be based on the following commitments. Sustainability should take precedence over market deregulation. The precautionary principle, long established as the cornerstone of society's right to protection from adverse environmental and health consequences of new inventions, should take precedence over environmental exploitation. Democratic accountability should take precedence over the price mechanism. Finally, human, environmental and animal health should take precedence over the demands of corporate dividends and stakeholder demands. If we adopt such a stance, we shall be better able internationally to adhere to the amazing achievements of the Deputy Prime Minister in Kyoto, and to turn GATT into something with which the world can live, rather than something by which it will be destroyed.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) on securing the debate. He has done the House a service in drawing attention to the increasing conflict between the globalised free market and the need for environmental protection. I am sure that the debate will continue over the coming years and will be the main subject of political debate in the next century.
The timing of today's debate is significant, given that yesterday my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister published a document outlining the way in which the Government will deliver their Kyoto commitments; and that last week the French Government decided to withdraw their support from the multilateral agreement on investment. It is worth dwelling on those two points because, in two weeks' time, the Government will be pursuing the Kyoto agenda at the Buenos Aires conference. Securing an agreement between the demands of the United States, China and the developing world on the setting of emissions limits, while keeping the wheels of free trade turning, will not only require great political skill, but will again heighten the tension between free trade and environmental protection.
On the subject of the MAI, I draw the attention of the House to early-day motion 1700, which appears on today's Order Paper. I urge hon. Members to read it and sign it if they feel able to do so. Although the MAI was only a small part of the much wider GATT agenda, it was significant, reflecting the changing climate in thinking on globalisation. Increasingly, the thinking now—not only in the United Kingdom but abroad—is that we can no longer accept the orthodoxy that we have been asked to accept for the past 50 years. Environmental concerns are increasingly at the heart of worldwide economic debates.
I want to ensure that the Minister has ample time to reply to the debate, so I shall conclude. However, I endorse the specific questions asked by my hon. Friends the Members for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) and for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), which I hope that the Minister will be able to answer in detail.
Today, we have discussed reform of the World Trade Organisation and its limitations in dealing with environmental matters. Perhaps a much bigger issue is the nature of the international institutions that have developed in recent years, and whether those organisations are capable of dealing with the new economic situation that we now face. I wonder whether the WTO, for example, can ever be reformed to deal fully with the sustainable development agenda, or whether—given that we have not only a World Health Organisation but a World Trade Organisation—we now need a world environment organisation.
I, too, welcome this debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) on the way in which he introduced it. I do not know whether he admitted to this, but I suspect that the debate was much inspired by a stimulating report by the RSPCA entitled "Conflict or Concord? Animal welfare and the World Trade Organisation", to which I shall refer later.
We have had a wide-ranging debate, which included references to circuses and hunting. I shall concentrate my remarks on the main subject of the debate—world trade—and welcome the general support for free trade that has been apparent in hon. Members' speeches.
I should like to concentrate on one specific example, so that we might try to draw some lessons from it. I make no apology for referring, again, to the issue of the plight of the British pig industry.
Pigmeat is the United Kingdom's most popular meat. Last year, consumers spent an estimated £5.9 billion on pigmeat—pork, bacon, ham and other pigmeat products—which represented almost 40 per cent. of all spending on meat and meat products. The previous, Conservative Government, with all-party support and support from consumers, introduced regulations that have given our pig industry the highest welfare standards in Europe and probably in the world. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) was not prepared to give credit to the Conservative Government for the progress that they made on that matter.
This morning, some hon. Members had the privilege of attending the pig industry's "Big Pig Breakfast". I was delighted that that gathering was attended by the Agriculture Minister, as a demonstration of his solidarity with farmers in their concerns. At the breakfast, a Scottish pig farmer—it is relevant that I should refer to him, as the Minister who will reply to this debate is a Scot through and through—made the important point that he is losing £23 pounds per pig. Those losses include about £4 per pig in additional welfare costs that he, unlike his competitors, must pay; £3 per pig to dispose of the meat and bonemeal that he is not allowed to feed back into his pigs, although farmers on the continent can do so; and £7 per pig because of the high value of the pound.
There is a grave danger that, from 1 January 1999, when the new welfare regulations on stalls and tethers are fully implemented, the number of pigs reared under those improved conditions will fall. Pigs reared abroad to lower standards and at lower cost will be substituted for the premium British product, resulting in reduced market share for our own producers. All those who have campaigned, quite legitimately, for higher welfare standards in pig production will find, ironically, that fewer pigs are produced to those standards because of our unilaterally introducing the regulations. That is not what the House intended or what British consumers or farmers wanted. I ask the Minister what the Government will do about it.
We should be able to differentiate our product and make consumers aware of, for example, the fact that only at 10 per cent. of Danish pig units are said to be free of stalls and tethers, and that as little as 2 per cent. of Dutch units are said to be free of stalls and tethers. If consumers are concerned about pigs produced in unpleasant and cruel conditions, they should not be buying Danish or Dutch pork products.
The Opposition believe that there should be greater scope for informed consumer choice. However, as the regulations are very confusing, how can consumers receive the correct information? Although British pork is reared under the highest standards in the world, how can we know that British pork is really British produced? The pork from a pig that is produced and slaughtered on the continent and brought to the United Kingdom to be used in pork pies or sausages can be sold as British pork. Consumers may very well be under the illusion that animals from which that "British" pork came were reared according to the high welfare standards that we require of our own pig producers.
What will we do about that serious problem, which has been exacerbated by some European Union regulations? As so often in our debates, we learn that the EU stands between legislators and consumers. The Opposition wish to legislate to enable consumers to make an effective choice, but discover that regulations on protecting food names, which were introduced in 1993, seem effectively to be designed to undermine the status of nation states within Europe and to prevent products being labelled as, for example, "British pork". One cannot label a product as "British pork" and therefore imply that it has been produced to higher welfare standards.
The RSPCA makes in its document some interesting points on the importance of labelling and letting consumers decide. I hope that the RSPCA, which is itself concerned about animal welfare, will help to promote British pork, and that, from the beginning of next year, it will say that buying and eating British pork will be promoting pork that has been produced to standards that are much higher than those of our European counterparts. If we let consumers have the information, I am sure that they will make the right decision. I hope that the RSPCA will join in the campaign to promote British pork.
There is much concern also about the genetic modification of food, which the hon. Member for Dartford mentioned in passing. I recently saw a guide for consumers, entitled "Foodsense: genetic modification and food", produced by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. On page 13, it states:
the Government is determined to ensure that all foods which may contain genetically modified material are clearly labelled. These would include foods which contain genetically modified products used as food ingredients such as GM soya, maize and tomato paste.
That is all very well. However, on page 14, it states:
How will genetically modified food be labelled?
Under the EC Novel Foods Regulation a genetically modified food will be labelled if it is judged, on the basis of a scientific assessment, not to be equivalent to an existing food. Foods will also require labelling if there are any ethical concerns or if it contains a genetically modified organism, even if it is equivalent to an existing food.
That statement is not the same as saying that the consumer will be given the power to make an informed choice, because the information that foods are subject to genetic modification will be given only in certain circumstances.
The document continues:
The Government"—
rightly—
believes that all foods should be labelled so that consumers are made aware when they contain any genetically modified material. The UK will be pressing for this when foods are approved under the regulation.
I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us today how he will secure that outcome for the British consumer.
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) for securing this debate and also to all the hon. Members who have participated and who have made constructive contributions. I include among them the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), although I could not help feeling that the "Big Pig Breakfast" came as a rather timely research source for his speech. I undertake to get for him the information that he wants about the labelling of British pork, and labelling is a subject to which I shall return later.
To be frank, I am grateful for the debate not least because I am new to my current responsibilities. I have never been one to pretend that there is a seamless transition of knowledge and wisdom that accompanies Ministers or, indeed, Opposition spokesmen from one job to another. I have been more than interested to hear the well-informed comments of hon. Members from all parties, who clearly bring to the debate long and distinguished backgrounds of interest and research in the subject.
Perhaps more than in other debates, everyone who has spoken today shares the same objectives. In an ideal world, we should like everything that we imported and exported to be safe and humanely produced in an environmentally responsible manner by people who have been paid a fair rate for the job. I am sure that we could all unite around that wish. It certainly contains a very laudable set of aspirations. The problem begins of course with the fact that every word in the mission statement—to use a terrible phrase—that I have just set out is open to endless discussion about definitions. That is what makes the subject genuinely complex.
The calls for action may be perfectly reasonable on the surface. Indeed, from the perspective of a sophisticated, developed economy, they might seem like modest environmental prerequisites for trade; but exactly the same call for action, viewed from the perspective of a developing country, might well appear as no more or less than crafty rich-world protectionism.
It is not necessary to be a free trade ideologue—to paraphrase my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford—to recognise the very real pitfalls that may quickly appear if we introduce sanctions against products of which we do not like the look or the smell. As my hon. Friend and others recognised, the argument falls overwhelmingly in favour of liberal trade policies. In principle, no hon. Member supports the opposite, as protectionism inhibits liberal trade. I think that I can include among those hon. Members my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson). He fairly points out that cartels exist, but I do not think that he adduces that fact as a reason for believing that cartels should exist. It is a perfectly reasonable argument for pointing out that rhetoric does not always match reality. I do not think that my hon. Friend would dissent from the view that, if rules are fairly applied and set, a liberal trade world is a much better proposition than a restrictive one.
As many hon. Members have said, the debate is not about absolute principle but is a matter of balance. Again, everyone agrees that trade is not the ideal or the primary instrument through which social or environmental objectives, however desirable, should be pursued. That takes us back to the question of balance and the identification of spheres in which it is appropriate to limit trade, as that is the only apparent way of achieving the desired objectives. I assure the House that it is a highly legitimate area of debate, which I have a genuine interest in exploring.
It is in all our interests to get the answers right from a United Kingdom perspective so that we have a trade policy that is both consistent with the principles that we pursue and that is sensitive to the concerns that have been expressed today. I in no way underestimate the difficulty of getting that balance right. In the rhetorical flourish at the end of his speech, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) urged us to have enough backbone to tackle those issues. That is fine, but the first example that he adduced of where we—I presume that he meant me—should have backbone involved performing animals in circuses. My responsibilities are wide, but I am not sure that the matter to which the hon. Gentleman referred is one for the World Trade Organisation.
There are some topics for which I want to put down markers of agreement. For example, the call for greater openness and transparency in the WTO is one with which I readily agree. There has been growing recognition of the need for greater dialogue with the general public and non-governmental organisations about the principles that underlie trade liberalisation and the multilateral trading system operated by the WTO. It has to be explained why they are advantageous for developed countries as well as less developed countries and for jobs, growth and prosperity. All dialogue on such matters should be conducted openly.
In that context, we can welcome measures taken by the WTO to be more open. They include the de-restriction of documents, the use of the internet and so on. They show a welcome desire on the part of the WTO to be more open, but I do not believe that the process has gone far enough. We can play a leading role in urging greater transparency within the WTO.
One point on which I can perhaps bring some optimism among hon. Members who have spoken today is the shrimp-turtle case. The appellate body has come out not against the measure, but only against the way in which the United States chooses to pursue it. I shall not, as one hon. Member requested, give the Government's definitive position on that issue today. Because of its importance, it may become the definitive trade and environmental case study in terms of WTO jurisprudence. We have to consider it carefully and discuss it circumspectly until a position emerges. It is an example of a case being pursued by a wide range of opinion and countries, and the WTO has not categorically come out against the action taken. We have to consider the implication of the appellant body's ruling.
It is for the same reason that I cannot say too much about the Canadian asbestos case, although I wholly agree that it is interesting and highly relevant to the way in which the WTO discharges its functions. It is, of course, subject to appeal by the Canadians. Again, it will have a marked impact on perceptions of how the WTO approaches such matters.
Another matter on which we can find agreement and on which I can offer something to hon. Members who have spoken today is the UK's role in taking forward those issues within the European Union and the WTO. We are actively encouraging a high-level meeting on trade and the environment. The EU's proposal to that effect is now being considered by our partners in the WTO. In order to make progress, we obviously have to agree an agenda that will attract wide support and involvement.
We are running out of time. The Minister was asked some specific questions—I counted about 10— which he will not have time to answer. He was open about being on a steep learning curve, so will he undertake to write to hon. Members with the answers that they seek?
I have no difficulty in giving the hon. Gentleman that absolute assurance. It is much more useful to write to hon. Members than to gabble through the replies in front of me. I have every intention of trying to address the concerns.
I believe that broad philosophical agreement exists on the problem. The objectives are not in doubt. For instance, there is consensus that the best way to tackle labour standard issues is through the International Labour Organisation. If we tried through the World Trade Organisation to create a framework of labour rules for developing countries, the subject would hardly get on to the agenda, far less have a prospect of early success. If we are to make progress, it is important to be much more specific in defining those aspects that are within the WTO's remit—that is, within trade. In the case of issues that are not, we should consider whether another avenue exists.
This interesting debate will continue. I assure hon. Members that I shall take a close interest in the matter.