WRITTEN QUESTION P-2824/00 by Peter Skinner (PSE) to the Commission. Cross-channel ferry operators.
Date: 2000-09-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: cross-channel connection, duty-free sale, intra-EU trade

3.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 103 E/225

(2001/C 103 E/264)

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(cid:146)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(cid:146)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 (cid:129) 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(cid:146)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.

C 103 E/226

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.4.2001

The Honourable Member(cid:146)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(cid:146)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.

(2001/C 103 E/265)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2829/00

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(4 September 2000)

Subject: Temporary authorisation for certain plant protection products

Regulation (EC) No 451/2000 (1) is concerned with implementation of the second and third stages of the
crop protection directive (91/414/EEC) (2). Article 15, second subparagraph, of the regulation specifies that
temporary measures may be taken to permit certain plant protection products if there is technical evidence
of the need for the use of these products and if there are no efficient alternatives.

1. What are the reasons for Article 15, second subparagraph, of the regulation, and what is its purpose?

Does the Commission feel that it can allow Member States, pursuant to Article 15, to authorise
2.
products which do not satisfy the criteria laid down in the uniform principles concerning the marketing of
plant protection products?

If so, does the Commission agree that this is an infringement of the relevant directives and that there

3.
is a need to amend the directives?

If the Commission wishes to create a legal basis for temporary measures, how will it guarantee that

4.
temporary measures are not taken for reasons of business economics?

How will the Commission guarantee that temperature measures do not impede, but encourage,

5.
innovation?

Is the Commission aware of the Dutch government(cid:146)s bill to amend the Pesticides Act of 1962
6.
(agriculturally essential crop protection products) (27076)? The bill proposes permitting, or continuing to
permit, plant protection products which are essential for agricultural purposes. The Netherlands is the only
Member State which will apply this criterion. Does this criterion conform with European rules, both now
and in the near future? Does the Commission think that the Dutch example will be followed by other
Member States?

(1) OJ L 55, 29.2.2000, p. 25.
(2) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 September 2000)

1. and 2.
Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991, concerning the placing of plant protection
products on the market sets up a harmonised framework for the authorisation, placing on the market, use
and control of plant protection products in the Community.