Government response
Introduction
We believe the report to be an objective analysis
of the UK Automotive Industry, which has successfully embraced
the challenges and opportunities of globalisation and not only
survived, but thrived. DTI is committed to building on this success,
developing the work of the Automotive Academy, to address the
skills issue, and we continue to work with other Government departments
and others to ensure that the regulatory environment is balanced
in its approach towards UK manufacturing. This response follows
the summary of conclusions and recommendations as set out in the
Committee's Report.
UK Vehicle Production
1. The UK is still a competitive place to make
vehicles, but, regardless of this, individual plants may still
close. However, the risk of this will be reduced, and the prospects
of continued investment in the remaining plant will be maximised,
if constraints on competitiveness are identified and minimised.
Whilst the UK is acknowledged to be a good venue for automotive
production, our witnesses identified a number of areas of concern
in the course of our inquiry. (Paragraph 22)
We believe this to be an objective assessment of
the situation, and the Government are taking a number of initiatives
to ensure UK remains a competitive location for automotive production,
described in more detail below. Illustrating our continued success,
car production is around 1.6% up on 2003's figure, with exports
representing 71% of the last 12 months output. Commercial vehicle
output is also strong, with the last 12-month total increasing
to 208,433 representing an annualised growth of 10.8%. CV export
figures continue to rise with over 59% exported. 12-month UK vehicle
production is approaching 1.87 million, of which nearly 70% is
exported.
Migration of Production
2. The industry's preference for building close
to market means that significant vehicle production is currently
unlikely to shift from the UK to low-cost economies such as India
or China. Companies that have production facilities in the UK
are increasingly involved in these markets, frequently through
joint ventures with indigenous companies. But we were told that
these are generally to gain access to markets that are anticipated
to grow substantially in coming years. Vehicle production in these
locations is not aimed at producing cars for export back into
Europe and the UK. (Paragraph 55)
3. It seems that UK production is unlikely to
migrate to the EU accession countries in the short term. Car companies
work on an international basis and have been investing heavily
in the accession countries for some time so there seems little
prospect of an immediate 'shock' to UK vehicle production. However,
there will inevitably be more intensification of competition between
EU members, old and new, for future investment in manufacturing
and this will increase the competitive pressure on the UK. (Paragraph
61)
This accords with DTI's assessment of the situation.
Competition is intense between EU members both to attract potential
new investment, and to retain existing investments when companies
find they have excess capacity. DTI continues to work with other
Government departments to ensure UK's competitiveness in such
areas as taxation policy, environmental legislation, and employment
legislation, and this has yielded impressive results. BMW is investing
in their engine plant to take production from 140,000 to over
300,000 units per annum. Toyota have just announced a £50m
investment to increase production by 65,000 units, resulting in
500 new jobs. Nissan have announced that the new 'Tone' will be
built at Sunderland, safeguarding 650 jobs. Ford are investing
£115m to produce a new generation of 6-speed gearboxes at
Halewood, with Government agreeing to provide £5m under the
Selective Finance of Investment in England (SFIE) framework. The
European Commission has approved an SFIE grant for improvements
to Peugeot's Ryton plant for production of the successor to the
highly successful 206. There are numerous other examples of significant
investments around the UK in car and commercial vehicle assembly
plants and component manufacturers.
Components Sector
4. The automotive components sector is a difficult
market to operate in. There is considerable pressure from the
vehicle manufacturers to both innovate and to reduce costs on
a continuing basis. Margins are tight, yet investment is clearly
required: our evidence suggests that those companies that do not
focus on high value added products will find it hard to survive.
Yet it is important that the UK retains, and, indeed, grows its
automotive supply base. With vehicle manufacturers purchasing
entire systems and passing an increased amount of the burden for
R&D on to their suppliers, an increasing proportion of the
value added of the car is accounted for by its components. This
is a trend that is likely to continue with developments such as
telematics. Consequently, it is vital that Government and industry
representatives continue to collaborate to boost skills and investment
in the sector. (Paragraph 44)
The UK remains a good place for the industry to do
business, and the best UK automotive component companies are world-class
performers. But there is a wide spread of capability
in the supply base as a whole and Government is committed
to work with industry through organisations including SMMT Industry
Forum and the Automotive Academy to help all companies raise
their performance to the level of the best. We agree with
the committee that a globally competitive supply base is essential if
the industry is to survive and grow and that collaboration
between industry and Government can help bring this about. One
example is the Supply Chain Groups programme, which helps
fund improvement activities and skills development
in the automotive supply base. Funding for this activity
was a recommendation of the Automotive Innovation and Growth
Team in 2002.
Skills
5. Unless the UK is seen to have solved the basic
skills problem rapidly, the comparative advantage enjoyed by our
competitors may be a significant factor in decisions by companies
on where to locate production. (Paragraph 29).
6. We are pleased to see that the issue of skills
is being taken seriously by both industry and Government. The
Automotive Academy is an innovative solution to the problem in
an industry where processes are increasingly high-tech and innovation
and adaptability are crucial and where persistent skills shortages
could threaten the UK's continued success. As well as the involvement
and support from Government and unions, it is encouraging that,
in an intensely competitive industry, the individual companies
have been able to collaborate, as they have done in the Industry
Forum, in establishing the Automotive Academy. With skills a problem
throughout the industry and with a shared interest in improving
the situation, collective effort would seem to have the best chance
of success. (Paragraph 28)
Both the 2003 White Paper: 21st Century
Skills, Realising Our Potential, Individuals, Employers, Nation
and the DTI review of the Government's manufacturing strategy
published in July 2004, recognise skills as a key driver of productivity.
An automotive Sector Skills Agreement is under development by
SEMTA, one of the pathfinder Sector Skills Councils, aiming to
reshape public and private skills investment in the sector and
its supply chains. The Automotive Academy established under the
auspices of SMMT, with funding from DTI, is working closely with
SEMTA and the Industry Forum to implement change programmes. We
recognise that launching the Academy is a means to an end and
officials from DTI's Automotive Unit will continue to work in
close partnership with industry, both on the Board of the Academy
and through day-to-day contacts, to maximise the chances of success.
Around half of the £16m public investment in
the motorsport sector, announced in July 2003, is earmarked for
work on skills. In motorsport as in automotive, responsive and
high-quality providers of training are essential if the UK's competitive
position is to be maintained. The Motorsport Academy is a collaborative
venture between Government, industry and training providers to
raise standards and ensure that courses are tailored to industry
needs. In addition, the motorsport sector is working with automotive,
aerospace and allied sectors to promote engineering to young people
through the 'Learning Grid', a range of activities and competitions
which allow students to gain practical experience of technology,
team-working and competition.
On the retail side, the new sector skills council,
Automotive Skills Ltd (ASL), is developing strategies for improving
skills and training in the automotive retail sector.
Regulation
7. UK-based firms should not be disadvantaged
by the way in which regulations are interpreted and implemented.
A central plank of the Government's policy on Europe should be
to ensure the consistent implementation of regulations throughout
member countries. In this context, we note the recent statements
by Ministers of their intention to scrutinise the National Allocation
Plans of other Member States in relation to the European Union
Emissions Trading Scheme and to raise any doubts about insufficiently
rigorous proposals in such plans with the European Commission.
We also urge any company with evidence that other Member States
are not playing by the rules on regulation to bring this evidence
formally to the attention of the Commission—otherwise there
will be no action to rectify the situation. (Paragraph 87)
8. For environmental reasons, it is unlikely that
the pace of regulations affecting the automotive industry will
ease. Promoting investment in R&D to maximise opportunities
for Britain to get the competitive advantage in producing the
technologies to meet these challenges is therefore crucial. It
is important that the Government plays an active role in supporting
this and does not allow either national or European bureaucracy
to inhibit such support being given. (Paragraph 85)
The DTI has been working hard, through the Vehicle
Industry Policy and European Regulation Group (VIPER) to ensure
a consistently enforced level playing field that will not disadvantage
UK-based firms. Equally important is the need to influence the
development of new regulation and policy across Government and
in Brussels so that it takes full account of the impact on the
competitiveness of the industry in the UK, and that it achieves
its policy objectives with the minimum burden on the companies
concerned. This can only be done if detailed consultation takes
place with companies from the very earliest stage in the development
of policy, and if policy-makers in one area are aware of the cumulative
impact not only of their own regulations but also of other forms
of regulation on this particularly highly regulated sector.
The handling of the recent proposals on fluorinated
gases, which included air conditioning in vehicles, is a good
example of the VIPER process at work and we have received positive
feedback from industry on our approach. This involved early and
open consultation between stakeholders and joined-up Government
departments, to achieve a coherent strategic approach and a robust
Regulatory Impact Assessment. This resulted in a more informed
debate leading to a positive and better-refined proposal that
better balanced the competitiveness issues with the economic,
social and environmental ones.
We are seeking to replicate the consultative processes
established by the VIPER group in Whitehall at the European level,
and we have been working with other Member States and with the
European Commission to bring this about. The UK has also been
leading work across Europe on Competitiveness Testing, which is
expected to deliver a more rigorous and robust impact assessment
process when considering new legislation. In the context of the
European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme, we will continue to
do all we can to ensure that it does not damage the competitiveness
of UK industry. We will continue to push for stringent analysis
to ensure ambitious National Allocation Plans (NAP) from those
few countries yet to be assessed. We are also requesting the Commission
to supply more information on how its analysis, based on the projected
emissions from installations covered, has been carried out. This
is a key aspect of the NAP assessment process. Transparency on
this point would therefore ensure that the basis of the Commission
decisions is demonstrably robust, consistent and transparent.
Throughout this process we have maintained a strong dialogue
with the automotive sector on this issue, which we feed into Whitehall
policy making.
Notwithstanding the role of regulation, we recognise
the opportunities for innovation in response to environmental
and other drivers for change. We are strongly promoting greater
investment in R&D, through various channels including tax
credits and DTI's technology strategy, to ensure our industries
are at the leading edge of global technology developments.
A recent OECD international survey put the UK at
the forefront of regulatory reform, whilst a recent KPMG study
of 7 European countries ranked the UK first in competitiveness.
A World Bank study of 145 countries placed the UK top in the
EU and 7th in the top 20 economies in the world with
the best business conditions, stating of the UK: "all the
top countries regulate, but they do so in less costly and burdensome
ways".
R&D
9. Research and Development is fundamental to
the continued success of the UK automotive sector, but we heard
concerns that the UK is falling behind its competitors. With industry
input, it is hoped that the Centres of Excellence can successfully
commercialise research in the key areas of low carbon and fuel
cell technology and telematics and sustainable mobility. We are,
however, concerned at the apparent delays in establishing the
centres. The announcement of their location is now overdue and
the SMMT told us that, whilst progress was being made, "a
kick up the backside" for those involved was required. (Paragraph
81)
We agree that the creation of the Centres of Excellence
represents a significant opportunity for UK businesses to prosper
from knowledge transfer and the application of key technologies
relevant to the future of the car and other road vehicles. Success
of the project, however, depends on clustering and co-ordinating
the strengths that already exist in the UK across a number of
organisations and sectors. We fully recognise there have been
delays brought about by the challenge of marshalling this critical
mass at national level, but it is important that we do not compromise
the objectives through inappropriate haste. We are pleased that
work for both Centres has now entered the launch phase supported
by DTI funding. Expert launch Directors backed by a project management
team are in place, with the key task of signing up members. It
is intended that the Centres will be established as independent
legal entities by March 2005 with details of location, staffing
and deliverables to be determined by the Business Plans, which
are being finalised in parallel. This work is aligned with the
development of the DTI's broader Technology Strategy aiming to
improve the take up of key underpinning and potentially disruptive
technologies with widespread and clearly defined applications,
not least where the UK is likely to be able to exploit such developments
in the supply chain.
10. It may be too early for the Government to
back a specific cleaner fuel technology but leadership may ultimately
be required in order to stimulate the roll-out of the infrastructure
required to make cleaner fuel cars commercially viable. (Paragraph
82)
The Government's ambition of achieving a significant
shift towards low-carbon road vehicles and fuels in the UK, with
our own industries at the cutting edge of these developments,
is laid out in the Powering Future Vehicles Strategy. A joint
Ministerial Low Carbon Group of key Ministers from across Government
oversees the implementation of the strategy with key stakeholders
engaged through interactions with the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership.
The strategy, which is deliberately fuel and technology neutral,
focuses on actions and not just words. For example, over 22% of
the R&D spend in the £100m Foresight Vehicle Programme
has been directed at powertrain innovations. Presently the Government
has a number of grant programmes, such as the New Vehicle Technology
Fund, to help fund the research, development and demonstration
of future, low carbon vehicles. The total amount that the Government
spends on this area is in excess of £100m per annum. This
is more fully described in the PFV second annual report, published
in October 2004. This demonstrates firm commitment by Government
to the goals of the original strategy and a determination to ensure
they are achieved.
11. It is also important that research is not
excessively concentrated on alternative fuels. The internal combustion
engine will continue to be the means of powering the majority
of cars for the foreseeable future. Considerable improvements
have been made and will continue to be made in the environmental
and economic efficiency of such engines—both petrol and,
especially, diesel—so it is important that research in this
area is not neglected by the UK. Again we were made aware of the
potential of the UK's performance engineering and motorsports
sectors in developing more environmentally efficient propulsion
systems. (Paragraph 83)
Powertrain is a major UK strength, both in terms
of engine development and manufacture. DTI has supported R&D
by the powertrain sector, until recently through the Foresight
Vehicle LINK programme and currently through the DTI's technology
programme where Environmentally Friendly Transport was a key theme
in the April 2004 call. Here, six new R&D projects with an
automotive interest and a bid value of £6.5 million have
been invited by the Department into contract negotiations. In
addition, DTI has approved £0.75m for the Low Carbon and
Fuel Cells Centre of Excellence to host a Knowledge Transfer Network
in this area. The Government's Carbon to Hydrogen Roadmap for
passenger cars, prepared by Ricardo, shows a stepwise progression
of powertrain systems through higher voltage systems, increased
electrification of the drivetrain, mild and full hybridisation
leading ultimately to the application of fuel cells over 30 years.
This evolutionary trajectory presents opportunities for today's
industry, including design engineering and motorsports sectors.
A DTI study on the powertrain sector is expected to be completed
later in the year, highlighting the opportunities and threats.
The Government agrees that the UK's world-leading
motorsport sector has a role to play in developing more environmentally
friendly powertrains and is investing in this area. At present,
motorsport regulations give little incentive for fuel-efficiency
since engine power is typically limited by an air restrictor,
with no limit on the amount of fuel that may be used. Drawing
on £16m of Government investment in the sector, the Motorsport
Development Board, is developing new regulations that will limit
fuel flow and hence provide teams with an incentive to develop
and test new technologies. As well as promoting efficiency, the
regulations will allow the use of alternative fuels such as bioethanol,
biodiesel and hydrogen.
The Euro
12. There can be little doubt that non-membership
of the Euro has created difficulties for the UK automotive sector.
Initially, the high value of Sterling against the Euro meant that
UK exports were particularly expensive. With the value of the
Euro having appreciated against Sterling in the intervening period,
the rate of the two currencies is less of a concern now. Whilst
the vehicle manufacturers would mostly prefer the value of the
Euro to be higher still, the issue of predictability is of greater
concern at the moment; exchange rate fluctuations can significantly
reduce margins, which are already tight. Whilst large vehicle
manufacturers and tier 1 suppliers may be better equipped to cope
with these fluctuations than smaller companies further down the
supply chain, it is an issue for even the biggest manufacturers.
(Paragraph 52)
In principle, the Government is in favour of UK membership
of EMU; in practice, the economic conditions must be right. The
determining factor underpinning any Government decision on membership
of the single currency is the national economic interest and whether
the economic case for joining is clear and unambiguous. The automotive
sector is one of many aspects that have to be considered when
deciding whether the national economic interest is best served
by UK membership of EMU.
Government procurement
13. All Government departments and agencies should
examine their own methods to satisfy themselves that they are
not operating procurement rules too inflexibly and that they take
full account of the importance of their own role in promoting
and safeguarding the UK manufacturing base. (Paragraph 86)
DTI is working actively with other government departments
to drive forward an ambitious programme of reform to increase
professionalism in procurement. Work is also underway to develop
a view of UK business's experiences of competing for public procurement
contracts in other EU countries—including concerns about
unfair discrimination.
The Government is committed to British manufacturing,
and helping manufacturers gear up for procurement in the UK is
part of our Manufacturing Strategy. DTI wants to see British companies
winning business wherever they are competitive, within the framework
of EC rules (as well as government policy) that all public procurement
decisions must be taken on grounds of value for money. To this
end, the Government will be following up a report by Alan Wood,
commissioned by the Treasury, which found evidence of discrimination
by some EU countries in favour of home-based companies, to the
disadvantage of UK firms. The Chancellor will be raising this
with EU finance ministers on Tuesday 16th November.
MG Rover
14. We were assured that MG Rover's proposed joint
ventures and its investment in plant abroad would not impact detrimentally
on the prospects for future production at Longbridge. For example,
Mr Towers assured us that production of the Rover 75 would continue
at Longbridge, even if negotiations to acquire a plant in Poland
are successful. (Paragraph 18)
15. Some press reports have suggested that PVH
has little interest in continuing production at Longbridge and
that MG Rover is being starved of funds to the benefit of the
owners of PVH. We found no evidence to suggest that its owners
have any intention other than trying to compete as best they can.
The fact is, however, that both the history of MG Rover and its
continuing role as the only UK-owned manufacturer mean that its
affairs are likely to remain in the spotlight of public attention.
We are also conscious that the trade unions and others have expressed
concerns about some of the decisions that the PVH directors have
made, including the scale of the benefits awarded. It is important
that PVH finds ways of transparently promoting good governance,
to dispel any doubts about the way in which its assets could be
used in the future and to underline that sustainable car production
at Longbridge remains its core focus. We therefore welcome Mr
Towers' commitment to introduce a covenanting arrangement and/or
appoint independent representation on the PVH board by the end
of the year. (Paragraphs 15, 18, 19 and 20)
MG Rover is an important part of the automotive industry,
with many jobs not only at Longbridge but also throughout the
supply chain dependent on the success of their products. We note
with interest the progress being made on negotiations regarding
the company's alliance with Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation,
and hope that a deal will help to secure the future of manufacturing
at Longbridge.
We will continue to look closely at MG Rover's performance
and believe that all of the employees should benefit from the
Company's performance.
The Government has noted that a non-executive director
has been appointed to the board of Phoenix Venture Holdings, in
line with good corporate governance and meeting a promise made
by the Company earlier this year.
Car Prices and the Consumer
16. Car prices have fallen since this issue was
last considered by our predecessor Committee. However, it seems
clear that there is still scope for individual consumers to pay
less for their cars. If the discounts offered to fleet purchasers
were not as large, the margins with which dealers could trade
with individual customers would not be as slim. We can see no
reason why the discounts offered to fleet purchasers should be
greater than those offered to any other bulk buyer such as a large
retailer. There has been consolidation in the car retailing market.
If bulk purchases by dealers were discounted in a similar way
to fleet purchases of a similar size, consumers might benefit
from this consolidation. At the moment that does not appear to
be the case. Under these circumstances we would recommend that
the Office of Fair Trading re-examine this area. (Paragraph 68)
The Supply of New Cars Order 2000 already regulates
the discounts that can be offered to fleet customers. Article
2 on non-discrimination between fleet customers and dealers states
that: (i) it shall be unlawful for a supplier to discriminate
unjustifiably between fleet customers and dealers who purchase
new cars outright in respect of discounts given for the supply
of the same or similar number of new cars supplied over the same
or similar period of time; and (ii) in determining whether discrimination
is justifiable in any particular case regard shall be had as to
whether the value of the terms and conditions agreed with a dealer
is broadly similar to the value of fleet supply agreements recently
entered into by that supplier, taking into account the nature
of the dealer agreement and fleet supply agreements in question
and any additional benefits given or agreed which are financed
by the supplier.
In January 2002 the OFT reported on its investigation
of three major car suppliers following complaints from the National
Franchised Dealer Association and the Consumers' Association that
the Order was being breached. It found that: overall, the value
of the terms and conditions offered to dealers were broadly similar
to those offered to fleet purchasers, when all additional benefits
were taken into account; and, although dealers were unable to
obtain, in general, the very best offers made to fleet customers,
they were offered—in keeping with the Order—at least
the equivalent of the average fleet customer discount for a particular
model after taking into account all the benefits. The OFT concluded
that there was no evidence of unjustifiable discrimination between
discounts for fleet customers and dealers for the supply of similar
volumes of new cars. Since this investigation we understand the
OFT has received no substantive evidence from the National Franchised
Dealers Association or individual dealers that Article 2 of the
Order is being breached.
In addition, the Competition Commission in its report
on New Cars[2] viewed its
recommendations subsequently embodied in the Order, as being of
an interim nature while the combined selective and exclusive distribution
system operated by car suppliers under the old motor vehicles
block exemption regulation[3]
was being brought to an end. Under the new block exemption regulation,[4]
from October 2003 car suppliers have been required to opt for
either a selective or exclusive distribution system. A prohibition
on a manufacturer's ability to place limits on where sales outlets
can be located across the EU also comes into force in October
2005. We agree with the OFT, therefore, that it would be premature
to launch a new investigation into car prices before the changes
introduced by the new regulation are fully in force and the expected
greater competition in the sale of new cars has had time to develop.
Servicing and Repair
17. It seems that the aim of creating greater
competition in the market for servicing and repairing cars is
having limited impact. Vehicle manufacturers can now give independent
garages 'Authorised Repairer' Status. However, the criteria set
by the manufacturers to achieve this status vary widely, with
some manufacturers effectively requiring investment of tens of
thousands of pounds. Others have set significantly easier criteria.
This would seem to indicate that the level of investment required
by those that have set them higher is a barrier to entry rather
than a genuine requirement for being able to service their vehicle
properly. We fail to see, for instance, how specifying the type
of carpet tiles required in the reception areas can have any impact
on the quality of servicing and repair that a garage offers. (Paragraphs
72 and 74)
18. It also seems that the market for aftermarket
spares is being limited by the difficulty in accessing the technical
specifications of the cars. (Paragraph 73)
19. The CarWise scheme is to be welcomed. If it
sets standards for both the level of training that technicians
have and for their conduct then it will be beneficial for consumers
both in terms of ensuring a minimum level of skills and promoting
competition. However, this will not address the shortcomings with
the Authorised Repairer status discussed above nor the need for
franchised dealers to try to cross-subsidise their car sales from
their servicing and repair work. (Paragraph 76)
20. The car market is clearly highly competitive
and sales margins are tight. However, we see no reason why consumers
should suffer restrictive practices in the servicing and repair
of their cars. We believe that some of the conditions imposed
on those wishing to become Authorised Repairers are anti-competitive,
and we recommend that the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) investigate
these practices. (Paragraph 76)
The OFT confirm that they have already investigated
a number of complaints relating to the network selection criteria
set by vehicle manufacturers for new car sales and also for servicing
and repair, with some success. For example, the OFT investigated
Peugeot's "Blue Box" corporate branding requirement
that the exterior of buildings had to be clad in blue, since it
was considered to have the potential to prevent dealers from selling
different makes of car. Although it was found that the requirement
was not compulsory, contrary to dealer perceptions, Peugeot was
asked to remind its dealers that the requirement was indeed optional
in order to dispel any remaining doubts amongst its dealers.[5]
The OFT has also intervened to ensure that technical information
is made available to independent garages.
Improved consumer choice and the development of more
effective competition in the servicing and repair market has also
been brought about by the OFT persuading car manufacturers to
lift servicing restrictions in new car warranties.[6]
This has effectively widened the market so that consumers now
have a choice between using independent garages or the vehicle
manufacturers' authorised repairers for new car servicing as well
as used. As a consequence, authorised repairer selection criteria
do not present a barrier to entry into this wider market. Potential
competition between some 18,000 independent garages and 6,000
authorised repairers should ensure a reduction in the relatively
higher cost of servicing and repair that the OFT has found at
authorised repairers.[7]
The conditions that manufacturers can impose on their authorised
repairers will therefore be subject to competitive constraints.
More generally, the European Commission, when drafting
the new motor vehicles block exemption, recognised that in view
of the investment which has to be made by an authorised repairer,
apart from existing dealers whose contract has been ended, it
cannot be expected that many independent repairers will qualify
to become official repairers.[8]
Nevertheless, we understand the OFT will continue to investigate
practices in the servicing and repair market where there are appreciable
actual or potential anti-competitive effects.
2 Competition Commission',New cars: A report on
the supply of new motor cars within the UK, April 2000, Cm
4660, paragraph 2.479 Back
3
Commission Regulation 1475/1995/EEC on the application of Article
85(3) of the Treaty to categories of motor vehicle distribution
and servicing agreements Back
4
Commission Regulation 1400/2002/EEC on the application of Article
81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted
practices in the motor vehicles sector Back
5
OFT News Release 124/04 'OFT steps in over confusion on corporate
branding for Peugeot dealers', 10 August 2004 Back
6
OFT News Release 85/04 'Servicing ties removed from new car warranties',
14 May 2004 Back
7
New Car Warranties, December 2003, OFT683 Back
8
Official Journal C 67, 16 March 2002, page 20, paragraph 39 Back
| 
