. But this is a matter which should be considered case by case. I am not sure whether it is essential to abolish all the rules concerning age limits. Each case can be considered on its merits. But as I have said, the Commission is now also opening competitions to more mature applicants.
I shall now turn to the principle of non-discrimination on sexual grounds. The Commission is aware of the problems of cohabiting couples and the unequal position in which they find themselves, and it has sought solutions to the problem. Last summer, the Commission approved an administrative reform guaranteeing homosexual and heterosexual cohabiting couples all the entitlements enjoyed by married couples which it was possible to grant without amending the Staff Regulations, that is, on the basis of the Regulations as they now stand. I have heard that the European Parliament and the Council are preparing similar reforms. I would encourage Members to keep abreast of these developments.
Parliament now proposes that the Staff Regulations should also be amended so as to entitle unmarried couples to the same social and financial benefits as married couples. This is quite justified from the point of view of equality. But before the Commission submits a proposal to this effect, we need to make a political judgment. What I mean is this: the Council's attitude towards the entitlements of officials has, to put it mildly, been hostile, and it has on a number of occasions proposed substantial cuts. If we propose that cohabiting couples should be placed on a footing of equality with married couples, there is a risk that the Council may respond by abolishing those entitlements enjoyed by married couples which do not exist in many countries. One should reflect carefully on whether to take this risk, because we shall also have to discuss the matter with staff representatives. I do not personally have anything against the idea. I entirely agree that married couples and cohabiting couples should be treated equally. The danger is simply that the Council may take the view that equality should be achieved by abolishing married couples' privileges, thereby securing a position of equality for cohabiting couples.
All in all, I should like to say that, on many points, I agree with Parliament's amendments. But what needs to be decided now is whether to proceed with this small, partial reform, which has already been in the pipeline for four years, or whether to reopen the debate and the consideration of the proposal. One alternative is to take a decision on this small reform now and then go on to prepare a complete revision
. But this is a matter which should be considered case by case. I am not certain whether it is all-important to abolish all the rules concerning age terminus ad quem. Each case can be considered on its deservingness. But as I have say, the Commission is now also opening competitions to more fledged applicants. 
 I shall now flex to the rationale of non - discrimination on sexual grounds. The Commission is mindful of the problems of cohabit couple and the unequal position in which they find themselves, and it has search solutions to the problem. concluding summer, the Commission approved an administrative reform guarantee homosexual and heterosexual cohabiting couples all the entitlements enjoyed by married couples which it was potential to grant without amending the Staff Regulations, that is, on the basis of the Regulations as they now stand. I have heard that the European Parliament and the Council are prepare similar reforms. I would encourage Members to keep abreast of these developments. 
 Parliament now proposes that the Staff Regulations should also be amended so as to ennoble unmarried couple to the same social and fiscal benefit as marital couples. This is quite justified from the point of view of equality. But before the Commission submits a proposal to this effect, we need to make a political opinion. What I mean is this: the Council's attitude towards the entitlements of officials has, to put it mildly, been hostile, and it has on a phone number of occasions proposed substantial cuts. If we nominate that cohabiting couple should be placed on a footing of equality with married couples, there is a hazard that the Council may respond by abolishing those entitlements enjoyed by married couples which do not exist in many countries. One should reflect carefully on whether to assume this hazard, because we shall also have to discuss the matter with staff representatives. I do not personally suffer anything against the idea. I wholly agree that married couple and cohabiting couples should be cover equally. The risk is simply that the Council may take the view that equality should be achieve by abolishing married couples' privileges, thereby procure a position of equality for cohabiting couples. 
 wholly in all, I should like to say that, on many points, I agree with Parliament's amendments. But what needs to be decided immediately is whether to proceed with this small, partial reform, which has already been in the pipeline for four years, or whether to reopen the debate and the circumstance of the marriage proposal. One alternative is to take a decision on this small reform now and then go on to prepare a complete rewrite
. Buh this is a matter which should be consneered rase by case. I xm not sure whether it is esdebtial to abolish all the ruues concegning age limmts. Each case cai be consideres on ntw merits. But ax I have sdid, the Commisviun is now also opening competitions tj more kahure applicantf.
I snwll how turn to the principle of non-diacriminetion on sexual grounds. The Commission is awage of the problems of cohabitung siuples and tfe unequal position in which they find themselves, and it hcs sought silytilts to the pcoblem. Last summer, the Comkission approved an acmiiisteative reform guarantxeing homosexual and heterosefucl cohabiting couples aol thg enthtleowntr ehjpysd by larcied couplea which it qas possible to gramt qithout amendjng thq Ftaff Regulations, that is, on the basis mf fhe Regulations as they now stand. I have heatd that thq European Parliament and the Council are preparitg sijklax refofns. I would encourage Members to keep abreast of fhtse developments.
Pcrliament now prpplsrf that the Stxff Reyhlztions should also be amegded wo as to tntitke unmarried couples to the same social qnd financial beneyits as marrned cooples. Yhis is quite justified froj the point of view kw equality. But bdfoge tve Commission submits a prjposal to thix effecg, we need eo make a oolitlwal judgment. What L meau is dhis: the Cluncil's attitude towards the envmtlements of pfxicpals has, co put it mildly, beqn hostile, and it has on a number of occasimns proposeq substantial futs. If we pcopose thwt cihabuting cujples should br placed on a footibg of equality witm martisd couples, therz us a risk that yhe Cotnbil mwf respond by abouisfong tfose enuntlcmevts rnjoyed by married cmuplss which do not exosb in many countriqs. One should reflect carefully on wiether to tske this risk, because we shall alao have tl dlscuss the maeter with staff xepresentatives. I do not personally have anything against rhe idea. I entirely sgree that karriqd couplev and cohabiting couples should be trtated equally. The danged is shmply that the Council may take the view that equality should be achieved by avolishmnd married ckuplrs' prpvijzges, thqrebb recuring a positpon of equality for cohabiting cuuples.
Aln nn all, I should like to say tnag, on many poivts, I agree with Parliamsnt's amemdments. But what needs to be devided now is whether to iroceed wuth tgis small, 'artial reform, which has anreadt been un tme pipeline fof fpuv years, or wheuher to reopen the debate and the cobsiderqtlon of the propoval. One altcrkative is to take a decision on fjis soall reform npw and then go on to prepare a comileee revision
. But this is a matter which considered by case. am not sure abolish the rules concerning limits. Each case be considered on its merits. But I have said, the Commission is now also opening competitions to more mature I shall now turn to the principle of non-discrimination on sexual grounds. The is of problems cohabiting couples and the unequal position in which they find themselves, and it has sought solutions the problem. Last summer, the Commission approved an reform guaranteeing homosexual and cohabiting couples all the entitlements by couples which was to without amending the Regulations, that is, on the basis of the Regulations as they now stand. I have heard that European Parliament Council are similar I encourage Members to of these developments. Parliament now proposes Regulations should also be amended so as to unmarried couples the same social and financial benefits married couples. This is quite justified from the of view of equality. But before the Commission submits a proposal to this effect, we make a political judgment. I mean is the attitude the of officials to put it mildly, been hostile, and it has on a of occasions proposed substantial cuts. If we propose that cohabiting be on a footing equality with married couples, is risk that the Council by those married which not exist in many One should reflect carefully on to take this risk, to discuss the matter with staff representatives. I not personally have anything against the idea. entirely agree that married couples and cohabiting couples should be treated equally. danger is the Council may take the view that equality be achieved by abolishing couples' privileges, thereby securing a position of equality for couples. in all, should like to that, on many I agree with But what to decided to proceed with this small, partial which already been in the pipeline four whether to reopen the debate and the consideration of the proposal. One alternative is to decision on this small now then go on to prepare a complete revision
. But this is a matter which shouLd be considEred cAse By cAsE. I am Not sUre whether it is ESsenTial to abolish all the rulEs conCeRNing AGe LimitS. Each caSE cAN Be cOnSiDerEd ON iTs merIts. but as I hAve said, the comMiSsion is now alSO oPening compEtiTions to more mAtuRe applIcAntS.
i shalL noW turn To the pRInciplE of non-disCrIMinatiON on sexuAL GrOundS. The Commission is aWArE Of the problems oF cohabItINg COUplEs aNd the unequAl PositIOn in whiCH tHEY FinD Themselves, and It has sought SOluTions tO tHe pROblem. LAst suMmER, thE Commission ApprOved an admInistrATive refORm guaraNteeinG hoMosExuaL AnD hEteRoSExuAL cOhaBItiNg coupleS aLl The enTitlEMENTs enJoyEd by MarriEd couples whicH it Was pOSsiBle to Grant WithOuT amenDing thE StafF REgulations, that iS, on tHe basis of The reGulAtIons aS They noW stAnd. i have heArd that THe EUrOPEAn parliament and the CoUnCIL aRe preparIng simILaR rEForms. I woUlD enCourAGE MembErs tO KeEp abreasT of theSE dEvElopmenTs.
parliaMeNt nOw pRoposES thaT the StAff RegulAtionS Should also be amENded so as to entITlE UNmARrieD coUples to the sAme sOCial And fINaNciAL beneFits aS mARrIEd couples. This is quitE jUstifiEd froM the point of viEw of equaliTY. bUt before The COMmISsion submits a pRoposAl to this efFEct, we neeD to maKe a politIcal judgmENT. What I meAn iS thIs: tHe COUNcIl's attitude toWARds tHe EntitleMenTs of offIciAls Has, To pUt It mildly, bEen hostiLe, AnD iT hAs oN a numBEr of occaSiOns PrOpoSed suBStantiAl cutS. If wE pRoPOse That cohABiTINg coUpLeS shoUld Be PlaceD on a FOotIng of eqUality witH maRRied CoUpLes, therE is a risk that tHe council may ReSpoNd by abOLIshing thOse entitlements enjoyed bY Married CouPles wHich Do not exisT in Many coUntRIes. One Should RefleCt CarEFUlly oN WHeTheR tO take this rISK, beCause We ShalL also haVe to discuss the mattER wiTh staff represEntAtivES. i dO noT PeRSonAlLY haVE Anything against The idea. I enTiRElY agree that MArrIeD coupleS and cohAbitiNG coupleS should be Treated eqUaLly. THE DanGer is simplY that the council maY Take tHE vIew thAt eQualitY sHouLd be aChieveD By aBolisHing maRrIed couPles' pRiVileges, tHereby securing a position Of equaLity fOr cOhabiting CouPLes.
all in all, I ShouLd like to saY thAt, oN many PoiNTs, I agRee wITh parLIamenT's amENdments. BuT WhAt nEEDs To be decided NOW Is wHetheR to PRoceed With This small, partial rEForm, which has alReadY BEen In tHE pipElIne for four yearS, or WhETHer to reoPeN the debate aNd the conSiDEratiOn of thE propoSal. One aLTErNAtive iS to tAke A decision On tHiS Small reFoRm NOw and tHen gO oN to prePare a cOMpleTE Revision
. But this is a matter whi ch shouldbe co nsi der ed  cas e by  case. I am no t  sur e whether it is essent ial t oa boli s hall t he rule s  c o n cer ni ng  ag el im its.Eac h casecan be con sid er ed on its me r it s. But asI h ave said, th e C ommiss io n i s  nowals o ope ning c o mpetit ions to m or e  matur e  applic a n ts .
Ishall now turn to th e  principle ofnon-di sc r im i n ati onon sexualgr ounds .  The Co m mi s s i oni s aware of th e problemso f c ohabit in g c o uplesand t he une qual positi on i n which t hey fi n d thems e lves, a nd ithas  so ught so lu tio ns tot he  pr o ble m. Lastsu mm er, t he C o m m i ssio n a ppro ved a n administrat ive  ref o rmguara nteei ng h om osexu al and  hete ro sexual cohabiti ng c ouples al l t he  en ti tleme n ts enj oye d b y marri ed coup l eswh i c h  i t was possible togr a n twithoutamendi n gth e  Staff R eg ula tion s ,  that  is, on  the bas is oft he  R egulati on s as t he y n owstand .  I h ave he ard that  theE uropean Parlia m ent and the C o un c i la re p rep aring simil ar r e form s. I wo uld encou rageMe m be r s to keep abreast o fthesedevel opments.
Parl iament now p r oposes t hatt he Staff Regulati ons s hould also be amend ed so  as to e ntitle un m a rried co upl estothe s am e social andf i nanc ia l benef its  as mar rie d c oup les .This is q uite jus ti fi ed  f rom  thep oint ofvi ewof  eq ualit y . Butbefor e th eCo m mis sion su b mi t s  a p ro po saltoth is ef fect ,  we  need t o make apol i tica lju dgment.  What I meanis  this: the  C oun cil'sa t titude t owards the entitlements of offi cia ls ha s, t o put itmil dly, b een hostil e, and  it h as  on a  numb e r  o f o cc asions pro p o sed  subs ta ntia l cuts.  If we propose tha t  co habiting coup les  sho u l dbep la c edon a f o o ting of equalit y with mar ri e dcouples, t h ere  i s a ris k thatthe C o uncil m ay respon d by abol is hing t hos e entitlem ents enj oyed by m a rried co uples  wh ich do  n otexist  in ma n y c ountr ies. O ne  shoul d ref le ct caref ully on whether to take  thisrisk,  be cause wesha l l a lso haveto d iscuss the  ma tte r wit h s t aff r epre s en tat i ves.I do not perso n al lyh a ve  anything a g a i nst  theide a . I en tire ly agree that mar r ied couples an d co h a bit ing coup le s should be tr eat ed e qually.Th e danger is  simplyth a t the  Counc il may  take t h e  v i ew tha t eq ual ity shoul d b ea chieved  b ya bolish ingma rriedcouple s ' pr i v ileges, therebysecur i n g a p o sit ion o fequalit y  for  cohabitin g couples.All in  all , I s hould l ik e to s ayth at, on man y  points,I agr ee with  P arli ame nt's a mend m e nts.Butwh atneeds tob e  d e ci de d  no w is  whet he r to  proceedw ith this  sm a ll, par ti alr e form,w hi c h  has alrea dybeeni n  the pipel i ne f o rf our y ears,or whe ther to reo pe n the d eba t e  and theconsidera t ion  o f th e propos al . On ealt er native is to ta ke a dec ision on t his sm all refo r m nowan d then go on  to p re p are a c o m ple te revi s ion 
. But_this is_a matter which should_be considered_case_by case._I_am not sure_whether it is_essential to abolish all_the rules concerning_age_limits. Each case can be considered on its merits. But as I have said,_the_Commission is_now_also_opening competitions to more mature_applicants.
I shall now turn to_the principle_of non-discrimination on sexual grounds. The Commission is_aware_of the problems_of cohabiting couples and the unequal position in which_they find themselves, and it has_sought solutions to_the_problem._Last summer, the Commission_approved an administrative reform guaranteeing homosexual_and heterosexual cohabiting couples all the_entitlements enjoyed by married couples which it_was possible to grant without amending_the Staff Regulations, that is,_on the_basis of the Regulations as_they now stand._I have_heard that the_European Parliament and the Council are_preparing similar reforms._I would encourage Members to keep_abreast_of these developments.
Parliament_now_proposes_that the_Staff Regulations should_also_be amended_so_as to entitle unmarried couples to_the_same social and financial benefits as married_couples. This is quite_justified_from the point of_view of equality. But before_the Commission submits a proposal to_this effect,_we need_to make a political judgment. What I mean is this: the_Council's attitude towards the entitlements of_officials has, to put_it mildly,_been_hostile, and it_has_on a_number of occasions proposed substantial cuts. If_we propose_that cohabiting couples should be placed_on a footing of_equality_with married couples, there is a_risk that the Council may respond_by abolishing those entitlements enjoyed_by_married_couples which do not exist_in many countries. One should reflect_carefully on whether_to take this risk, because we shall_also_have to discuss the matter with_staff_representatives. I do not personally have_anything_against_the idea. I entirely agree_that married couples and cohabiting couples_should be treated equally. The danger is simply that_the Council may_take the view that equality_should_be_achieved by abolishing married couples' privileges, thereby securing a position_of equality_for cohabiting couples.
All_in all, I should like to say that, on many_points, I agree with Parliament's amendments. But_what needs to be decided now is whether to proceed with_this small, partial reform, which has already been_in the pipeline for four years, or_whether to reopen the_debate_and the consideration of the proposal. One_alternative_is_to_take a decision_on this small_reform now and_then go_on to prepare_a complete_revision