I see that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Mr. Sutcliffe, is in his place. I look forward to his contribution and trust that it will be positive. I also recognise that Sir George Young is in the Chamber. If he wants to, he can intervene at any point in the debate, because I know that he has a Constituency interest in the matter.

By way of background, I shall say something about the gardening industry in the United Kingdom. It may come as a surprise to many people to hear what the industry is worth. It has a turnover of some £5 billion a year, so it is a buoyant and—if hon. Members will pardon the pun—a growing industry, employing some 200,000 people. In addition, 20 million people in Britain regularly participate in gardening. That industry and recreation is enormous and growing by the year; growth looks set to continue for many years to come, as more and more young people become interested in the pastime of gardening. It is therefore highly important to look at the question of consumer protection and the safety of gardening equipment in a different light.

I have said on many occasions that the industry is a sleeping giant that requires a voice, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members can start that process in the Chamber, and show that there is a need to focus attention on safety in gardening. It would be right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for me to declare an interest: I am the secretary of the all-party group on gardening and horticulture. I am, some say, mad, but I am a keen gardener—so keen that I was out cutting my grass at the weekend, unlike, I would have thought, many other Members—and that gives me first-hand knowledge and information on how urgent the issue is and why focusing attention on consumer protection and safety of gardening equipment must be debated.

The purpose of the debate is to ask the Minister for reconsiderations and suggestions, as well as to look afresh at some of the initiatives that have been taken in his Department. One such initiative was the introduction some years ago of a statistical evaluation of household and gardening safety—known as HASS, which stands for home accident surveillance system. I know many people in the industry who were extremely disappointed when, in May 2003, the Department of Trade and Industry announced that it would no longer collect such statistics, and that that work was being terminated and passed out of the Department. That is, quite simply, wrong. I cannot understand the decision to terminate what was almost the bible of the industry, particularly given the increased activity in gardens across the land.

I do not like to use a lot of statistics, but sometimes, as in this case, they are important. Let us consider the fact that 1.5 million householders in 2005 will attempt to cut their hedges using a ladder as a work platform, probably with a powered cutter but without acknowledging any safety requirements. I would argue that that is a dangerous practice. The statistics show that at least one person per week is likely to die as a result of falling off a ladder, and urgent action on that is required. If hon. Members consider that 337,000 individuals in one year have attended accident and emergency units because of accidents in the garden, they can understand some of the reasons behind my arguments. The use of powered equipment is growing. If we consider that hedge-trimmer accidents have increased by more than a half in the past five years—that is shown by extrapolating old statistics—we start to see the problem that I am trying to address. I would not argue that we should unnecessarily introduce any level of the nanny state.