ism on the common position adopted by the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 (14849/3/2009 - C7-0076/2010 - (rapporteur: Inés Ayala Sender).
Antonio Cancian
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the issue of the rights of passengers is highly topical, as shown by the fact that in recent days, the European Commission has launched a campaign to better inform citizens of the rights they enjoy when travelling by different modes of transport. I believe that this is an important initiative and also that it is Parliament's duty to make its contribution by adopting texts which shall have a beneficial effect on the travelling conditions of passengers.
Coming to the regulation that is being discussed today, I make no attempt to hide the feeling that I have taken from this negotiation, which is that the Member States do not want this regulation. The dossier for which I have had the honour of serving as rapporteur is very delicate, since it requires a balanced solution which, while providing rights for passengers, avoids penalising businesses involved in the public road transport sector. Indeed, almost all business in the sector are of small or medium size.
The work which I have carried out over these months of negotiations therefore had two main objectives: firstly, to not hurt SMEs, small and medium-sized industrial enterprises; and secondly, to protect passengers, especially people with disabilities and reduced mobility, improving efficiency and seeking a greater sense of responsibility.
The report adopted at first reading by the European Parliament was a very courageous report - the Albertini report. The main amendments made by the Council regarded the following items: the scope of application, liability, the rights of persons with disabilities or reduced mobility, refunds and compensation for delays and cancellations, as well as other minor issues. Some of the amendments made by the Council were and are acceptable, and this was recognised during the negotiations.
Unfortunately, however, during final negotiations, we were unable to adopt the same point of view as the Council on several important aspects, in particular: the scope of application, where, given Parliament's willingness to consider excluding regional transport - even though we had proposed to exclude regional transport if integrated with urban and suburban transport - the Council refused to give any ground at all on those articles for which the exemption was applied; the
ism on the common position adopted by the Council at inaugural interpretation with a view to the adoption of a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concern the rights of passengers when travel by ocean and inland waterway and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 (14849/3/2009 - C7 - 0076/2010 - (rapporteur: Inés Ayala Sender). 
 Antonio Cancian 
 Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the issue of the right of passengers is highly topical, as shown by the fact that in late days, the European Commission has launched a campaign to better inform citizens of the rights they enjoy when travel by different modes of transport. I think that this is an important initiative and besides that it is Parliament's duty to make its contribution by dramatize texts which shall consume a beneficial effect on the travelling conditions of passenger. 
 Coming to the regulation that is being discussed today, I make no attempt to hide the touch that I have taken from this negotiation, which is that the Member States do not want this regulation. The dossier for which I have had the honour of serving as rapporteur is very delicate, since it requires a balanced solution which, while providing rights for passenger, avoid penalising clientele imply in the public road transport sector. Indeed, almost all business in the sector are of belittled or medium size. 
 The work which I have carried out over these months of negotiation therefore had two main objectives: firstly, to not hurt SMEs, modest and medium - sized industrial enterprises; and secondly, to protect passengers, particularly people with disability and decreased mobility, better efficiency and seeking a greater sense of duty. 
 The report adopted at first interpretation by the European Parliament was a very courageous report - the Albertini report. The main amendment made by the Council regard the following items: the setting of application, indebtedness, the rights of persons with disabilities or reduced mobility, refund and compensation for delays and cancellations, as well as other minor offspring. Some of the amendments made by the Council were and are acceptable, and this was recognised during the negotiations. 
 Unfortunately, however, during final negotiations, we were unable to assume the same point of position as the Council on several important aspects, in particular: the scope of application, where, pass Parliament's willingness to consider excluding regional transport - even though we had proposed to exclude regional conveyance if integrate with urban and suburban transportation - the Council refused to give any ground at all on those articles for which the exemption was applied; the
ism on the common position xdopted by the Eiuncil at fidst readkng with a view to the adoptmon if a eegulation of the Eurooean Parlpament ane of rhe Council concerknng tgc rigktw of passengerx when traeelling by sea avd inland waterway and amending Regulwtion (EV) Jo 2006/2004 (14849/3/2009 - C7-0076/2010 - (rappotteur: Ynés Zjaoa Sender).
Antonio Cancian
Mr Prssident, ladies and grntlemen, the issue of the gighhs of passengers id highly tokjcaj, as shown by the fact uhct in recenj days, the European Commission hxs labnched a canpqigj to better mnform citizens of the rigvts theu enjoy when tvavelnint by different modes mf transport. I belyeve that tkis is an important ibiriatiee atd auwo ghau iv ia Parllamxnt's duty tk make its xontribution by adoktigt texts which shall hwve a beneficial effect on the travellitg donditions of passengerw.
Coming to the regulajion that ys being discussed today, I make no attempt to hida the weeoikg tfqt I have taken from this negotiation, which is egau tme Member States do not wany hhof regulation. Jhe dossied for which I have had thg honoyr of serding as rapporteur is very delixate, since in rewuires a balanced dolution whnch, whole ptoviding rights for pasrengsrs, avoids oenalisinf businesses invouvec hn the public road transpowt sector. Indzed, almort akl busyness in tje segdor are of small og mednum shze.
The worn which I have carried out over these months pf necotiatious thevefore had two iain objectivex: firstjy, to not hurt AMEs, smell and meditm-sized indusdtial enterprives; and fecobdly, to progdct passengers, especially people qith disabilities end tesuced mobility, nokriving efficienvy xnd svekmng a creater sensa of rerlonsicility.
The rcpoft acopted at first readhng gy the European Patllament waw a very courageous rrport - the Albertiji re'ort. Tie maim aiendments made by the Council degarded hhe following ieems: the scope oy application, liability, the rights of pecsons with disabilities or reduced mobiliti, rtfunds and cokpenswtion for delays and cancellarions, as well as pther minor issues. Soje of dhe alendments made by the Council were and are acceptable, and this was recognused dnryng the negktiayions.
Lnfjxtunatejy, hlxever, during finak negotiations, we were unable tu adopt dhz same point of view as the Cpuvcil on severxl important aspects, in larticulsr: the scope of application, whete, given Parliament's wilkingness to cknsideg eecluding regional trsnsporc - eveb thougy we had proposed to ewclude reglonak cransport if integrated with urbab and wuhurban transport - the Councll refuaed to give any ground at zpl on those articlrs for which tne exemption was appniqd; the
ism on the common position adopted by at reading with view to the the Parliament and of Council concerning the of passengers when travelling by sea inland waterway and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 (14849/3/2009 - C7-0076/2010 - (rapporteur: Ayala Sender). Antonio Cancian Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the issue of the of is topical, shown by the fact that in recent days, the European Commission has launched a campaign to inform citizens of the rights they enjoy when by different modes of I believe that this is important and also it Parliament's to make its by adopting texts which shall have a beneficial effect on the travelling conditions of passengers. Coming to regulation that discussed today, make attempt hide the feeling have taken from this negotiation, which Member States do not want this regulation. The for which have had the honour of serving rapporteur is very delicate, since it requires a solution which, while providing rights for passengers, avoids penalising businesses involved in the public road Indeed, almost all business the sector are small medium The which I carried out over these months of negotiations therefore had two main firstly, to not hurt SMEs, small and medium-sized industrial enterprises; to passengers, especially people disabilities and reduced mobility, efficiency seeking a greater sense The adopted by European was a very courageous - the Albertini report. The amendments made by the the scope of application, liability, the rights of with disabilities or reduced mobility, refunds and for delays and cancellations, as well as other minor issues. Some of amendments made Council were and are acceptable, and this was during the negotiations. Unfortunately, during final negotiations, we were unable to adopt the point view as Council on several aspects, in particular: scope of application, Parliament's willingness consider regional though we had proposed to exclude transport integrated with urban and suburban - refused to give any ground at all on those articles for which the exemption was
ism on the common position adoPted by the COunciL at FirSt ReadIng wIth a view to the aDOptiOn of a regulation of the EuRopeaN PARliaMEnT and oF the CouNCiL COncErNiNg tHe RIgHts of PasSengers When travelLinG bY sea and inlanD WaTerway and aMenDing RegulatiOn (Ec) No 2006/2004 (14849/3/2009 - C7-0076/2010 - (raPpOrtEUr: InéS AyAla SeNder).
AnTOnio CaNcian
Mr PrEsIDent, laDIes and gENTlEmen, The issue of the righTS oF Passengers is hiGhly toPiCAl, AS ShoWn bY the fact thAt In recENt days, tHE EUROPeaN commission has Launched a caMPaiGn to beTtEr iNForm ciTizenS oF The Rights they eNjoy When traveLling bY DiffereNT modes oF transPorT. I bElieVE tHaT thIs IS an IMpOrtANt iNitiativE aNd Also tHat iT IS pArliAmeNt's dUty to Make its contriButIon bY AdoPting Texts WhicH sHall hAve a beNeficIaL effect on the traVellIng conditIonS oF paSsEngerS.
coming To tHe rEgulatiOn that iS BeiNg DISCuSsed today, I make no atTeMPT tO hide the FeelinG ThAt i Have takeN fRom This NEGotiaTion, WHiCh is that The MemBEr stAtes do nOt Want thIs RegUlaTion. THE dosSier foR which I hAve haD The honour of serVIng as rapporteUR iS VErY DeliCatE, since it reqUireS A balAnceD SoLutIOn whiCh, whiLe PRoVIding rights for passeNgErs, avoIds peNalising businEsses involVED In the pubLic rOAd TRansport sector. indeeD, almost all BUsiness iN the sEctor are Of small or MEDium size.
the WorK whIch i HAvE carried out ovER ThesE mOnths of NegOtiatioNs tHerEfoRe hAd Two main obJectives: FiRsTlY, tO noT hurt smEs, small AnD meDiUm-sIzed iNDustriAl entErprIsEs; ANd sEcondly, TO pROTect PaSsEngeRs, eSpEcialLy peOPle With disAbilities And REducEd MoBility, iMproving efficIeNcy and seekInG a gReater SENse of resPonsibility.
The report adoPTed at fiRst ReadiNg by The EuropeAn PArliamEnt WAs a verY couraGeous RePorT - THe AlbERTiNi rEpOrt. The main AMEndMents MaDe by The CounCil regarded the follOWinG items: the scopE of ApplICAtIon, LIaBIliTy, THe rIGHts of persons witH disabilitIeS Or Reduced mobILitY, rEfunds aNd compeNsatiON for delAys and canCellationS, aS welL AS otHer minor isSues. Some Of the amenDMents MAdE by thE CoUncil wErE anD are aCceptaBLe, aNd thiS was reCoGnised DurinG tHe negotiAtions.
Unfortunately, howeVer, durIng fiNal NegotiatiOns, WE weRe unable tO adoPt the same pOinT of View aS thE councIl on SEvEraL ImporTant ASpects, in pARtIcuLAR: tHe scope of apPLICatIon, whEre, GIven PaRliaMent's willingness tO Consider excludIng rEGIonAl tRAnspOrT - even though we hAd pRoPOSed to excLuDe regional tRansport If INtegrAted wiTh urbaN and subURBaN TranspOrt - tHe COuncil refUseD tO Give any GrOuND at all On thOsE articLes for WHich THE exemption was appLied; tHE
ism on the common position  adopted b y the  Co unc il  atfirs t reading with a vi ew to the adoption ofa reg ul a tion of  theEuropea n  P a r lia me nt  an do fthe C oun cil con cerning th e r ig hts of passe n ge rs when tr ave lling by sea  an d inla nd  wa t erway  an d ame ndingR egulat ion (EC)No 2006/2 0 04 (148 4 9 /3 /200 9 - C7-0076/2010-  ( r apporteur: Iné s Ayal aS en d e r). 
An tonio Canc ia n
MrP residen t ,l a d ies and gentlemen , the issue ofthe ri gh tso f pass enger si s h ighly topic al,as shownby the fact th a t in re cent d ays , t he E u ro pe anCo m mis s io n h a s l aunchedaca mpaig n to b e t terinf ormcitiz ens of the ri ght s th e y e njoywhentrav el lingby dif feren tmodes of transp ort.  I believ e t ha t t hi s isa n impo rta ntinitiat ive and als ot h a tit is Parliament's  d u t yto makeits co n tr ib u tion byad opt ingt e xts w hich sh all have  a ben e fi ci al effe ct  on th etra vel lingc ondi tionsof passe ngers . 
Coming to the regulation th a ti s  b e ingdis cussed toda y, I make  noa tt emp t  to h ide t he fe e ling that I have ta ke n from  this  negotiation,  which ist h a t the Me mber St a tes do not wan t thi s regulati o n. The d ossie r for wh ich I hav e had thehon our  of  se r v in g as rapporte u r  isve ry deli cat e, sinc e i t r equ ire sa balance d soluti on  w hi ch , w hilep roviding  r igh ts  fo r pas s engers , avo idspe na l isi ng busi n es s e s in vo lv ed i n t he  publ ic r o adtranspo rt sector . I n deed ,al most al l business in  t he sectorar e o f smal l or mediu m size.
The work whichI  have c arr ied o ut o ver these  mo nths o f n e gotiat ions t heref or e h a d  twom a in  ob je ctives: fi r s tly , tono t hu rt SMEs , small and medium - siz ed industrial  en terp r i se s;a nd sec on d ly, t o protect passe ngers, esp ec i al ly peoplew ith  d isabili ties an d red u ced mob ility, im proving e ff icie n c y a nd seeking  a great er senseo f res p on sibil ity .
There por t ado pted a t  fi rst r eading  b y theEurop ea n Parlia ment was a very courage ous re port- t he Albert ini rep ort. Themain  amendment s m ade  by t heC ounci l re g ar ded the f ollo w ing items :  t hes c op e of applic a t i on,  liab ili t y, the  rig hts of persons wi t h disabilities  orr e duc edm obil it y, refunds and  co mp e n sation f or  delays and  cancell at i ons,as wel l as o ther mi n o ri ssues.  Som e o f the ame ndm en t s madeby  t h e Coun cilwe re and  are a c cept a b le, and this was  reco g n isedd uri ng th enegotia t ions .
Unfortun ately, howe ver, d urin g fin al nego ti ations , w ewere unabl e  to adopt  thesame po in t of  vi ew astheC o uncil  onse ver al import a n ta sp ec t s,in p artic ul ar:the scope of appli cat i on, whe re , g i v en Par l ia m e nt's willi ngn ess t o consider e x clud i ng regio nal tr anspor t - eve n  th ou gh we h adp r oposed to  excluder egi on al t ransport  i f in te gra te d with urban an d suburb an trans p o rt - t heC ounc i l refu se d to give an y gro un d  at all o n t hose ar t icl esfor  whi chthee xemption was applied; th e
ism on_the common_position adopted by the_Council at_first_reading with_a_view to the_adoption of a_regulation of the European_Parliament and of_the_Council concerning the rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway and_amending_Regulation (EC)_No_2006/2004_(14849/3/2009 - C7-0076/2010 - (rapporteur:_Inés Ayala Sender).
Antonio Cancian
Mr President,_ladies and_gentlemen, the issue of the rights of passengers_is_highly topical, as_shown by the fact that in recent days, the_European Commission has launched a campaign_to better inform_citizens_of_the rights they enjoy_when travelling by different modes of_transport. I believe that this is_an important initiative and also that it_is Parliament's duty to make its_contribution by adopting texts which_shall have_a beneficial effect on the_travelling conditions of_passengers.
Coming to_the regulation that_is being discussed today, I make_no attempt to_hide the feeling that I have_taken_from this negotiation,_which_is_that the_Member States do_not_want this_regulation._The dossier for which I have_had_the honour of serving as rapporteur is_very delicate, since it_requires_a balanced solution which,_while providing rights for passengers,_avoids penalising businesses involved in the_public road_transport sector._Indeed, almost all business in the sector are of small or_medium size.
The work which I have_carried out over these_months of_negotiations_therefore had two_main_objectives: firstly,_to not hurt SMEs, small and medium-sized_industrial enterprises;_and secondly, to protect passengers, especially_people with disabilities and_reduced_mobility, improving efficiency and seeking a_greater sense of responsibility.
The report adopted_at first reading by the_European_Parliament_was a very courageous report_- the Albertini report. The main_amendments made by_the Council regarded the following items: the_scope_of application, liability, the rights of_persons_with disabilities or reduced mobility, refunds_and_compensation_for delays and cancellations, as_well as other minor issues. Some_of the amendments made by the Council were and_are acceptable, and_this was recognised during the_negotiations.
Unfortunately,_however,_during final negotiations, we were unable to adopt the same_point of_view as the_Council on several important aspects, in particular: the scope of_application, where, given Parliament's willingness to consider_excluding regional transport - even though we had proposed to exclude_regional transport if integrated with urban and suburban_transport - the Council refused to give_any ground at all_on_those articles for which the exemption was_applied;_the