§ Mr. Iain Mills (Meriden)I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss a most important subject. In the 10 years that I have been an hon. Member tyres have never been the subject of a separate debate. They have been discussed at Question Time and mention has been made of them in motoring and car industry debates. In view of a decision taken by the tyre industry, I thought that it was important to raise the subject for the benefit of hon. Members.
I have a passionate interest in tyres, having spent 20 years working for Dunlop as a tyre designer and latterly as a senior manager. My career was dedicated to tyres until I became a Member of Parliament, and I have many friends in the industry. I have some experience of the industry and my campaign for better tyre depth legislation dates back to my youth. I began to try to persuade Ministers and others about the issue in 1961.
I still advise the National Tyre Distributors Association, as I have done for many years. I am glad to say that, through its initiative, with the able co-operation of other organisations such as the British Rubber Manufacturers Association and the Retread Manufacturers Association, a new Tyre Industry Council has been formed. That is an important step, as many other industries are advised and represented and, therefore, have an interface with Parliament. It is a collective body, with coherent views being expressed throughout the industry. The formation of the council is a major step forward, enabling the industry to present its policies coherently and enabling hon. Members to deal with one organisation if they have queries about employment standards, training methods, technical standards and design.
The council, which will have an experienced chairman, will enable the industry to take a number of important initiatives. It will enable it to answer hon. Members' and their noble Lordships' queries and will promote the industry. I regret to say that it has not been as glamorous as some other industries. Most people regard tyres like exhausts—they hope that they will never wear out, but when they do it is a bitter blow. People do not fondle tyres or gleefully chuckle about them, unless they are fortunate enough to have steel-braced, low-profile tyres on their Ferraris or four-wheel drive Audis.
Tyres are the most vital part of a car's relationship with road safety, which is why I asked for the debate to be entitled "Road Safety and Tyres". If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I were both wearing size nine shoes, between our four feet we would have exactly the same contact with a road as the tyres of a car have. That is a quite shattering fact, given the heavy weight of a car and that it must move extremely rapidly in all weather conditions, often cornering sharply and frequently braking sharply. That size nine shoe contact means that tyres must be of extremely high quality, and their design is extremely important.
The European directive on tyre tread depths is important. I strongly urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider supporting the directive on 6 June at the Luxembourg meeting of the working group of Ministers. I understand that it is third on the agenda after seat belts and blood alchohol levels. The Minister for Roads and Traffic has said that there is proof that accidents are 1246 caused by the present tyre tread depth law. That law is inadequate. It provides for 1 mm of tyre tread across the surface of a tyre, provided it is visible. One shoulder can be worn down to almost nothing, but it is legal if the groove is still visible.
The House is not as packed with colleagues wishing to hear my speech as I would have hoped. My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) and for York (Mr. Gregory) are anxious to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall have no objection if they manage to do so. They are both experts and I shall be interested to hear the initiatives that they propose. If more hon. Members had been present, I would have adopted a novel approach and asked how many had checked their tyres. I might even have embarrassed them further by asking whether they knew the make or size of their tyres and when they last checked their tyre pressures. [Interruption.] At least one hon. Friend agrees that those might be interesting questions to put.
A Gallup poll shows that 19 per cent. of motorists never check their tyres. One group which is a member of the National Distributors Association and runs 100 depots has said that two thirds of the tyres that it changes are dangerous. The NTDA's members are the specialists to which one goes to get one's tyres changed. Dangerous tyres endanger the lives of the motorist, his wife and family and other road users. Their use reduces the pool of tyres available for retreading. It has been calculated that adoption of the European directive, providing for a tyre tread depth of 1.6 mm across the tyre, would make 1.5 million more tyres available for retreading. Surely, that is a major consideration.
My hon. Friend the Minister may argue that the deeper tread will cost the motorist more because a deeper tread means that the motorist gets less mileage out of a tyre and has to change it more frequently. The estimates vary, but Ministers have said that it will cost about £50 million or £60 million per annum. I suggest that my hon. Friend considers this issue carefully. On a net-net basis and taking account of the fact that steel-based tyres of current design last longer, over a two-year period the motorist will gain a benefit. He will benefit also on the replacement market, which is one of the most competitive markets in the car industry. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister has seen full-page advertisements in his local newspaper by local tyre dealers, vying with each other to offer discounts. To say that changing the law will greatly increase the cost to the motorist is not a strong argument, because he is benefiting already from the longer life of the tyre.
It is almost like young voters who did not experience the winter of discontent and therefore wonder whether they should vote Conversative, which I recommend that they do—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Good. They have never had the experience of a Labour Government and do not understand the bitter horror of such a prospect. Similarly, some motorists never change their tyres because their company car is changed every two or three years or they change their own car frequently. Tyres are lasting for 20,000, 30,000 or even 40,000 miles whereas in the old days of cross-ply tyres a motorist was lucky to get 7,000 or 8,000 miles. The combination of tyre technology and the competitive market gives the motorist a considerable benefit.
I do not want to take up the entire time allotted to the debate, because, if they are fortunate and you are feeling kind, Mr. Deputy Speaker, colleagues of quality can make 1247 their contributions. The most telling argument in favour of a tread depth of 1 mm or 1.6 mm across the tyre is that the motorist will benefit in cost terms. It will not cost him more. Having spent nearly 30 years in the industry, not only in motor racing but in designing truck and car tyres, I believe that it is sensible to have a tyre that gives better grip. It is difficult to argue that there is no evidence that this would be safer. A tyre depth of 1.6 mm would give a better grip.
My hon. Friend the Minister may quote a report by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, but his letter to me contains the key phrase,
Under normal conditions of wetness on roads".That means that a puddle on a corner is not normal; but this is Britain and rain does not, I hate to say, always obey ministerial diktat. If tests showed that there was little difference between the effects of the present tyre tread depth and the effects of the proposed 1.6 mm depth, I believe that it was because the water conditions were marginal. If my hon. Friend can guarantee that the roads in my constituency of Meriden, especially the M6 and M42, will always be adequately drained, I should be pleased to arrange a parliamentary question to enable him to give that answer. If he cannot give that guarantee, I ask him to reconsider tread depths.I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to encourage research and more positive attitudes by his Department and others and encourage the use of run-flat tyres. When I was at Dunlop, I was involved in the Denovo project, which was a failure, not because of technology, but, I suspect, because of lack of any motivation by car manufacturers to accept safety innovations, just as they have ignored safer windscreens and other items which are undoubtedly more expensive. The technology exists to produce a tyre that can he deflated without causing a problem and that can continue to run for a limited period. I gather that Conti has produced a similar product with a different design, yet it is foundering, just as Dunlop did with Denovo, because of lack of encouragement.
I know of the keen mind and impressive intellect of my hon. Friend the Minister and I urge him to speak to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has an equally impressive intellect, and ask him, in view of the billions of pounds that we shall spend on motorways, to provide adequate road surfaces, especially where there are likely to be rain and braking problems. Shell has Shell-grip, Dunlop has Delu-grip and there are a number of other processes which have been demonstrated to have a number of advantages in their interface with tyres. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to think of his size 9 or 10 shoes on 6 June and consider that when a tyre meets the road that is all it has to stand on and a 1.6 mm tread depth would squeeze out more water and be much safer.
§ Mr. Conal Gregory (York)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) on securing the debate and thank him for allowing me to participate. For a long time I have had an interest in road matters and I am vice-chairman of the Conservative parliamentary transport committee. I am happy to declare an interest as consultant to the tyre committee of the British Rubber Manufacturers Association which represents all six tyre manufacturers in the United Kingdom—Avon, Goodyear, Michelin, Pirelli, SP Tyres—formerly Dunlop to which my 1248 hon. Friend referred—and Uniroyal-Englebert. They are important employers who take their responsibilities seriously.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden said, the United Kingdom does not have tyre regulations that ensure high safety standards. In other transport matters, the Government have rightly given priority to safety. Unfortunately, the one aspect that has been passed by is vehicle tyres.
The present regulations were introduced in 1983, but are very similar to those introduced in 1968. In the intervening years motoring conditions have changed noticeably. I cannot believe that the tyre tread depth regulations suitable for 1968 are appropriate for present-day conditions.
There are clearly difficulties with the present legislation. The law falls into disrepute if it is not comprehended and cannot easily be enforced. Tyre law is such a case study. It may not be long before law colleges use tyre safety as an example of bad legislation. In a statement to the Select Committee on Transport in 1984, the Association of Chief Police Officers said:
The present law is difficult to understand and enforce. The requirements should be for a minimum 1 mm tread depth across the whole width of the tyre.Are we being good Europeans on tyre safety? No other European state except Spain has such low standards as the United Kingdom. In all other member states the requirement is 1 mm tread depth across the whole tread width, apart from Luxembourg where 1.6 mm is mandatory. The 1.6 mm depth is also the minimum requirement in many other non-EC states.The British motorist, who this bank holiday weekend ventures abroad with car tyres that are worn but legal in the United Kingdom, could be breaking the law elsewhere in the Community. With the advent of the single internal market in 1992, the idea of differing tread depths in differing member states will be as inappropriate as different regulations in two English counties.
If the Department is to get the legal and safety message across, we need a straightforward regulation which is easily enforceable. The present requirement of 1 mm across three quarters of the tread width and visible tread on the remaining quarter does not lend itself readily to an eye-catching safety poster. Perhaps that is why the Department has not produced one.
Wherever possible, the Government should base legislation on good research. I investigated whether there had been such research and I am happy to assure my hon. Friend the Minister that he can base changes in legislation, that I hope he will announce, on good solid research. The Tyre Industry Council, which my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden welcomed so heartily and which I applaud, has undertaken research which shows that well over 60 per cent. of all tyres changed were worn below the current legal minimum in the United Kingdom. That means that a high proportion of motorists are putting others on the road at risk.
The Transport and Road Research Laboratory has done some limited work on tread depth. However, its research is seriously flawed. One example sounds like an April Fool story. One of its conclusions was that a completely bald tyre is safer in wet conditions than a tyre with tread. That is nonsense. It is an Alice in Wonderland 1249 approach unworthy of the Government and it is profoundly worrying that Ministers could be influenced in any way by such nonsense.
Reference has already been made to the Department's comment about tread depth on normally well-drained roads. We cannot legislate for perfect laboratory conditions with some boffin's careful wording about normally well-drained roads. It would be embarrassing to ask the Minister which kilometres of road he was talking about. It is a statistical freak and unworthy of the Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden did not refer to the cost. In the most unlikely event that my hon. Friend the Minister were to try to find a reason for not amending the regulations, he would ask about the cost. Economists have estimated that it would cost £3.68 per car per year—around the price of two gallons of petrol. Are we saying that lives continue to be put at risk on British roads because of that small sum of money? I do not believe that my hon. Friend the Minister would defend that. However, there is a light at the end of the tunnel and that is 6 June.
The House is making history because we are debating, and, I hope, bringing guidance to our ministerial team before an EC decision is made on 6 June. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not go into battle on that occasion, but will say that the Department has seen the light, has realised the folly of some of its boffins and considers that it makes economic sense to improve road safety and that Britain, like Luxembourg, will take the lead, impose a real tread depth and put road safety first. We shall then be in a proud and better position in Europe and in Britain.
I heartily support my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden in his campaign and I hope that today's debate will give succour to the ministerial team in early June.
§ Mr. Roger King (Birmingham, Northfield)I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) and congratulate him on his good fortune in securing the debate. My hon. Friend is held in very high esteem in the tyre business. I attended a dinner last night at the Institute of the Motor Industry and people were waxing eloquent about his prowess as a tyre designer and engineer when he had a real job before he became a Member of Parliament.
I endorse what my hon. Friend said. I, too, have experience of wheels, as for seven years I ran a business manufacturing wheels for cars. Of course, wheels are no good unless they have tyres wrapped round them, so obviously I was closely connected with the tyre industry. In another modest capacity I advise the Retread Manufacturers Association by virtue of my long connection with the wheel and tyre business.
My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) has already touched on the significance of today's debate in that we are debating a measure which will be discussed fully by the European Commission on 6 June. Perhaps that is a precedent. I assure my hon. Friend the Minister that if he brings the measure back to the House, at least he will not risk my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South 1250 (Mr. Aitken) walking out because we did not have the chance to debate the matter beforehand and express our views.
It is time that this country took an initiative in the development of European law. This is one small but very important subject in which we can do so. If we take a positive role we can play a major part in producing an overall European scheme which is acceptable to us, instead of having to adapt our ideas to those of somebody else.
There is no doubt that the present law is widely flouted, as my hon. Friends have already pointed out. Figures showing that more than 60 per cent. of the tyres taken off cars are below the present United Kingdom minimum tread depth endorse that fact. One problem of existing law is how to interpret whether a tyre is running below the minimum requirement. A visual check is all that most of us make. Another Gallup poll shows that 19 per cent. of us do not even do that. Therefore, checks on tyres are entirely dependent on routine vehicle servicing or MOT tests when vehicles are given an annual check-up.
The MOT test is a strange aspect of our lives. When a vehicle is tested, provided its tyres are at the minimum legal level, it will pass. However, that vehicle could be driven for another 50 miles and then be flouting the law. That could occur within a couple of days or even on the same day as the test, which contains no element of potentiality. If it did, the examiner looking at the vehicle would decide not only whether it passed when it came in for the test, but whether it would run within the legal definition of the regulations on construction and use for a period after the test. The MOT test should be amended to ensure that when vehicles are tested, their tyres are not merely on the minimum level but a good deal above that, so that they can be used for a period after the test and still remain legal.
Our motorway systems are developing, vehicle speeds are increasing, and there has been mention recently about extending the width of motorways to four lanes. Private motorways and toll roads may not have speed restrictions. As those developments take place, higher standards of vehicle safety are prerequisites to enable those higher speeds to be achieved. Therefore, tyres, being the only source of contact between the vehicle and the ground, assume an ever more important role.
One fact of commercial and marketing life in the car industry is that it produces vehicles of higher and higher performance ability. Cars are now turbo charged and fuel injected, and ordinary saloon cars can easily obtain speeds of well over 100 or 120 mph; in some cases they are capable of travelling at 135 mph. Those are souped up, ordinary bread and butter saloon cars that are re-engineered to take into account the higher speeds: the suspension ratings, braking system and tyres are altered.
The tyres needed for such vehicles are high cost and of a high standard. My fear, and it is a growing fear within the business, is that when cars have cascaded down to the second and third user, the performance envelope will still be present but the owner will find it increasingly difficult to afford the cost of replacement, high-performance tyres and will be tempted to use his car, which has high performance potential, with tyres that have been reduced to the legal minimum and below.
It is difficult to correlate accident statistics with tyre depth, but to assume that bald tyres never have an impact on accident statistics would be to deny the facts. Tyres must be a contributory factor. They are the vehicle's only 1251 retardation source to slow it and stop it before an impact. If 16 vehicles were in a nose-to-tail accident in wet weather conditions on a motorway it would be difficult to say that any of them had failed to stop because of inadequate tyre depth. However, there are grounds for substantial doubt, and tyre depth has a role to play. Adopting more sensible and enforceable legislation providing for tyre depth of at least 1.6 mm across the width of the tyre, would play a major part in improving safety standards on roads.
My colleagues have touched on another problem that concerns the tyre industry—the enormous and growing problem of tyre waste. People tend not to appreciate the industrial waste problems that are caused by tyre disposal. Despite much thought about shredding tyres, recycling them using power stations to burn them as a source of energy or dumping them at sea to make new forms of barrier reefs, as is frequently done in Australia and other parts of the world to help with sea, ecological and environmental life, the prime problem remains that we are covering our island, waste pits and dumps with growing mountains of tyre carcases.
The problem is that industry cannot recycle tyres by retreading them because they fall below the legal minimum and their structure has been damaged. By introducing higher standards we can help with the recycling problem and save ourselves money and energy. Some people have said that we could save about 26 million gallons of oil if we were able to reclaim more of the tyres that are now scrapped because they have fallen below the present, difficult to define, legal tread depth.
Therefore, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will take account of the points raised this morning. It is an important issue and the legislation needs to be looked at because of the growing changes in the way cars are used, the speed at which they are used and the way in which people flout the law. The evidence is there. Should we continue to ignore it?
§ The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo)I begin with the pleasurable task of congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) on securing the debate. As I stand here in place of my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic, I feel inadequate to the task in everything except my shoe size. As I have listened to the expertise of my hon. Friends I was worried, not that I would fail a test of the depth of my tread, but that I might fail a test of the minimum depth of my knowledge on the subject. Certainly, I do not have a lifetime in the tyre industry as has my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden, to whom I am grateful for having introduced the subject.
My central point in responding to my hon. Friends is that this country has an outstanding road safety record which exists because the Government have always concentrated on acting on matters deemed of the greatest priority in road safety. They have always been concerned to act in a way that will produce demonstrably better road safety in the future. They have never allowed themselves to be carried away with enthusiasm for causes until sure that they would lead to improvements in standards.
I have just returned from an international conference in Edinburgh, at which our own safety record compared extremely favourably with those of the other countries represented. Attention was drawn to the fact that the 1252 United Kingdom has an extremely good record. However, there is scope for improvement. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport set the target of reducing road casualties by one third by the year 2000, from 300,000 per year to 200,000 per year. We set a short-term objective of reducing road deaths to fewer than 5,000 per year. The final figures for 1988 show that, with deaths at 5,050, which is 2 per cent. down on 1987 and the lowest for 25 years, we are well on target.
Our strategy for achieving those targets is to concentrate on action which has a proven ability to reduce casualties and which represents maximum value for money. Our priorities are to reduce casualties among vulnerable road users, notably pedestrians—where our performance is merely average—cyclists, children and motor cyclists. In order to achieve that we are working closely with local authorities on ways to increase levels of low-cost road engineering schemes to prevent accidents.
The European Commission's proposal is that tyres on all vehicles throughout the Community should have at least 1.6 mm of tread across the whole width. As my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden said, this compares with the United Kingdom's present requirements of 1 mm of tread across three quarters of the tyre and visible tread on the shoulder areas of the tyre. Tyres when new typically have about 8 mm of tread. We need to look at the Commission's proposal, which is not linked to our common objective of achieving a single European market, in terms both of the benefits to road safety and the costs to members of the public, including to businesses.
On the benefits side, the Commission claims that its proposal will bring road safety advantages and prevent accidents, but it has produced no evidence at all to support this contention. Very few road accidents are due to tyres being worn to between 1 mm and 2 mm tread depth. Tread depth variations in this range only make a significant difference to braking at speeds of over 50 mph on smooth roads in extremely wet conditions. Only a minority of accidents occur in those conditions. Most accidents occur on urban roads where speeds are lower.
Trunk road and motorway construction standards now specify rougher surfaces which give better adhesion, a point which my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden specifically raised. All main traffic routes in the United Kingdom are now surfaced in that way and we believe that this will be the case in most Community countries. Research by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory on a variety of road surface types has shown that Delagrip material, dense bitumen macadam and open-textured macadam showed lower resistance to skidding than pervious macadam and well-chipped, rolled asphalt.
Therefore, in our view, the Commission's proposals would save very few accidents. Although it is not a fact that Ministers can prevent it raining in this country, it is a fact that extremely wet conditions are statistically not very common in the United Kingdom. Most other member states also appear to have recognised that the Commission's proposals would not save many accidents. It is notable that of all the 12 member states in the Community only one has a minimum tread depth as high as 1.6 mm. That country is Luxembourg. Most member states require only 1 mm, although I admit that many require it across the whole width of the tyre.
I now turn to the costs. The current limit of 1 mm means that there is about 7 mm of usable tread on tyres 1253 —the difference between the 8 mm supplied with tyres are new and the 1 mm minimum tread. So moving the the limit from 1 mm to 1.6 mm means that on average tyres would have about a 10 per cent. shorter life before they have to be replaced. That 10 per cent. increase would cost over £50 million per year in the United Kingdom. I know that my hon. Friends had foreseen my argument on that matter. Over the Community as a whole, the corresponding figure would be in the range of £300 million to £350 million. When listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden, I was not sure that that argument was weakened by the fact that new tyres are of a higher quality and last longer. A further element of cost comes from the Commission's proposal requiring the 1.6 mm depth to apply across the whole width of the tyre rather than as in the United Kingdom, only over three quarters of the width. We estimate that that would cost about another £20 million per year.
Of course, the tyre industry would think that that money was well spent, but other industries might not be so sure about it. We think that there is a better means of ensuring safer tyres than raising the minimum tread depth, and that is better compliance by motorists with the present limits. At last, I find myself in agreement with my hon. Friends who said that the compliance rate was currently unsatisfactory. They pointed out that research by the tyre industry has suggested that a high percentage of tyres are below the existing legal limit. Our own research shows that over 1.75 million vehicles per year currently fail the MOT test because of tyre defects, and that most of those involve illegal tread.
What, then, would be the effect of raising the limit to 1.6 mm? We can assume that a still higher proportion of vehicles than at present would fail the test; but we are not sure that it would do anything to improve the safety of tyres which already fail the MOT test. Our main message for motorists must be that they should observe the existing limits, which they do not sufficiently at present. In other words, our priority should be to make sure that we improve the success rate in jumping over the present hurdle before we start raising the bar.
The MOT test takes place only once a year. My hon. Friends were right that it does not ensure good condition for the rest of the year. We announced earlier this year our intention to empower the police and the Department's vehicle examiners to prohibit the movement of cars and motor cycles which are in a dangerous condition. Safe vehicle condition is extremely important. The various inspection procedures in the United Kingdom, including the MOT test, play a part in keeping down the number of accidents. The MOT testing scheme stands up well to international comparison. We have regularly moved ahead of the European Community requirements in this area.
The annual MOT test has proved to be a good way of policing the quality of tyres. The large number of vehicles that failed the MOT test in 1986 because of defective tyres provided proof of its effectiveness. But more than that, an experienced mechanic examining the vehicle will quickly detect not only the places where the tread is worn to below the legal limit, but other defects such as cuts and bulges. In no other European Community country are vehicle tyres examined as frequently as they are in the United Kingdom. 1254 That is doubtless one of the reasons why accident surveys have shown so few cases in which defective tyres have been a contributory cause of an accident.
Last year agreement was reached in the Community on mandatory testing of light goods vehicles. Member states that are setting up a testing scheme for the first time have until 1995 to implement the directive. In Britain on the other hand, we have tested light goods vehicles for many years already.
In short, we have no evidence of clear safety benefits from the Commission's proposal on tyre tread—
§ Mr. MillsI am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend at this stage, when we have only a couple of minutes left. I was hoping that my hon. Friend's latest point would be on the MOT and the way in which it operates and that he would say something about better enforcement. I had thought that my hon. Friend was about to announce a major Government publicity campaign to inform motorists. In the past, our hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) has encouraged tyre distributors, the British Rubber Manufacturers Association and others to improve their information services. I must inform my hon. Friend that the formation of the Tyre Industry Council has included a full public information service on industry matters and especially on matters relating to tyre safety.
I remember a written answer of some years ago that stated that the Department's expenditure on tyre safety publicity was vestigial at £8,000. If my hon. Friend cannot give me a promise now—I realise that he may not be able to do so—will he consider discussing with his colleagues in the Department of Transport a major and co-operative campaign so that people will know about this issue and so that two thirds of cars are not found to have dangerous tyres at their MOT tests?
§ Mr. PortilloI am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic will be interested and pleased to hear about the proposals for publicity that have been put forward by the Tyre Industry Council. At the moment, my hon. Friend's priorities relate to child restraints, to publicity aimed at child pedestrians and at improving conspicuousness, and to continuing the campaign against drinking and driving. Doubtless he will be interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden has just said and will wish to take that into account.
We want to listen carefully to the debate in the Council of Ministers on 5 or 6 June. However, at the moment we do not see that clear evidence has been produced by the Commission to support its view that we should have a new standard of tyre depths across the Community of 1.6 mm.
§ Mr. Gregoryrose—
§ Mr. PortilloNo, I want to conclude.
My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden raised the question of run-flat tyres. We are aware of the various run-flat tyre innovations, and we note, as he did, that the vehicle industry has not taken up the idea to any great extent. We have altered the construction and use regulations to encourage the use of Dunlop Denovo run-flats. We would do the same again if necessary, subject to being satisfied on the safety of the particular tyre that was being proposed.