I, too, welcome this debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) on the way in which he introduced it. I do not know whether he admitted to this, but I suspect that the debate was much inspired by a stimulating report by the RSPCA entitled "Conflict or Concord? Animal welfare and the World Trade Organisation", to which I shall refer later.

We have had a wide-ranging debate, which included references to circuses and hunting. I shall concentrate my remarks on the main subject of the debate—world trade—and welcome the general support for free trade that has been apparent in hon. Members' speeches.

I should like to concentrate on one specific example, so that we might try to draw some lessons from it. I make no apology for referring, again, to the issue of the plight of the British pig industry.

Pigmeat is the United Kingdom's most popular meat. Last year, consumers spent an estimated £5.9 billion on pigmeat—pork, bacon, ham and other pigmeat products—which represented almost 40 per cent. of all spending on meat and meat products. The previous, Conservative Government, with all-party support and support from consumers, introduced regulations that have given our pig industry the highest welfare standards in Europe and probably in the world. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) was not prepared to give credit to the Conservative Government for the progress that they made on that matter.

This morning, some hon. Members had the privilege of attending the pig industry's "Big Pig Breakfast". I was delighted that that gathering was attended by the Agriculture Minister, as a demonstration of his solidarity with farmers in their concerns. At the breakfast, a Scottish pig farmer—it is relevant that I should refer to him, as the Minister who will reply to this debate is a Scot through and through—made the important point that he is losing £23 pounds per pig. Those losses include about £4 per pig in additional welfare costs that he, unlike his competitors, must pay; £3 per pig to dispose of the meat and bonemeal that he is not allowed to feed back into his pigs, although farmers on the continent can do so; and £7 per pig because of the high value of the pound.

There is a grave danger that, from 1 January 1999, when the new welfare regulations on stalls and tethers are fully implemented, the number of pigs reared under those improved conditions will fall. Pigs reared abroad to lower standards and at lower cost will be substituted for the premium British product, resulting in reduced market share for our own producers. All those who have campaigned, quite legitimately, for higher welfare standards in pig production will find, ironically, that fewer pigs are produced to those standards because of our unilaterally introducing the regulations. That is not what the House intended or what British consumers or farmers wanted. I ask the Minister what the Government will do about it.

We should be able to differentiate our product and make consumers aware of, for example, the fact that only at 10 per cent. of Danish pig units are said to be free of stalls and tethers, and that as little as 2 per cent. of Dutch units are said to be free of stalls and tethers. If consumers are concerned about pigs produced in unpleasant and cruel conditions, they should not be buying Danish or Dutch pork products.

The Opposition believe that there should be greater scope for informed consumer choice. However, as the regulations are very confusing, how can consumers receive the correct information? Although British pork is reared under the highest standards in the world, how can we know that British pork is really British produced? The pork from a pig that is produced and slaughtered on the continent and brought to the United Kingdom to be used in pork pies or sausages can be sold as British pork. Consumers may very well be under the illusion that animals from which that "British" pork came were reared according to the high welfare standards that we require of our own pig producers.

What will we do about that serious problem, which has been exacerbated by some European Union regulations? As so often in our debates, we learn that the EU stands between legislators and consumers. The Opposition wish to legislate to enable consumers to make an effective choice, but discover that regulations on protecting food names, which were introduced in 1993, seem effectively to be designed to undermine the status of nation states within Europe and to prevent products being labelled as, for example, "British pork". One cannot label a product as "British pork" and therefore imply that it has been produced to higher welfare standards.

The RSPCA makes in its document some interesting points on the importance of labelling and letting consumers decide. I hope that the RSPCA, which is itself concerned about animal welfare, will help to promote British pork, and that, from the beginning of next year, it will say that buying and eating British pork will be promoting pork that has been produced to standards that are much higher than those of our European counterparts. If we let consumers have the information, I am sure that they will make the right decision. I hope that the RSPCA will join in the campaign to promote British pork.

There is much concern also about the genetic modification of food, which the hon. Member for Dartford mentioned in passing. I recently saw a guide for consumers, entitled "Foodsense: genetic modification and food", produced by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. On page 13, it states: the Government is determined to ensure that all foods which may contain genetically modified material are clearly labelled. These would include foods which contain genetically modified products used as food ingredients such as GM soya, maize and tomato paste. That is all very well. However, on page 14, it states: How will genetically modified food be labelled?Under the EC Novel Foods Regulation a genetically modified food will be labelled if it is judged, on the basis of a scientific assessment, not to be equivalent to an existing food. Foods will also require labelling if there are any ethical concerns or if it contains a genetically modified organism, even if it is equivalent to an existing food. That statement is not the same as saying that the consumer will be given the power to make an informed choice, because the information that foods are subject to genetic modification will be given only in certain circumstances.

The document continues: The Government"— rightly— believes that all foods should be labelled so that consumers are made aware when they contain any genetically modified material. The UK will be pressing for this when foods are approved under the regulation. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us today how he will secure that outcome for the British consumer.