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.