 dust it off. I am grateful to the rapporteur and those honourable members who have put down amendments for giving this subject another chance today.
Employers, good ones at least, know that a happy home life is good for people's work. It is good for people's work if there is someone at home who cares about the worker. That does not apply in the European institutions. Janet marries John, we push the boat out, and no one worries about the financial consequences. If twenty years later John dies, Janet is taken care of for the rest of her life, no problem. It is very different in the case of Robert and Arthur, and even more so for Jill and Jean, because women get an even worse deal here.
This difference, Mr President, is called discrimination. A term reviled in this House, except when applied to homosexual couples. Dutch bosses employing a staff policy like this would find themselves in jail. Not here. Here the employer sits at his desk and pontificates about discrimination everywhere else in the world, but not amongst his own staff.
I have two clear questions for the Commissioner. If Parliament adopts the resolution and the amendments tomorrow, what will the European Commission then do about the Staff Regulations? How long does it have to take before this discrimination is in fact removed? Why is there no respect for the laws and constitutions of the Member States which handle these matters rather well? Why does the European Commission not have the courage to help people like Arthur, who cannot get a residence permit for Belgium, and use its influence with the Belgian Government so that these people do not have to flee to the Netherlands to live and commute to Brussels to work? The European Commission does nothing about it. Self-respecting politicians want a society which survives, amongst other things, by loving its neighbour. An employer can do his bit here. Two people who care for one another have a far better chance in society than if each is alone. Everyone accepts that, except the employer, the European institutions, when it comes to officials who cannot or do not wish to marry.

Eriksson
Mr President, I would like to take this opportunity of informing everyone in the House that I come from Stockholm. In Stockholm, the majority of 'families' consist of one person. As for the logic which says that children are a necessity for a family, I think that homosexuals should also have the right to adopt children, and that would be that problem solved.
I welcome the work by Mrs Lindholm
dust it off. I am grateful to the rapporteur and those honourable members who have put down amendment for render this subject another chance today. 
 Employers, estimable ones at least, know that a glad family life is full for people's work. It is adept for people's work if there be someone at home who cares about the worker. That does not apply in the European institutions. Janet marries John, we advertise the boat out, and no one worries about the financial consequence. If twenty years later John dies, Janet is remove care of for the rest of her life, no problem. It is very different in the shell of Robert and Arthur, and even more so for Jill and Jean, because women get an even worse deal here. 
 This difference, Mr President, is called discrimination. A term reviled in this House, except when applied to homosexual couples. Dutch bosses employing a staff policy like this would find themselves in jail. Not here. Here the employer sits at his desk and pontificates about discrimination everywhere else in the world, but not amongst his own staff. 
 I suffer two clear questions for the Commissioner. If Parliament espouse the resolution and the amendments tomorrow, what will the European Commission then do about the Staff Regulations? How long does it have to consider before this discrimination is in fact removed? Why is there no respect for the laws and constitutions of the Member States which cover these matters rather well? Why does the European Commission not have the courage to help people like Arthur, who cannot get a mansion permit for Belgium, and use its influence with the Belgian Government so that these people do not have to flee to the Netherlands to survive and permute to Brussels to work? The European Commission does nothing about it. Self - respecting politicians want a club which survives, amongst other things, by love its neighbour. An employer can do his bit here. Two people who manage for one another have a far better opportunity in society than if each is alone. Everyone accept that, except the employer, the European institutions, when it come to officials who cannot or do not wish to marry. 

 Eriksson 
 Mr President, I would wish to take this opportunity of informing everyone in the House that I come from Stockholm. In Stockholm, the majority of' family' consist of one person. As for the logic which says that child are a necessity for a family, I think that homosexuals should also have the right to adopt children, and that would be that problem solve. 
 I welcome the work by Mrs Lindholm
 dudt it off. I am grateful uo the rapporteur and thmse hohourable members who have put down alebdmenuf for giving this rubject ajother cyanct today.
Employers, jkod ones at lswst, niow that a happi home life hs good for pempue'd work. It is good for people's work yf therr ls someone at rome rho dares about the worker. That does nkt applj in the European institutions. Janet married Jojn, we push the boah out, and ni onq worries abojt the financial consesuences. If twenty years later Juhn dnes, Janet iw rakft care of fir thv rest of her life, no problek. It is very dlfferxnt un the case of Robert and Arthur, and evgn more so fkr Jill and Jean, vexause woman gdr av ebei wkrse dfal here.
This sifference, Nr President, is calkeq discriminatikn. A tqri reviled in this House, except when appnies to homosexual couples. Dutch bosses employijg a stafs policy like this would find themselves in jail. Tot hxrd. Htrc gye employer sits at his desk and pontificates afkuu dpscrimination evevywhere else in thr aotjd, but not amungst kjs own staff.
I have tao cleat quesrions for the Commissioner. If Parliament adopts the gesooution and the ameudments tomoxrow, wnat woll the European Commisrion then do ablut the Sfxff Regulations? Fow lmng does it have to take bqfore thiw dixcriminxtiom is ig fact remlved? Why is there no resoect yor tve laws anf constitutions of the Member Svetes which hamdne nhese matcers rsther well? Whr does the Eurppean Cjmmisrion not hzve the courage to help people nlke Arthur, wio cannot get a rwsidencd permit for Bekgium, and use its ibfluence with the Nelgixh Government so thqt these people do noe jate to xlee to the Tethdrlxmds tu live and gomoute to Brussels to work? The European Commissipn does nojhing abott it. Self-reslecting politiciand wanv a soriety ehish survives, amongst other thinfs, by lovlng its neighbotr. Ak emkloyer can bo his bit here. Two people who care for ine another have a far better chance nn society then if qach is anone. Everyone acceptw that, except the employer, the Europeah insthtutilns, when it comes to officials who cannot or do not wish to marry.

Eriksson
Nr President, I woumd loke tm cakz this jppoctnnity of informinb everyone in the House that I rome from Vtjckholm. In Stockholm, the majprkty of 'familigs' consist of one person. Aa for thr logic which says that childrem are a necessity for a namily, I rhink that homorexuals should alsp have the eight ti adlpt children, xnd tmat would he tiat problem solved.
I welcome the worj by Mes Lindholm
dust it off. I am grateful to and honourable members have put down another today. Employers, good at least, know a happy home life is good people's work. It is good for people's work if there is someone at who cares about the worker. That does not apply in the European institutions. marries we the out, and no one worries about the financial consequences. If twenty years later John dies, Janet taken care of for the rest of her no problem. It is different in the case of and and even so Jill Jean, because women an even worse deal here. This difference, Mr President, is called discrimination. A term reviled in this except when homosexual couples. bosses a policy like this themselves in jail. Not here. Here at his desk and pontificates about discrimination everywhere in the but not amongst his own staff. have two clear questions for the Commissioner. If adopts the resolution and the amendments tomorrow, what will the European Commission then do about Regulations? How long does have to take this is fact Why is no respect for the laws and constitutions of the Member States handle these matters rather well? Why does the European Commission the to help people Arthur, who cannot get residence for Belgium, and use with Belgian these do have to flee to Netherlands to live and commute Brussels to work? The it. Self-respecting politicians want a society which survives, other things, by loving its neighbour. An can do his bit here. Two people who care for one another a far in society than if each is alone. Everyone that, except the employer, European institutions, when it comes to officials who cannot do wish to Eriksson Mr President, would like to this opportunity of in the that come Stockholm, the majority of 'families' consist one As for the logic which that a necessity for a family, I think that homosexuals should also have the right to and that would be problem I welcome the work by Mrs Lindholm
 dust it off. I am grateful to the Rapporteur And thOse HonOuRablE memBers who have put DOwn aMendments for giving this SubjeCt ANothER cHance Today.
EmPLoYERs, gOoD oNes At LEaSt, knoW thAt a happY home life iS goOd For people's woRK. IT is good for PeoPle's work if thEre Is someOnE at HOme whO caRes abOut the WOrker. THat does noT aPPly in tHE EuropeAN InStitUtions. Janet marrieS joHN, we push the boat Out, and No ONe WORriEs aBout the finAnCial cONsequenCEs. iF TWenTY years later JoHn dies, Janet IS taKen carE oF foR The resT of heR lIFe, nO problem. It iS verY differenT in the CAse of RoBErt and ARthur, aNd eVen More SO fOr jilL aND JeAN, bEcaUSe wOmen get aN eVeN worsE deaL HERE.
ThiS diFferEnce, MR President, is cAllEd diSCriMinatIon. A tErm rEvIled iN this HOuse, eXcEpt when applied tO homOsexual coUplEs. dutCh BosseS EmployIng A stAff poliCy like tHIs wOuLD FInD themselves in jail. NOt HERe. here the eMployeR SiTs AT his desk AnD poNtifICAtes aBout DIsCriminatIon eveRYwHeRe else iN tHe worlD, bUt nOt aMongsT His oWn stafF.
I have twO cleaR Questions for thE commissioner. IF paRLIaMEnt aDopTs the resoluTion ANd thE ameNDmEntS TomorRow, whAt WIlL The European CommissiOn Then do About The Staff RegulAtions? How lONG Does it haVe to TAkE Before this discRiminAtion is in fACt removeD? Why iS there no Respect foR THe laws anD coNstItuTioNS Of The Member StatES WhicH hAndle thEse Matters RatHer WelL? WhY dOes the EurOpean ComMiSsIoN nOt hAve thE Courage tO hElp PeOplE like aRthur, wHo canNot gEt A rESidEnce perMIt FOR BelGiUm, And uSe iTs InfluEnce WIth The BelgIan GovernMenT So thAt ThEse peopLe do not have to FlEe to the NetHeRlaNds to lIVE and commUte to Brussels to work? The EURopean COmmIssioN doeS nothing aBouT it. SelF-reSPectinG politIcianS wAnt A SOcietY WHiCh sUrVives, amongST OthEr thiNgS, by lOving itS neighbour. An employER caN do his bit here. two PeopLE WhO caRE fOR onE aNOthER Have a far better cHance in socIeTY tHan if each iS AloNe. everyonE acceptS that, EXcept thE employer, The EuropeAn InstITUtiOns, when it cOmes to ofFicials whO CannoT Or Do not WisH to marRy.

eriKsson
mr PresIDenT, I wouLd like To Take thIs oppOrTunity of Informing everyone in the HOuse thAt I coMe fRom StockhOlm. iN StOckholm, thE majOrity of 'famIliEs' cOnsisT of ONe perSon. AS FoR thE Logic WhicH Says that cHIlDreN ARe A necessity fOR A FamIly, I tHinK That hoMoseXuals should also haVE the right to adoPt chILDreN, anD That WoUld be that problEm sOlVED.
I welcomE tHe work by Mrs lindholm
 dust it off. I am gratefu l to the r appor teu r a nd  tho se h onourable memb e rs w ho have put down amend ments  f o r gi v in g thi s subje c ta n oth er  c han ce to day.Emp loyers,  good ones  at  l east, know t h at  a happy h ome  life is goo d f or peo pl e's work.  It  is g ood fo r  peopl e's workif therei s someo n e  a t ho me who cares abou t  t h e worker. That  doesno t  a p p lyinthe Europe an  inst i tutions .  J a n e t m a rries John, w e push theb oat  out,an d n o  one w orrie sa bou t the finan cial  conseque nces.I f twent y  yearslaterJoh n d ies, Ja ne t i st ake n  c are offor there st  of h er l i f e ,  nopro blem . Itis very diffe ren t in the  case  of R ober tand A rthur,  andev en more so forJill  and Jean , b ec aus ewomen get an  ev enworse d eal her e .
T hi s d if ference, Mr Presid en t ,  i s called  discr i mi na t ion. A t er m r evil e d  in t hisH ou se, exce pt whe n  a pp lied to  h omosex ua l c oup les.D utch  bosse s employ ing a staff policy l i ke this would fi n d  t h emse lve s in jail.Noth ere.  Her e  t hee mploy er si ts at his desk and pontif ic ates a boutdiscriminatio n everywhe r e else inthew or l d, but not amo ngsthis own st a ff.
I ha ve tw o clearquestions f or the C omm iss ion er. I fParliament ad o p ts t he  resolu tio n and t heame ndm ent stomorrow,  what wi ll  t he  E uro peanC ommissio nthe ndoabout the St aff R egul at io n s?How lon g  d o e s it  h av e to  ta ke  befo re t h isdiscrim ination i s i n  fac tre moved?Why is thereno  respect f or  th e laws a nd const itutions of the MemberS tates w hic h han dlethese mat ter s rath erw ell? W hy doe s the  E uro p e an Co m m is sio nnot have t h e  co urage  t o he lp peop le like Arthur, wh o  ca nnot get a re sid ence p er mit fo r  Be lg i um, a nd use its infl uence with  t h eBelgian Go v ern me nt so t hat the se pe o ple donot haveto flee t otheN e the rlands tolive and  commutet o Bru s se ls to  wo rk? Th eEur opean  Commi s sio n doe s noth in g abou t it.  S elf-resp ecting politicians want  a soc ietywhi ch surviv es, amo ngst othe r th ings, by l ovi ngits n eig h bour.  Ane mp loy e r can  doh is bit he r e.  Tw o pe ople who ca r e for  oneano t her ha ve a  far better chanc e  in society th an i f eac h i s  alo ne . Everyone acc ept st h at, exce pt  the employ er, theEu r opean  insti tution s, when i tc omes t o of fic ials whocan no t  or dono tw ish to  mar ry .

Eri kssonM r Pr e s ident, I would l ike t o taket his  oppo rt unity o f  inf orming eve ryone in th e Hous e th at Icome fr om  Stock hol m.  In Stockh o lm, the m ajori ty of ' fa mili es'  consi st o f one p erso n.  As  for thel o gi c  w hi c h s aysthatch ildr en are an ecessity  fo r  a fami ly , I t hink t h at h omosexuals  sh oulda l so have th e  rig h tt o ado pt chi ldren,  and th a t w ou ld be t hat p roblem so lved.
I w e lco me  the  work by  M rs L in dho lm 
 dust_it off._I am grateful to_the rapporteur_and_those honourable_members_who have put_down amendments for_giving this subject another_chance today.
Employers, good_ones_at least, know that a happy home life is good for people's work. It_is_good for_people's_work_if there is someone at_home who cares about the_worker. That_does not apply in the European institutions. Janet_marries_John, we push_the boat out, and no one worries about the_financial consequences. If twenty years later_John dies, Janet_is_taken_care of for the_rest of her life, no problem._It is very different in the_case of Robert and Arthur, and even_more so for Jill and Jean,_because women get an even_worse deal_here.
This difference, Mr President, is_called discrimination. A_term reviled_in this House,_except when applied to homosexual couples._Dutch bosses employing_a staff policy like this would_find_themselves in jail._Not_here._Here the_employer sits at_his_desk and_pontificates_about discrimination everywhere else in the_world,_but not amongst his own staff.
I have_two clear questions for_the_Commissioner. If Parliament adopts_the resolution and the amendments_tomorrow, what will the European Commission_then do_about the_Staff Regulations? How long does it have to take before this_discrimination is in fact removed? Why_is there no respect_for the_laws_and constitutions of_the_Member States_which handle these matters rather well? Why_does the_European Commission not have the courage_to help people like_Arthur,_who cannot get a residence permit_for Belgium, and use its influence_with the Belgian Government so_that_these_people do not have to_flee to the Netherlands to live_and commute to_Brussels to work? The European Commission does_nothing_about it. Self-respecting politicians want a_society_which survives, amongst other things, by_loving_its_neighbour. An employer can do_his bit here. Two people who_care for one another have a far better chance_in society than_if each is alone. Everyone_accepts_that,_except the employer, the European institutions, when it comes to_officials who_cannot or do_not wish to marry.

Eriksson
Mr President, I would like to take_this opportunity of informing everyone in the_House that I come from Stockholm. In Stockholm, the majority of_'families' consist of one person. As for the_logic which says that children are a_necessity for a family,_I_think that homosexuals should also have the_right_to_adopt_children, and that_would be that_problem solved.
I welcome_the work_by Mrs Lindholm