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.