Mr President, earlier today we heard in the context of the copyright and GMO legislation how it has taken three years for Parliament to reach the point of being in a position to approve it. Can I say that this report has been under negotiation for nine years and it is only now coming to fruition. Since I took over the rapporteurship of this report I have tried to involve all the interested parties from the manufacturing side right through to the user side. On the manufacturing side, I have had several meetings with the European constructors’ association as well as individual bus companies. All of these organisations are happy with the common position and the amendments. In fact, they welcome the clarification it brings to the market. I have listened to the users carefully and I have consulted widely. It is only after these consultations that I have put forward the amendments that you have in front of you tonight. I would also pay tribute to the shadow rapporteurs who worked with me closely throughout the compiling of this report. Unfortunately not all of them were able to persuade their groups to follow the line. Amendments Nos 1, 2, 3 and 5 are specific detailed technical amendments designed to assist the manufacturers and relate to gangway slopes of 12.5% on existing class I and II buses. These amendments have to be taken in conjunction with Amendment No 7. In Amendment No 6 I am seeking to replace that with Amendment No 10 which refers to the ISO standard and not to separate Member State standards which I had initially put in Amendment No 6. Amendment No 4 sets out in more detail the user groups that this report is trying to assist. This list is, however, neither exhaustive nor prescriptive. It was never intended to be and leaves plenty of scope for the inclusion of others. Amendment No 8 opens up access to public transport to all those groups referred to in the aforementioned Amendment No 4. For the first time, we are making public transport accessible to all those people with reduced mobility. This will be done by providing a kneeling system with either a lift or ramp but it also takes into account infrastructure improvements which have been carried out as well. Maybe I should declare an interest at this point. Just before Christmas my mother unexpectedly lost her sight. As a son I obviously wish to help her, as I wish to help all visually impaired people within the European Union. It is what I was elected to do and I am sure it is what the vast majority of people in this Parliament were elected to do. These citizens are important users of public transport and they depend on us in the European Parliament to get it right. We have that chance tomorrow by voting for those amendments. I must, however, also mention Amendment No 9 which was submitted later by the Group. When this came up at the Legal Affairs Committee it went through unanimously but then, all of a sudden, we heard that the Group wishes to reject the common position. I am sorry and disappointed that their amendment rejects the common position. That would set back accessibility for those citizens I mentioned earlier by several years. I understand that one of the reasons that they are proposing rejection of the common position is because it will shackle the industry. It will tie up the industry in red tape. Can I ask those in the who are intending to speak on this how they would feel if they were shackled to a wheelchair or to sticks or to having to have a guide dog? That is shackling, not what we are trying to do with the industry. I would be ashamed if their Amendment No 9 is carried. I would be ashamed for every Member of this Parliament who puts their hand up or presses a button to vote for that amendment. I therefore urge you to vote against Amendment No 9 but support the other amendments.

Political group: PSE