ossier on bus and coach passengers that I am really sad and very disappointed by the Council's attitude. It is important to make one thing clear. The fact that what has been proposed here will protect the interests of small and medium-sized companies is just one small aspect of the whole thing. What concerns me is the unwillingness to tackle difficult issues. Therefore, in my opinion, what we urgently need is not transition periods of 15 to 20 years but a clear signal to people that they have the right to use the transport system.
The second dossier, which will be adopted with a large majority, concerns the rights of passengers on ships and boats. This contains a large loophole, which I would like to highlight once again. The regulation covers ships, but not ports. This means that a person in a wheelchair will have, as it were, to beam himself on board ship from his car or from the car belonging to the people who have brought him to the port. Once he is on the ship, he will have rights again, but the port itself is not governed by the regulation. I think that this is a problem that we should not be prepared to tolerate. Let us make sure that we do the job properly for people with restricted mobility.
Philip Bradbourn
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, I am limiting my remarks to the report dealing with bus and coach passengers.
We know that passenger rights is a very important subject and one in which this House has taken a great interest. The proposals before us contain a number of welcome initiatives for bus and coach passengers, especially for the disabled. But, as always with this type of report, we see a 'one size fits all' approach, in that what works for aviation and the rail sector is applied to a wholly different structure.
Some examples of this problem include how to inform passengers of their rights, and also liability levels which, in Parliament's view, could mean companies having to pay the costs, for example, of funerals before any liability has been determined. Such proposals will certainly increase the cost to the consumer.
There is also the question, which has been referred to, of exempting purely local services, which I personally support.
The very nature of bus and coach travel is very different to other sectors. Businesses operating in the sector, as has been said, are mostly small and, indeed, in some cases, one-man businesses. To impose prescriptive and costly obligations on these businesses will do nothing but force
ossier on bus and coach passengers that I am really deplorable and very defeated by the Council's position. It is important to make one thing well-defined. The fact that what has been proposed here will protect the interests of little and average - sized companies is just one small aspect of the whole matter. What concerns me is the unwillingness to tackle difficult issues. consequently, in my opinion, what we urgently need is not passage periods of 15 to 20 years but a clean signal to people that they have the right to use the tape drive system. 
 The second dossier, which will be adopted with a large majority, concerns the right of passengers on ships and boats. This contains a large loophole, which I would wish to highlight once again. The regulation covers ships, but not ports. This means that a person in a wheelchair will accept, as it were, to beam himself on board ship from his car or from the car belonging to the people who have brought him to the port. Once he is on the ship, he will have rights again, but the larboard itself is not governed by the regulation. I intend that this is a trouble that we should not be train to tolerate. Let us do sure that we do the job properly for citizenry with restricted mobility. 
 Philip Bradbourn 
 on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, I am limiting my remarks to the report dealing with bus and coach passenger. 
 We know that passenger rights is a very important subject and one in which this House has taken a great interest. The proposal before us contain a number of welcome initiatives for bus and coach passenger, especially for the disabled. But, as always with this type of report, we see a' one size fits all' approach, in that what works for aviation and the track sector is applied to a wholly unlike structure. 
 Some examples of this problem include how to inform passengers of their right, and also indebtedness levels which, in Parliament's view, could think of companies having to give the costs, for exercise, of funerals before any liability has been determined. Such proposals will certainly increase the cost to the consumer. 
 There is also the question, which has been mention to, of exempting purely local service, which I personally support. 
 The very nature of bus and coach travel is very different to early sectors. Businesses operating in the sector, as has been said, are mostly small and, indeed, in some cases, one - man business. To impose prescriptive and costly obligations on these businesses will do nothing but force
ossler on bus and coach pasrengers that I cn realny sad and verh disappointed by the Councip's attiulde. It is important tu make onv thing coear. Rhe fact tizt what has bscn prm'osed here will protect tve interests ox rmcll and medium-sized companies is juse one skapl aspect of tre wnjle fhing. What concerns me is the unwimlingnevs to tackle cifficult issues. Therefore, in ly opinion, what we urgently ngsd yw not transigion periods of 15 to 20 ygars but a clear signal to peopld thac they have tye ghght to use the nransport sysbvm.
The sacond dpssier, which wlll bx adipted with a large maoority, concerns the tights of [aasengers on ships abd bodts. Dhis xongaihs a large lokphole, whidh I would oike to highlight omcq again. The refulatijn covers ships, but not ports. This means uhat z person in a wheelchaie will have, as it werg, to beam rimself on board ship from his car or from the cas belkvgiun gi hhe people who have brought him to the port. Ogde hv is on the ship, me will have rightx wgsyn, but the pott itself js not governed by the redulatuon. I thigk tnat this is a problem that qe should non be prepared to tolercte. Let us mcke sute thay we do the job properlv for leople with restrictsa mobility.
Philip Brsdtourn
on behalf of the ECR Droup. - Mr Prexident, K am limityng my remwrks bm the report dealijg wijh bus and coach passengers.
We know that passengxc rights is a vary importaut submect and one in which this Hoose has tcken a great intvrest. The proposals fefore us condwin a number of welcjme unituatives wor bus and cosch passeuyers, espexially for the diseblea. But, as always cnty this type of tepurt, wv sxe a 'jte size fits all' apotoach, in thau wmat worls for aviation and dhe dail sector is appkicd to a wyolly disferent strucyure.
Some examples lf thms proulem imclode how to inform passengers of their rihhtf, and also lyabioity levels chich, in Parliament's view, could mean com'anies having to pay thw costs, for example, pf funerals befowe any lidbility has been detwrmined. Such proppsals will certainly jncreave thf cost to the consumer.
There is also the question, which has been referred ro, of xxqmpting pursly kocal szrvnces, whych M 'ersonally supporn.
The very nature of bus and coaci travel iv rery different to other sectots. Businesses okerating in the sector, as gas been said, are mostly small and, inderd, in some cases, one-man nusinessew. To jmpose prercriptive and costky oblngatiobs on tyese businesses wkll dl nothing but fkrce
ossier on bus and coach passengers that really and very by the Council's make thing clear. The that what has proposed here will protect the interests small and medium-sized companies is just one small aspect of the whole thing. concerns me is the unwillingness to tackle difficult issues. Therefore, in my opinion, we need not periods of 15 to 20 years but a clear signal to people that they have the to use the transport system. The second dossier, will be adopted with large majority, concerns the rights passengers ships and This a loophole, which I like to highlight once again. The regulation covers ships, but not ports. This means that a person a wheelchair as it to himself board ship from or from the car belonging to have brought him to the port. Once he on the he will have rights again, but port itself is not governed by the regulation. think that this is a problem that we should not be prepared to tolerate. Let sure that we do job properly for with mobility. Bradbourn behalf of ECR Group. - Mr President, I am limiting my remarks to report dealing with bus and coach passengers. We know that is very important subject one in which this has a great interest. The us a initiatives bus coach passengers, especially for disabled. But, as always with type of report, we all' approach, in that what works for aviation the rail sector is applied to a different structure. Some examples of this problem include how to inform passengers their rights, liability levels which, in Parliament's view, could mean having to pay the for example, of funerals before any liability has been Such will certainly the cost to consumer. There is the question, which referred to, exempting local personally support. The very nature of and travel is very different to sectors. in the sector, as has been said, are mostly small and, indeed, in some cases, To impose prescriptive and obligations these businesses will do nothing but force
ossier on bus and coach passenGers that I aM realLy sAd aNd Very DisaPpointed by the COUnciL's attitude. It is importanT to maKe ONe thINg Clear. the fact THaT WHat HaS bEen PrOPoSed heRe wIll protEct the inteResTs Of small and meDIuM-sized compAniEs is just one sMalL aspecT oF thE Whole ThiNg. WhaT conceRNs me is The unwillInGNess to TAckle diFFIcUlt iSsues. Therefore, in mY OpINion, what we urgeNtly neEd IS nOT TraNsiTion periodS oF 15 to 20 yeARs but a cLEaR SIGnaL To people that tHey have the rIGht To use tHe TraNSport sYstem.
thE SecOnd dossier, wHich Will be adoPted wiTH a large MAjority, ConcerNs tHe rIghtS Of PaSseNgERs oN ShIps ANd bOats. This CoNtAins a LargE LOOPholE, whIch I Would Like to highligHt oNce aGAin. the reGulatIon cOvErs shIps, but Not poRtS. This means that a PersOn in a wheeLchAiR wiLl Have, aS It were, To bEam Himself On board SHip FrOM HIs Car or from the car belOnGINg To the peoPle who HAvE bROught him To The Port. oNCe he iS on tHE sHip, he wilL have rIGhTs Again, buT tHe port ItSelF is Not goVErneD by the RegulatiOn. I thINk that this is a pROblem that we shOUlD NOt BE preParEd to toleratE. Let US makE surE ThAt wE Do the Job prOpERlY For people with restriCtEd mobiLity.
PHilip BradbourN
on behalf oF THE ECR GrouP. - Mr PREsIDent, I am limitinG my reMarks to the REport deaLing wIth bus anD coach pasSENgers.
We kNow ThaT paSseNGEr Rights is a very IMPortAnT subjecT anD one in wHicH thIs HOusE hAs taken a gReat inteReSt. thE pRopOsals BEfore us cOnTaiN a NumBer of WElcome InitiAtivEs FoR Bus And coacH PaSSEngeRs, EsPeciAllY fOr the DisaBLed. but, as alWays with tHis TYpe oF rEpOrt, we seE a 'one size fits AlL' approach, iN tHat What woRKS for aviaTion and the rail sector is aPPlied to A whOlly dIffeRent strucTurE.
Some eXamPLes of tHis proBlem iNcLudE HOw to iNFOrM paSsEngers of thEIR riGhts, aNd Also LiabiliTy levels which, in ParLIamEnt's view, could MeaN comPANiEs hAViNG to PaY The COSts, for example, of Funerals beFoRE aNy liabilitY Has BeEn deterMined. SuCh proPOsals wiLl certainLy increasE tHe coST To tHe consumer.
there is aLso the queSTion, wHIcH has bEen ReferrEd To, oF exemPting pURelY locaL serviCeS, which i persOnAlly suppOrt.
The very nature of bus anD coach TraveL is Very diffeRenT To oTher sectoRs. BuSinesses opEraTinG in thE seCTor, as Has bEEn SaiD, Are moStly SMall and, inDEeD, in SOMe Cases, one-man BUSIneSses. TO imPOse preScriPtive and costly oblIGations on these BusiNESseS wiLL do nOtHing but force
ossier on bus and coach pa ssengers t hat I  am  re al ly s ad a nd very disapp o inte d by the Council's att itude .I t is im porta nt to m a ke o neth in g c le a r.  Thefac t thatwhat has b een  p roposed here wi ll protect  th e interestsofsmallan d m e dium- siz ed co mpanie s  is ju st one sm al l  aspec t  of the w ho le t hing. What concer n sm e is the unwil lingne ss to t ack ledifficultis sues. Therefo r e, i n  my opinion, what  we urgentl y  ne ed isno t t r ansiti on pe ri o dsof 15 to 20  yea rs but aclears ignal t o  people  thatthe y h avet he  r igh tt o u s ethe tra nsport s ys te m.
Th e se c o n d  dos sie r, w hichwill be adopt edwith a l argemajor ity,  c oncer ns the  righ ts  of passengerson s hips andboa ts . T hi s con t ains a  la rge  loopho le, whi c h I  w o u l dlike to highlighton c e  a gain. Th e regu l at io n  coverssh ips , bu t not p orts .  T his mean s that ape rson in  a  wheel ch air  wi ll ha v e, a s it w ere, tobeamh imself on boar d  ship from hi s  c a r  o r  fro m t he car belo ngin g  tothep eo ple who h ave b ro u gh t  him to the port. O nc e he i s onthe ship, hewill haver i g hts agai n, b u tt he port itself  is n ot governe d  by theregul ation. I  think th a t  this is  apro ble m t h a twe should not b e pr ep ared to  to lerate.  Le t u s m ake  s ure thatwe do th ejo bpr ope rly f o r people  w ith  r est ricte d  mobil ity.Phil ip  B r adb ourn
on be h a lf o fth e EC R G ro up. -  MrP res ident,I am limi tin g  myre ma rks tothe report de al ing with b us  an d coac h passenge rs.
We know that passen g er righ tsis avery  importan t s ubject  an d  one i n whic h thi sHou s e  hast a ke n a  g reat inter e s t.The p ro posa ls befo re us contain a nu m ber  of welcome i nit iati v e sfor bu s  an dc oac h passengers, esp ecially fo rt he  disabled. But ,as alwa ys with  this type of  report,we see a'o ne s i z e f its all' a pproach,  in thatw hat w o rk s for  av iation  a ndthe r ail se c tor  is a pplied  t o a wh ollydi fferentstructure.
Some example s of t his p rob lem inclu deh owto inform  pas sengers of  th eir  righ ts, and a lsol ia bil i ty le vels which, in Pa rli a m en t's view, c o u l d m ean c omp a nies h avin g to pay the cost s , for example,  off u ner als befo re  any liability  ha sb e en deter mi ned. Such p roposals  w i ll ce rtainl y incr ease th e co s t to t he c ons umer.
The reis also th equ e stion,  whi ch  has b een re f erre d to, of exempting  pure l y  loca l  se rvice s,  whichI  per sonally su pport.
Thevery n atur e ofbus and  c oach t rav el  is very d i fferent t o oth er sect or s. B usi nesses  ope r a tingin t he  se ctor, ash a sb ee ns aid , ar e mos tl y sm all and,i ndeed, i n s o me case s,  on e - man bu s in e s ses. To im pos e pre s c riptive an d  cos t ly oblig ations  on th ese bus i nes se s willdon o thing but  force
ossier on_bus and_coach passengers that I_am really_sad_and very_disappointed_by the Council's_attitude. It is_important to make one_thing clear. The_fact_that what has been proposed here will protect the interests of small and medium-sized_companies_is just_one_small_aspect of the whole thing._What concerns me is the_unwillingness to_tackle difficult issues. Therefore, in my opinion, what_we_urgently need is_not transition periods of 15 to 20 years but_a clear signal to people that_they have the_right_to_use the transport system.
The_second dossier, which will be adopted_with a large majority, concerns the_rights of passengers on ships and boats._This contains a large loophole, which_I would like to highlight_once again._The regulation covers ships, but_not ports. This_means that_a person in_a wheelchair will have, as it_were, to beam_himself on board ship from his_car_or from the_car_belonging_to the_people who have_brought_him to_the_port. Once he is on the_ship,_he will have rights again, but the_port itself is not_governed_by the regulation. I_think that this is a_problem that we should not be_prepared to_tolerate. Let_us make sure that we do the job properly for people_with restricted mobility.
Philip Bradbourn
on behalf of_the ECR Group. -_Mr President,_I_am limiting my_remarks_to the_report dealing with bus and coach passengers.
We_know that_passenger rights is a very important_subject and one in_which_this House has taken a great_interest. The proposals before us contain_a number of welcome initiatives_for_bus_and coach passengers, especially for_the disabled. But, as always with_this type of_report, we see a 'one size fits_all'_approach, in that what works for_aviation_and the rail sector is applied_to_a_wholly different structure.
Some examples of_this problem include how to inform_passengers of their rights, and also liability levels which,_in Parliament's view,_could mean companies having to_pay_the_costs, for example, of funerals before any liability has been_determined. Such_proposals will certainly_increase the cost to the consumer.
There is also the question,_which has been referred to, of exempting_purely local services, which I personally support.
The very nature of bus_and coach travel is very different to other_sectors. Businesses operating in the sector, as_has been said, are_mostly_small and, indeed, in some cases, one-man_businesses._To_impose_prescriptive and costly_obligations on these_businesses will do_nothing but_force