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.