WRITTEN QUESTION P-2824/00

by Peter Skinner (PSE) to the Commission

(4 September 2000)

Subject: Cross-channel ferry operators

Is the Commission aware that ferry companies in the south-east of England, namely P&O/Stena Line and Sea France, have doubled their fares from £ 100 to £ 200 within two years and that there is no difference in price or competition between the above ferry companies and Eurotunnel?

Does the Commission agree that the possibility exists of all the cross-channel ferry operators acting as a monopoly and that this is strictly against EU law? If so, what action does it intend to take?

The ferry companies operating from Portsmouth to France charge a price similar to the ferries operating from Dover to Calais, although the former journey is twice as long. The ferry operators from Portsmouth to France have only increased ferry charges by a reasonable amount. Can the Commission investigate this anomaly?

Does the Commission agree that EU commercial passenger transport companies may not restrict either the sale of tickets based on the need to supply a mainland address as end of destination or the luggage carried by cross-channel car passengers using a day return ticket?

Finally, does the Commission agree that the removal of duty-free goods from sale on cross-channel ferries has not resulted in any reduction in sales of those goods, as they still are substantially cheaper than goods purchased on the mainland?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(26 September 2000)

In his first question the Honourable Member states that P&O Stena Line and SeaFrance have doubled their fares from £ 100 to £ 200 within two years and that there is no difference in price or competition between these companies and Eurotunnel. Unfortunately, the Honourable Member does not mention to what type of ticket these fares relate (single, return, number of passengers in the car, etc.). The Commission's own random comparison of fares offered by the three operators in question shows that they offer a range of fares, varying from as low as £ 37 to as high as £ 332, with Eurotunnel appearing to charge, on average, significantly higher prices than the two ferry operators. The comparison also provides clear evidence of competition on price as between the two ferry operators.

With regard to the Honourable Member's second question, the Commission shares his concern that there should be effective competition between the cross-channel operators. While a comparison of fares appears to show that such competition currently exists, the Commission will obviously have the afore-mentioned objective in mind when deciding whether to renew the existing exemption for the P&O Stena Line joint venture an exemption which, as the Honourable Member may be aware, expires in March 2001.

In his third question the Honourable Member states that the ferry companies offering services from Portsmouth to France charge prices that are similar to those charged for services from Dover to Calais, although the journey from Portsmouth is twice as long as that from Dover. In the Commission's view, there is unlikely to be a direct correlation between the length of the journey and the cost to the operator of providing the ferry service. It is also unlikely that a journey from Portsmouth would be regarded by most cross-channel passengers as having an economic value superior to that of a journey from Dover. Against that background, it would not be anomalous if fare levels on the two services were broadly similar.

The Honourable Member's fourth question refers to restrictions on the sales of cross-channel day return tickets. If this question refers to a practice actually being applied by an operator or operators, the Commission would be grateful for further information about the practice, in order to enable it to give the Honourable Member an informed and considered reply.

The Commission understands the Honourable Member's final question as stating that goods previously sold as duty-free goods continue to be sold at (tax inclusive) prices substantially below those offered on land and that for that reason sales of these goods have not fallen. The Commission is unable to confirm that such is the case and would therefore be most grateful if the Honourable Member could provide the information on which he has based his statement.