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.