I wish to take up three items from the Report of the Director-General: the strengthening of the supervisory system, the issue of social labelling, and the development of the standard-setting mechanism.

On the first one, I wish to state my support for the preparation of a Declaration on the core principles. It is important now, after the Singapore Meeting of the Trade Ministers, to have agreement on the content of these principles. The point of reference should be the Commitments of the Social Summit, held in Copenhagen in 1995.

Freedom of association, non-discrimination - which includes the principles of equality between women and men - and the abolition of forced labour and child labour are the core around which there seems to be universal agreement. It is important to recognize that they are an integrated set of principles. If one of them is not respected, the others are seriously weakened.

However, negotiating a Declaration for adoption a year from now is not enough. We have also to agree on what it would lead into. Modifications in the present system are needed so that it can cover the countries which have not ratified the Conventions on - or, in fact, against - discrimination and forced and child labour. I trust that the process can be undertaken in the Governing Body, and everyone should approach it with an open mind.

It may well be that in the end, no great changes in the system are needed. Improved procedures and adjustments to the present system could well be sufficient, so that all countries can be assisted to meet their fundamental constitutional obligations.

I welcome the Director-General's invitation to a broad discussion on the issue of social labelling. We know from our home countries that the issue is more and more discussed, by consumers, by enterprises and employers, and by trade unions. By reacting to the issue the ILO shows that it is in touch with the real world.

It is clear that much confidence building has to be done, and several kinds of dialogues are necessary. But there must be a starting point. Some years ago there was no consensus in the ILO on moving ahead on child labour, and in particular not on new standard setting. The views of governments and employers have developed on that issue. There is no reason why views should not develop on the issue of labelling as well. This is a longer term issue where all groups have the possibility of influencing one another in a constructive, positive way.

As to the different suggestions in part two of the Report, I should like to say that the value of Recommendations which are independent of Conventions depends entirely on how they are followed up. They can have value if they are implemented in the different countries, and if they lead into further action by the ILO. In some cases a Recommendation could be a step towards a Convention later on, if there is not yet enough agreement, or clarity, on the issue. But it is to be remembered that for instance, it has not been possible to follow up the Recommendation on Tripartite Cooperation with a more binding standard even though tripartism is what this organization is about.

Consequently, I wish to warn against Recommendations which become a kind of a dead-end road. But if there is a genuine will to achieve progress, and there is an understanding that each instrument will be looked at on its own merits, and will have a follow-up, we could look at our standard-setting mechanism in a more differentiated way than up to now.

The door to a further development of the thoughts in the second part of the Report should not be closed. Still, the solution to whatever problems the standard-setting mechanism may have, is certainly not to stop making Conventions and start drafting Recommendations instead.

Thank you very much.

Marjaana Valkonen