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.