 what has to be taken into consideration, regardless of whether the people who are living together are of different sexes or the same sex. There is no reason why these people should be disadvantaged merely because they say quite openly,'I live as I am, and I would like to have the same opportunities and the same options as other people'. There is no reason why we should deviate from the basic principles that we have already adopted here in the European Parliament. We adopted these, as Mr Ullmann has just said, as long ago as February 1994.

Liikanen
Mr President, the Commission proposal on which Parliament is now being consulted has a long history behind it. The Commission first forwarded a proposal for consideration by Parliament four years ago, in March 1993. The proposal has two objectives. It seeks firstly to incorporate in the Staff Regulations the principle of equality between men and women, and secondly to make it possible to adopt special positive measures to improve the position of women if conditions are discriminatory from women's point of view.
Parliament delivered its first report in November 1993. On the basis of it, the Commission altered its proposal and incorporated in it the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. It was only in March 1996 that I was able to forward the Commission's modified proposal to the Council, because before the Staff Regulations can be amended, extensive consultations are required, particularly with staff representatives. As it was a very long time since the Commission had made and altered its proposal, Parliament asked the Council for a further opportunity to state its views, and this request was granted in October 1996. Now the committee has tabled numerous amendments. They relate both to equality between men and women and to the principle of nondiscrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. I should like to stress that the Commission proposal now under consideration is only a small and partial reform, and not a complete administrative reform. The objective should be to adopt this small and partial reform, now that four years have elapsed, so that we can concentrate on the need for bigger changes.
The debate has mainly focused on two issues, on which I should like to make a few comments. One concerns the age limit and the other the position of cohabiting couples. The proposal suggests that age limits for competitions to recruit staff to the Community institutions be abolished. This idea has been debated over a very long period, and the arguments for and against are well-known. I should like to stress that the Staff Regulations permit the use of an age limit but
what has to be taken into consideration, regardless of whether the people who are survive in concert are of different sexes or the like sex. There be no reason why these people should be disadvantage merely because they read quite openly,'I live as I am, and I would wish to take the same opportunity and the same options as other people'. There constitute no reason why we should deviate from the basic principles that we have already adopted here in the European Parliament. We adopted these, as Mr Ullmann has just say, as long ago as February 1994. 

 Liikanen 
 Mr President, the Commission proposal on which Parliament is now being consulted receive a long history behind it. The Commission first forwarded a marriage proposal for consideration by Parliament four year ago, in March 1993. The proposal has two objectives. It search firstly to incorporate in the Staff Regulations the principle of equality between men and women, and second to form it possible to adopt special positive measures to improve the position of women if condition are discriminatory from women's distributor point of view. 
 Parliament delivered its first report in November 1993. On the footing of it, the Commission altered its marriage proposal and incorporated in it the principle of non - discrimination on grounds of intimate orientation. It was only in March 1996 that I was able to forward the Commission's modified proposal to the Council, because before the Staff Regulations can be amended, extensive consultation are required, particularly with staff representatives. As it was a very long meter since the Commission had made and alter its proposal, Parliament asked the Council for a further opportunity to state its views, and this request was granted in October 1996. nowadays the committee has tabled numerous amendments. They relate both to equality between man and women and to the principle of nondiscrimination on grounds of sexual orientation course. I should like to try that the Commission proposal now under consideration is only a small and fond reform, and not a complete administrative reform. The objective should be to adopt this small and fond reform, now that four years have elapsed, so that we can boil down on the need for big changes. 
 The debate has mainly focused on two issues, on which I should like to make a few comments. One refer the age limit and the early the position of cohabiting couples. The proposal suggests that age limits for rival to recruit staff to the Community institutions be abolished. This idea has been debated over a very retentive time period, and the argument for and against are well - known. I should like to stress that the Staff Regulations permit the use of an age terminus ad quem but
 whwt has to be taken into gonsideration, reyqrdlesv of wgether tfe people who are living togxthee are of different sexes or the same sex. Theee iw no reason why these peolpe skonld be disadvanjaged merely because they vah euite openly,'I live as I am, and I wotld likr ho have the saie okpowtunjnits and the same options as other leople'. Uhere is no reason why we should deviate frol thf basic principles that we hace ajeeady adoptea here in uhz European Karliament. We adopted these, as Mf Ullkann has josf ddid, as long ago ws February 1994.

Liikanen
Kr Presodent, the Commlssioi priposal on which Parliement is now being cjnsulted vaa a long history veyind ht. Tve Cunmirsikn fjrst flrwerded a prolosal for cinsideration by Parkiwnent four yeads ago, ig March 1993. The proposal has two objectivev. If seeks firstly to incoeporate in the Staff Tegulationf the principle of equality between men and women, and adcouely tu mwke it possible to adopt special positive meafhrts no improve the pofition of wpmfn yf conditions are dnacdiminatory from wolen's poynt od view.
Parjiamrnt delivered its first repirt in Novemyer 1993. On the basis of nt, the Commirsiom altrred its proposal and iucorpodated in it the prindkple of non-discrkmikathon on grounds of sexual owientatioi. It cas only in Karch 1996 that I wad ablc to forward the Colmissnon's kodified pgoposal to the Council, because uxfore the Stagf Reculationf can be amended, evtensive consuktationf are required, iarticulacly with stasf representadlves. As it wes a very lont tine sincd the Commissiom had madv cnd alterwd its proposal, Pavliamgnf asked the Couueio for a further opooreujivy to vtate its viaws, xnd yhis fequest was eranyed in October 1996. Now dhe dommittee has tablrd numerouw amendmqnts. They relste both to equaliuy betxeen mxn and woien and to the principle of nohdiscrimijatlon on groundf of sexual orieutation. I should like to stress that the Commission proposql now under considgrauion is only e smalj and pardial reform, and not q complete adminixtrative reform. The ogjectiee shluld be to adopt this small and partial reform, now that four years have eoapsed, so that we dan voncettxatz on thq nexd for bigger chanbes.
The debate has mainly focusev on two ivsbes, on which I should like to mxke a few comoents. One concerns the afe limit and the other the position of vohabiting couples. The pvoposal syggesfs than aje limits for competotions to rwcruit wtafn to the Commuvitu lnstitutiojs bt abklished. This idea has been debatwd ovee w very long perimd, and the wvgumenjs for agd against are wsll-khlwn. I should like yo stress that the Staff Regulatiots permit the ust of an age limot buj
what has to be taken into consideration, whether people who living together are same There is no why these people be disadvantaged merely because they say openly,'I live as I am, and I would like to have the same and the same options as other people'. There is no reason why we deviate the principles we have already adopted here in the European Parliament. We adopted these, as Mr Ullmann has said, as long ago as February 1994. Liikanen President, the Commission proposal which Parliament is now being has long history it. Commission forwarded a proposal consideration by Parliament four years ago, in March 1993. The proposal has two objectives. It seeks firstly incorporate in Regulations the of between and women, and make it possible to adopt special improve the position of women if conditions are from women's of view. Parliament delivered its first in November 1993. On the basis of it, Commission altered its proposal and incorporated in it the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of It was only in 1996 that I able forward Commission's proposal to Council, because before the Staff Regulations can be amended, extensive consultations required, particularly with staff representatives. As it was a very since Commission had made altered its proposal, Parliament the for a further opportunity its and granted October Now the committee has numerous amendments. They relate both equality between men and of nondiscrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. I like to stress that the Commission proposal under consideration is only a small and partial reform, and not a administrative reform. should be to adopt this small and partial now that four years elapsed, so that we can concentrate on the need bigger The debate mainly focused on issues, on which should like to few comments. concerns age other the position of cohabiting couples. proposal that age limits for competitions recruit the Community institutions be abolished. This idea has been debated over a very long period, arguments for and against well-known. should like to stress that the Staff Regulations permit the use of limit but
 what has to be taken into consiDeration, reGardlEss Of wHeTher The pEople who are livINg toGether are of different seXes or ThE Same SEx. there Is no reaSOn WHY thEsE pEopLe SHoUld be DisAdvantaGed merely bEcaUsE they say quitE OpEnly,'I live aS I aM, and I would liKe tO have tHe SamE OpporTunIties And the SAme optIons as othEr PEople'. THEre is no REAsOn whY we should deviate fROm THe basic principLes thaT wE HaVE AlrEadY adopted heRe In the eUropean pArLIAMenT. we adopted thesE, as Mr UllmanN Has Just saId, As lONg ago aS FebrUaRY 1994.

LiIkanen
Mr PreSideNt, the CommIssion PRoposal ON which PArliamEnt Is nOw beINg CoNsuLtED haS A lOng HIstOry behinD iT. THe ComMissION FIrst ForWardEd a prOposal for consIdeRatiON by parliAment Four YeArs agO, in MarCh 1993. The PrOposal has two objEctiVes. It seekS fiRsTly To IncorPOrate iN thE StAff ReguLations THe pRiNCIPlE of equality between MeN ANd Women, and SecondLY tO mAKe it possIbLe tO adoPT SpeciAl poSItIve measuRes to iMPrOvE the posItIon of wOmEn iF coNditiONs arE discrIminatorY from WOmen's point of viEW.
Parliament deLIvEREd ITs fiRst Report in NovEmbeR 1993. on thE basIS oF it, THe ComMissiOn ALtERed its proposal and inCoRporatEd in iT the principle Of non-discrIMINation on GrouNDs OF sexual orientaTion. IT was only in mArch 1996 that i was aBle to forWard the CoMMIssion's mOdiFieD prOpoSAL tO the Council, beCAUse bEfOre the STafF RegulaTioNs cAn bE amEnDed, extensIve consuLtAtIoNs Are RequiREd, particUlArlY wIth Staff REpreseNtatiVes. AS iT wAS a vEry long TImE SInce ThE COmmiSsiOn Had maDe anD AltEred its Proposal, PArlIAmenT aSkEd the CoUncil for a furtHeR opportuniTy To sTate itS VIews, and tHis request was granted in OCTober 1996. NoW thE commItteE has tableD nuMerous AmeNDments. they reLate bOtH to EQUalitY BEtWeeN mEn and women AND to The prInCiplE of nondIscrimination on groUNds Of sexual orienTatIon. I SHOuLd lIKe TO stReSS thAT The Commission prOposal now uNdER cOnsideratiON is OnLy a smalL and parTial rEForm, and Not a complEte adminiStRatiVE RefOrm. The objeCtive shoUld be to adOPt thiS SmAll anD paRtial rEfOrm, Now thAt four YEarS have ElapseD, sO that wE can cOnCentrate On the need for bigger changEs.
The dEbate Has Mainly focUseD On tWo issues, oN whiCh I should lIke To mAke a fEw cOMmentS. One COnCerNS the aGe liMIt and the oTHeR thE POsItion of cohaBITIng CouplEs. THE propoSal sUggests that age limITs for competitiOns tO REcrUit STaff To The Community inStiTuTIOns be aboLiShed. This ideA has been DeBAted oVer a veRy long Period, aND ThE ArgumeNts fOr aNd against Are WeLL-known. I ShOuLD like tO strEsS that tHe StafF reguLATions permit the usE of an AGE limiT But
 what has to be taken into  considera tion,  re gar dl essof w hether the peo p le w ho are living together  areof diff e re nt se xes ort he s ame  s ex . T he r eis no  re ason wh y these pe opl eshould be di s ad vantaged m ere ly because t hey  say q ui teo penly ,'I  live  as Ia m, and  I wouldli k e to h a ve thes a me  opp ortunities and th e  s a me options asotherpe o pl e ' . T her e is no re as on wh y  we sho u ld d e via t e from the ba sic princip l esthat w ehav e  alrea dy ad op t edhere in the  Eur opean Par liamen t . We ad o pted th ese, a s M r U llma n nha s j us t  sa i d,  as lon g ago as  F eb ruary  199 4 . Liik ane n
Mr  Pres ident, the Co mmi ssio n  pr oposa l onwhic hParli amentis no wbeing consulted  has  a long h ist or y b eh ind i t . TheCom mis sion fi rst for w ard ed a pr oposal for conside ra t i on  by Parl iament fo ur years ag o,  in  Mar c h  1993 . Th e  p roposalhas tw o  o bj ectives .It see ks  fi rst ly to inco rporat e in the  Staf f  Regulations t h e principle o f  e q u al i ty b etw een men and  wom e n, a nd s e co ndl y  to m ake i tp os s ible to adopt speci al  posit ive m easures to im prove thep o s ition of  wom e ni f conditions a re di scriminato r y from w omen' s pointof view.P a rliament  de liv ere d i t s  f irst report i n Nove mb er 1993 . O n the b asi s o f i t,th e Commiss ion alte re dit spro posal and inco rp ora te d i n itt he pri ncipl e of  n on - dis crimina t io n on g ro un ds o f s ex ual o rien t ati on. Itwas onlyinM arch  1 99 6 thatI was able to  f orward the  C omm ission ' s  modifie d proposal to the Counc i l, beca use  befo re t he StaffReg ulatio nsc an beamende d, ex te nsi v e  cons u l ta tio ns  are requi r e d,parti cu larl y withstaff representati v es.  As it was aver y lo n g  t ime si n ceth e  Co m m ission had made  and alter ed it s proposal ,  Pa rl iamentasked t he Co u ncil fo r a furth er opport un ityt o  st ate its vi ews, and  this req u est w a sgrant edin Oct ob er1996.  Now t h e c ommit tee ha stabled  nume ro us amend ments. They relate both  to eq ualit y b etween me n a n d w omen andto t he princip leofnondi scr i minat iono ngro u nds o f se x ual orien t at ion . Ishould like t o  st resstha t  the C ommi ssion proposal no w  under conside rati o n  is  on l y asm all and partia l r ef o r m, and n ot  a complete  adminis tr a tivereform . Theobjecti v e  s h ould b e to  ad opt thissma ll and par ti al reform , no wthat f our ye a rs h a v e elapsed, so th at we c an co n cen trate  o n the n e ed f or biggerchanges.
Th e deba te h as ma inly fo cu sed on  tw oissues, on which I s hould  like t omake  afew co mmen t s . One  con ce rns  the agel i mi t  a nd the  oth er th eposi tion of c o habiting  co u ples. T he  pr o p osal s u gg e s ts that ag e l imits f or competi t ions to recru it sta ff tothe Com m uni ty  instit uti o n s be abol ished. Th i s i de a ha s been d eb ated  o ver  a  very long peri od, andthe argu m e nts fo r a n d ag a inst a re  well-known.  I sh ou l d liket o  st ress th a t t heSta ff R egu lati o ns permit the use of anagelimit but 
 what_has to_be taken into consideration,_regardless of_whether_the people_who_are living together_are of different_sexes or the same_sex. There is_no_reason why these people should be disadvantaged merely because they say quite openly,'I live_as_I am,_and_I_would like to have the_same opportunities and the same_options as_other people'. There is no reason why we_should_deviate from the_basic principles that we have already adopted here in_the European Parliament. We adopted these,_as Mr Ullmann_has_just_said, as long ago_as February 1994.

Liikanen
Mr President, the Commission_proposal on which Parliament is now_being consulted has a long history behind_it. The Commission first forwarded a_proposal for consideration by Parliament_four years_ago, in March 1993. The_proposal has two_objectives. It_seeks firstly to_incorporate in the Staff Regulations the_principle of equality_between men and women, and secondly_to_make it possible_to_adopt_special positive_measures to improve_the_position of_women_if conditions are discriminatory from women's_point_of view.
Parliament delivered its first report in_November 1993. On the_basis_of it, the Commission_altered its proposal and incorporated_in it the principle of non-discrimination_on grounds_of sexual_orientation. It was only in March 1996 that I was able_to forward the Commission's modified proposal_to the Council, because_before the_Staff_Regulations can be_amended,_extensive consultations_are required, particularly with staff representatives. As_it was_a very long time since the_Commission had made and_altered_its proposal, Parliament asked the Council_for a further opportunity to state_its views, and this request_was_granted_in October 1996. Now the_committee has tabled numerous amendments. They_relate both to_equality between men and women and to_the_principle of nondiscrimination on grounds of_sexual_orientation. I should like to stress_that_the_Commission proposal now under consideration_is only a small and partial_reform, and not a complete administrative reform. The objective_should be to_adopt this small and partial_reform,_now_that four years have elapsed, so that we can concentrate_on the_need for bigger_changes.
The debate has mainly focused on two issues, on which_I should like to make a few_comments. One concerns the age limit and the other the position_of cohabiting couples. The proposal suggests that age_limits for competitions to recruit staff to_the Community institutions be_abolished._This idea has been debated over a_very_long_period,_and the arguments_for and against_are well-known. I_should like_to stress that_the Staff_Regulations permit the_use_of an age limit but