I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) for securing this debate and also to all the hon. Members who have participated and who have made constructive contributions. I include among them the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), although I could not help feeling that the "Big Pig Breakfast" came as a rather timely research source for his speech. I undertake to get for him the information that he wants about the labelling of British pork, and labelling is a subject to which I shall return later.

To be frank, I am grateful for the debate not least because I am new to my current responsibilities. I have never been one to pretend that there is a seamless transition of knowledge and wisdom that accompanies Ministers or, indeed, Opposition spokesmen from one job to another. I have been more than interested to hear the well-informed comments of hon. Members from all parties, who clearly bring to the debate long and distinguished backgrounds of interest and research in the subject.

Perhaps more than in other debates, everyone who has spoken today shares the same objectives. In an ideal world, we should like everything that we imported and exported to be safe and humanely produced in an environmentally responsible manner by people who have been paid a fair rate for the job. I am sure that we could all unite around that wish. It certainly contains a very laudable set of aspirations. The problem begins of course with the fact that every word in the mission statement—to use a terrible phrase—that I have just set out is open to endless discussion about definitions. That is what makes the subject genuinely complex.

The calls for action may be perfectly reasonable on the surface. Indeed, from the perspective of a sophisticated, developed economy, they might seem like modest environmental prerequisites for trade; but exactly the same call for action, viewed from the perspective of a developing country, might well appear as no more or less than crafty rich-world protectionism.

It is not necessary to be a free trade ideologue—to paraphrase my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford—to recognise the very real pitfalls that may quickly appear if we introduce sanctions against products of which we do not like the look or the smell. As my hon. Friend and others recognised, the argument falls overwhelmingly in favour of liberal trade policies. In principle, no hon. Member supports the opposite, as protectionism inhibits liberal trade. I think that I can include among those hon. Members my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson). He fairly points out that cartels exist, but I do not think that he adduces that fact as a reason for believing that cartels should exist. It is a perfectly reasonable argument for pointing out that rhetoric does not always match reality. I do not think that my hon. Friend would dissent from the view that, if rules are fairly applied and set, a liberal trade world is a much better proposition than a restrictive one.

As many hon. Members have said, the debate is not about absolute principle but is a matter of balance. Again, everyone agrees that trade is not the ideal or the primary instrument through which social or environmental objectives, however desirable, should be pursued. That takes us back to the question of balance and the identification of spheres in which it is appropriate to limit trade, as that is the only apparent way of achieving the desired objectives. I assure the House that it is a highly legitimate area of debate, which I have a genuine interest in exploring.

It is in all our interests to get the answers right from a United Kingdom perspective so that we have a trade policy that is both consistent with the principles that we pursue and that is sensitive to the concerns that have been expressed today. I in no way underestimate the difficulty of getting that balance right. In the rhetorical flourish at the end of his speech, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) urged us to have enough backbone to tackle those issues. That is fine, but the first example that he adduced of where we—I presume that he meant me—should have backbone involved performing animals in circuses. My responsibilities are wide, but I am not sure that the matter to which the hon. Gentleman referred is one for the World Trade Organisation.

There are some topics for which I want to put down markers of agreement. For example, the call for greater openness and transparency in the WTO is one with which I readily agree. There has been growing recognition of the need for greater dialogue with the general public and non-governmental organisations about the principles that underlie trade liberalisation and the multilateral trading system operated by the WTO. It has to be explained why they are advantageous for developed countries as well as less developed countries and for jobs, growth and prosperity. All dialogue on such matters should be conducted openly.

In that context, we can welcome measures taken by the WTO to be more open. They include the de-restriction of documents, the use of the internet and so on. They show a welcome desire on the part of the WTO to be more open, but I do not believe that the process has gone far enough. We can play a leading role in urging greater transparency within the WTO.

One point on which I can perhaps bring some optimism among hon. Members who have spoken today is the shrimp-turtle case. The appellate body has come out not against the measure, but only against the way in which the United States chooses to pursue it. I shall not, as one hon. Member requested, give the Government's definitive position on that issue today. Because of its importance, it may become the definitive trade and environmental case study in terms of WTO jurisprudence. We have to consider it carefully and discuss it circumspectly until a position emerges. It is an example of a case being pursued by a wide range of opinion and countries, and the WTO has not categorically come out against the action taken. We have to consider the implication of the appellant body's ruling.

It is for the same reason that I cannot say too much about the Canadian asbestos case, although I wholly agree that it is interesting and highly relevant to the way in which the WTO discharges its functions. It is, of course, subject to appeal by the Canadians. Again, it will have a marked impact on perceptions of how the WTO approaches such matters.

Another matter on which we can find agreement and on which I can offer something to hon. Members who have spoken today is the UK's role in taking forward those issues within the European Union and the WTO. We are actively encouraging a high-level meeting on trade and the environment. The EU's proposal to that effect is now being considered by our partners in the WTO. In order to make progress, we obviously have to agree an agenda that will attract wide support and involvement.