Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-12-13-Speech-4-091"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011213.5.4-091"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I should like to begin with the points made by Mrs Fraisse. She is absolutely right that we are at a turning point. There has been extensive evidence for this over a considerable period of time. Mrs Banotti's speech this morning is further evidence that even in countries where there has been a deep-rooted reluctance to change the social and legal conventions, there is movement in the direction of logic, rationality and civil rights. Things are starting to move, but everyone here is impatient for that movement to be much more positive and much more rapid.
Finally, to clarify a point that Mrs Eriksson made, the reference I made to very limited rights, such as the right to attend language courses, relates only to people who have the right to marry, or the right to have their partnership recognised but choose, for whatever reason, not to exercise that right. The access people have to various nominal social opportunities that exist now under the Staff Regulations will simply continue in those cases.
Our action, as she was good enough to acknowledge, owes nothing to prejudice. Our intention is to try to defeat prejudice because it is irrational and frequently brings brutal consequences. What we cannot defeat is not the prejudice but the laws that exist and are exercised in sovereign power by Member States. Not until we can secure changes in those laws – and this is gradually occurring – can we take substantial further steps beyond the significant steps that we are seeking to take in the course of this reform and which honourable Members have been good enough to acknowledge.
The interesting point raised by Mrs Fraisse about the activity of SNCF permits me to underline a distinction that we still, unfortunately, have to draw about the legal nature, status and powers of the European institutions as employer organisations. SNCF is an example of a public corporation with its own statute and considerable internal autonomy. Therefore it could make its own decision in relation to the treatment of homosexual couples. The same would apply to a private company that is, in this respect, literally a law unto itself. Unfortunately, that means that company could show a severe degree of prejudice but it could also show a very positive degree of enlightenment.
We are not in either of those categories. Nor are we in the category of a Member State which has passed a law which is positive about the treatment of stable homosexual relationships. Consequently, we are faced with a limitation because we are a public institution. Parliament, Council, Commission, Court of Justice, Court of Auditors – the whole panoply of European Union institutions – have a statute that does not permit us to exercise the degree of autonomy which is the basis for many of the arguments correctly put forward this morning. I include the arguments put by Mrs Erikkson for which I have a substantial degree of sympathy.
I should like to answer very quickly the other questions, starting with Mr Lund. I would repeat the point I made earlier. Once a partnership is recognised under a Member State's recognition of partnership arrangements, we will give equal rights to everybody regardless of the benefit level applied under national legislation in the national context. Once the key is turned, we will accord the best treatment within our power.
Secondly, on the timetable. Together with the rest of the proposed changes in the Staff Regulations, we will submit a proposal to this House and the Council in spring of next year. It will then be in the hands of you legislators and the legislators in the Council to decide the speed of passage and – I hope – the early date of implementation of this and other necessary changes.
I would also like to make a point that relates to material that people in the House may want to get access to. A positive attitude was expressed in the Council towards our undertaking to make a survey of arrangements throughout all 15 Member States. We received answers from 13 of the Member States, so it is quite a comprehensive, if informal, survey. If Members want, on application, to gain access to that information DG Admin. will happily respond. The information we have collected shows that there is considerable diversity of arrangements. But – and here is the good news – as I said earlier, there is a gradual but definite tide of change.
Mr Harbour's question about children of stable partnerships is absolutely vital. The only answer I can give is that if a Member State recognises that the children produced by a stable relationship qualify for the variety of benefits, we will fully recognise that. Unfortunately, at this juncture we cannot go beyond that undertaking because of the limitations on our legal rights.
When Mr Cashman asks us to pursue best practice, he knows he is pushing at an open door. But Member States determine the practices, and we have to try to encourage adoption of the best practices amongst them. We will happily consider, however, any proposal that stable recognised partnerships qualify if home countries recognise or if a country of employment recognises them. We do not have that second part of the proposal before us at the moment, but we will happily give consideration to such a proposal and investigate its feasibility. If it is feasible to establish practices in the European institutions on the basis of practices in the country in which an EU official is employed, we will try to introduce that change which could extend certain rights of registered couples, whether homosexual or heterosexual.
I would like to say to Mr de Roo that no barrier is being put in the way of the advancement of gays and lesbians who are officials by the hierarchy of institutions. That is not the case. It is the Member States who must determine what our treatment of gays and lesbians in relationships must be. So far as employment rights are concerned, rights of assessment and promotion, rights of appointment to management, there is no barrier and no hierarchy has expressed any direct or indirect desire to install such a barrier. We will not install barriers but we cannot guarantee that existing cultural or legal inhibitions can automatically be dismantled. We do not have the power to do it in the Commission. I wish we could in many ways, but I would be misleading the House if I suggested that we have, or are likely to get, that kind of massive power for change."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples