(WPR/RC22/SR/7)
, '.
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SEVENTH MEETING ~nday,
WHO Conference Hall 27 September 1971 at 10.30 a.m. Dr Tran-Minh-Tung (Viet-Nam) CONTENTS
CHAIRMAN:
.. ~
1
Consideration of draft resolutions
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 ..........
178 183 184
2 3
Report by governments on the progress of current programmes receiving WHO assistance ................................ Long-term inter-country programme in health laboratory services .. ~ . .... .. .. . .. .. .. .... . . . .. .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . .
-~
4
Statement by Dr H.T. Mahler, Assistant Director-General, Representative of the Direc tor-General ...................................................................................... 185
-175-
176
REGIONAL COMMITTEE:
TWENTY-SECOND SESSION
~
..
Mond!l.
'Z7 Sept_ber 1971 at 10.30 a._. PRl!8I!'.N'l'
I.
Reere..nt&tive. of Member Statu ATE'l'ftALtA Dr H.M. Frank~lU1ds
Dr E. P. 'lb0lU0Il Dr A. Tarutia Dr C.H. Yen Dr K.P. Chen DrH.Kasuga -
CHDfA JAPAN
....
,
Mr K. Watanabe Mr M. Takahuhl Dr So Satta
LAQ3
Dr Ph0U7 Phoutthuak Dr Tiao JaIavud Visouthiphongs
MALA'YSIA
Dato (Dr) AbdUl Majid bin Is_11 Dr Abdul Majid bin Tan Sri Abdul Adz Dr Meohiel CMn Kin Chung ,.- Mr Onn bin Ka~at Dr C.N. Derek Taylor Dr C.S. Gatmaitan Dr D.H. S11vaFerreira Mr Sae Hoon Aqn
NEW ZEAIAND PHILIPPlmS POR'lUQAL
REPUBLIC OF KORFA SINQAPORE UNITED KINGDOM
no V. SundaraZ1aJan Dr Q.H. Choa Dr K. L. Thong Dr James KIng
UNITED STATm3 OF AMERICA
Mr F.S. Cruz
......
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SEVENTH MEETING ,
177
VIET-NAM
Dr Tran-Minh..,.Tung Dr Truong-Minh-Cac Dr Nguyen Xuan-Trinh
Mr Chau-Van-Muol WESTERN SAMOA II. Dr J.C. 'Ibieme
Representatives of the United Nations and Specialized Agencies INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION Dr G. El Samra
III. Representatives of other
int~vernmental
organizations
INTERNATICNAL COr«iTI'EE OP MILITARY MEDICINE AND PHARMACY
Colonel Domtnador A. Garcia
IV. Representatives of non-governmental orsartzations INTERNATIONAL UNION :FOR HEALTH EWCATION INTERNATIONAL FElERATION OF GYNAECOLOGY AND OEBTRETRICS --.J
Mrs Iuisa A.
A1~rez
Professor J.R. Villanueva Dr E. Villegas
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COMMISSION INTERNATIONAL COMMl'rI!EE OF CATHOLIC NURS~ WORLD PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATI~ SOCI~
Mrs
Mrs M.R. Ordoflez L. Batista Professor G. L. Gamez Dr V. Galvez Dr E.T. Caparas
LEAGUE OF RED CRooS
WORLD MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, INC. MEDICAL WOMEN'S INTERNATIONAL V. WHO Secretariat REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL SECRETARY ~'/
Dr U.Y. Zalamea Dr E.T. Novales
Dr H. T. M$ler Assistant Director-General Dr Francisco J. D.r Regional Director
178
REGIONAL COMMITTEE:
TWENTY-SECOND SESSIOr
1
CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT RESOLUTIONS The C01lDllittee considered the following draft resol,utions:
1.1
Comprehensive and co-ordinated teacher training Psogramme for health personnel (Document WPR/RC22/WP/16) Decision: The resolution was adopted as presented, without c01lDllent' (see resolution WPR/RC22.Rl6).
1.2
Costs of meetings of the Regional Committee (Document WPR/RC22/WP/17 - Alternative 1; Alternative 2; and Alternative 3)
Dato (Dr) ABDUL MAJID BIN ISMAIL (Malaysia) introduced three alternative draft texts, which the Rapporteurs had prepared at the request of the Committee. Dr YEN (China) proposed that Alternative 3 be takan first. The REGIONAL DIRECTOR explained that Alternative 1 rescinded the decisions taken by the Regional C01lDllittee in 1953 and 1968; Alternative 2 reaffirmed those decisions, i.e., that the host government must bear all the additional expenses incurred in holding region~ C01lDllittee - meetings away from regional headquarters; while Alternative 3 provided that host governments should pay as much as possible of the additional expenses but, to the extent that a host government was unable to meet those additional costs, they would be met from the budglet of the Organization. Alternative 1 was the most remote from existing practice. Dr KING (United States of America) said that the three resolutions were quite different in their philosophy and the Committee should first discuss which philosophy to follow rather than take th~ resolutions one by one. As stated earlier, the United States delegation preferred to see no change in the procedure of the Regional Office's activities. Dr CROA (United Kingdom) supported the views of the United States delegation. Dr GATMAITAN (Philippines) considered that the merrits and demerits of each resolution had already been discussed at lengt~. All delegations had aired their view~ and each had taken up its attitude. It was therefore time to take the vote. Alternatives I and 2 were quite distinct, while Alternative 3 was a compromise. The first two should ble voted upon and, if no consensus, then a vote should be taken on Alternative 3.
,
'
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SEVENTH MEETING
179
Dr TAYLOR (New Zealand) wondered what happened to Alternative ;3 if Alternative 1 was adopted. Presumably it would be dropped altogether. He proposed to take Alternative 2 first. His delegation agreed with those of the United Kingdom and the United States. He proposed the order of voting to be: 2, 3 and then 1. Dr KING (United States of America) observed that the discussion centred around the proposal of the Regional Director that a change was needed. The furthest removed in substance was continuation of the existing practice. The REGIONAL DIRECTOR wished to correct the impression conveyed by the preceding speaker. He had not, in fact, proposed a change. Last year the Regional Committee had asked him to put an itelll cOllcerningthe cost of holding meetings on the present agenda, and he had cOlllplied with that request by submitting a document showing the various estimates. But it was for the Regional Committee to decide; he himself made no decisions on such subjects. He then called attention to Rule 37 of the Rules of Procedure: "If two or more proposals are lIIOved, the CoDlllittee shall first vote on the proposal deemed by the Chairman to be furthest removed in substance from the proposal first presented and then on the proposal next removed therefrom, and so on, until all the proposals have been put to the vote, unless the result of a vote on a proposal makes unnecessary any other voting on the proposal or proposals still outstanding." Consequently, the Chairman must decide which resolution he considered furthest removed in substance, and which should thus be considered first. Dr GATMAITAN (Philippines) proposed that a vote be taken on Alternative 1. The CHAIRMAN said that the reason for having a specific item on the agenda was because at last year's meeting some delegates had proposed giving consideration to a procedure by which the host government need not pay the extra costs involved. Alternative 2 proposed to continue existing procedure and was thus the furthest removed in substance; it should therefore be voted on'first. Alternative 3 was the next fUrthest, with Alternative 1 coming last. Dr GATMAITAN (Philippines) enquired whether the views of the Chairman differed from those expressed by the Regional Director.
180
REGIONAL COMMITTEE:
TWENTY-SECOND SESSfON
The REGIONAL DIRECTOR referred to Rule 37 of the Rules of Procedure which he had just cited by which it was quite clear tha~ the Chairman must make the ruling. He had decided on the order: Al~ernative 2, then 3, with 1 last. The CHAIRMAN wished to explain his reasons for taking that order. The original proposal in substance was the resolution to change the existing procedure SQ that WHO would bear the whole of the extra costs. Alternative 1 was the original proposal so that Alternative 2 was the furthest away. The order should be: 2, 3 and 1. He proposed to take a vote on Alternative 2. A vote was taken by show of hands. 11 against, with one abstention.
The result of the voting on Alternative 2 was 3 votes in favour, Rejected. -~
-
A vote was then taken on Alternative 3. The result of the voting on Alternative 3 was 9 votes in favour, none against, with 5 abstentions. Adopted. Dr FRANKLANDS (Australia) pointed out that 15 votes had been recorded in the first vote and only 14 in the second. Dr CHOA (United Kingdom) explained that he had not voted on Alternative 3. Dr KING (United States of America) asked for clarification. Since Alternative 3 had been adopted by a vote, it was now impossible to modify the wording of that resolution, even in a minor way. He indicated that he had attempted to obtain the eye of the Chairman to make a comment before the vote was called for but had been unable to do so and had to lower his hand when the Chairman commenced counting votes. The REGIONAL DIRECTOR read out Rule 39 of the Regional Committee's Rules of Procedure, as follows: "When a proposal has been adopted or rejected it may not be reconsidered at the same session of the Committ1ee, unless the Committee, by a two-thirds majority,of the representatives present and voting, so decides. Permission to speak on a motion to reconsider shall be accorded only to two speakers opposing the motion, after which it shall be inmediately put to the vote." Since the representative of the United States wished far reconsideration of the resolution, only two speakers opposing that motilon might speak and then a vote would have to be taken.
---
"
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SEVENTH MEETING
181
Dr GATMAITAN (Philippines) thought that the representative of the United States only wished to make some drafting changes. Dr FRANKLANDS (Australia) quoted from Rule 39 and pointed out that the two-thirds majority had not been obtained. The REGIONAL DIRECTOR said that two speakers opposing the motion could speak first before the vote was taken. Dr FRANKLANDS (Australia) said that there must first be a motion for reconsideration of the resolution, which had been adopted. Presumably the wish of the United States representative to make some drafting changes constituted the motion. Two speakers opposed to it could speak but nothing was said about those in favour of it. Dr TAYLOR (New Zealand) considered that the United States representative only wanted to clarify and expand the ideas expressed in the resolution. Dr KING (United States of America) asked if he could make a comment. The REGIONAL DIRECTOR raised a point of order. There must be a twothirds majority vote in order to reconsider the decision; otherwise not even a comma could be altered. The Rules of Procedure must be followed. If two-thirds of the members agreed to reopen the discussion, then the . whole resolution could be dissected. The CHAIRMAN requested a vote as to whether the Committee wished to reopen the discussion. The result of the voting was 6 votes in favour, none against, with 9 abstentions. The representatives present and voting in accordance with the Rules of Procedure were therefore unanimous in voting to reopen the discussion. Dr KING (United States of America) stated that his point was a minor one, consisting of two minor amendments to paragraph 2 of the operative part of the resolution, namely to delete the words "as much as possible of the" and substitute the word "those" in the second line, and to delete the words "particularly that part" in the third line. Dato (Dr) ABDUL MAJID BIN ISMAIL (Malaysia) observed that the proposed amendments were tantamount to adopting the provisions of Alternative 2.
~
182
REGIONAL COMMITTEE:
TWENTY-SECOND SESSION
Dr SO SATTA (Khmer Republic) agreed with the Repre~entative of Malaysia. He wished to retain Alternative 3 unchanged. ; Dr KING (United States of America) explained his reasons. In its present format, the resolution imposed virtually no requirement on the host government to fulfil any responsibility. Such facilities as a meeting room and conference services which could easily be met out of local currency should be formally required of the host government. He did not wish to suggest transportation for the Secretariat as this was contrary to the expressed wishes of the Committee in their former voting on Alternative 2.
Dr GATMAITAN (Philippines) supported the Rapporteur and the ViceChairman.
---Dr TAYLOR (New Zealand) considered that, now that the United States representative had been able to make his point, a vote ~hould be taken. If it was negative, then the resolution would remain unchanged in the form in.which it had been adopted earlier in the meeting. Dr SO SATTA (Khmer Republic) referred to the French text of the resolution, which seemed better to comply with the wishes of the representative of the United States. The REGIONAL DIRECTOR asked whether the representative of New Zealand had formally moved that a vote be taken immediately. According to the Rules of Procedure, ~he Chairman should ask the New Zea~and representative whether he wished for closure of the debate, under Rule I 32. Dr TAYLOR (New Zealand) confirmed that such was his intention. After closure of the debate, the United States amendmen~ should be voted upon and then, if necessary, the original motion •. The CHAIRMAN, referring to Rule 32, asked whether any members wished to speak against the motion as two opposing speakers only were allowed to speak. Dr FRANKLANDS (Australia) said that he was opposed to the New Zealand proposal to close debate because he felt that the Unite~ States amendment was unlikely to be acceptable to most of the delegates present. The proposed change was too radical. In any case, surely "these" would be preferable to "those" as it referred back to the costs tp.entioned in paragraph I of the operative part. Immediate closure of the debate would not allow members to give their views on the prop~sed amendment. So far, no one had spoken for or against it. It was a lIlatter of great importance and he did not advocate closure of the debat~ at this stage.
,
~
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SEVENTH MEETING
183
According to Rule 32 of the Rules of Procedure, a vote was then taken on the motion of the New Zealand representative to close the debate. The result of the voting was 10 votes in favour, one against, with 4 abstentions. Adopted. The debate was declared closed. "_ A vote was taken on the amendment to operative paragraph 2 proposed by the United States representative. The result of the voting was 3 votes in favour, 10 against, with 2 abstentions. Rejected. The REGIONAL DIRECTOR said that, as the proposal had been rejected, the Committee should vote again on the resolution (Alternative 3). When the debate was reopened on the resolution, it had become open to any type of amendment that members might propose. A vote should accordingly be taken on the whole resolution. A vote was taken again on Alternative 3. The result of the vote was 11 votes in favour, none against, with 4 abstentions. Adopted. Decision: The draft resolution (Alternative 3) was adopted without change (see resolution WPR/RC22,_Rl7) . 2 REPORTS BY GOVERNMENTS ON THE PROGRESS OF CURRENT PROGRAMMES RECEIVING WHO ASSISTANCE: Item 19 of the Agenda (Document WPR/RC22/l2)
The REGIONAL DIRECTOR stated that the document summarized the reports of governments on the progress of current long-term projects receiving WHO assistance during the period July 1970 - June 1971. This constituted a second report on the subject matter, the first having been submitted to the twenty-first session of the Regional Committee in 1970 (document WPR/RC2l/l0). He asked the Committee to give its views on the approach employed and the findings obtained and to indicate whether future follow-ups, with further refinements, would be useful to Member governments and if so, whether these should be prepared annually or every two or three years. Their comments would provide useful guidance to him.
184
REGIONAL COMMITTEE:
TWENTY-SECOND SESSIqN
.-
Dr KING (United States of America) commended the Regional Director for the considerable amount of work which had gone into the preparation of the document. Although evaluation was limited by the questionnaire and the degree of response, he nevertheless felt that this was a valuable exercise in that it helped gain acceptance of the whole concept of evaluation procedures. He considered that every two to. three years was adequate for this type of evaluation procedure. Mr WATANABE (Japan) associated himself with Representative of the United States of America. evaluation procedure was necessary, particularly and that it was useful when the budget was to be ahead of time. the views of the He felt that this for long-term projects, examined two years
I
Dr GATMAITAN (Philippines) fully supported the views of the Representatives of the United States of America and Japan. The CHAIRMAN requested the Rapporteurs to prepare a draft resolution. (For consideration of draft resolution, see minutes of the ninth meeting, section 1.1.)
3
LONG-TERM INTER-COUNTRY PROGRAMME IN HEALTH LABORATORY SERVICES: Item 20 of the Agenda (Document WPR/RC22/l3)
The REGIONAL DIRECTOR stated that the document was another attempt to prepare a long-term inter-country programme, the first being in the field of environmental pollution control. He drew attention to pages 10 to 11 of the Annotated Agenda where certain questions relating to this item had been listed and asked the representatives for their views on this new approach to the development of long-term inter-country programmes in specific fields. Dr YEN (China) thanked the Regional Director for the report. The importance of laboratory services in connexion with public health needed no further emphasis. In his country there was need for improvement both in the organizational structure and quality of such despite the establishment of a school of technology at graduate level, much remained to be done and WHO assistance would be most beneficial. Patterns of disease had been changing over the years. it was difficult in some countries to diagnose clinically, for example, smallpox, rabies and plague. Laboratory diagnostic services could play an important role in this regard. As industrial progress proceeded there the" pattern of mortality changed. He suggested that the programme might also include items such as tissue pathology, exfoliative cytology, etc. The long-term programme was well-planned and he wished to endorse it. (For continuation of discussion see minutes of the eighth meeting, section 1.)
-
/
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SEVENTH MEETING
185/186
4
STATEMENT BY DR H.T. MAHLER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR-GENERAL, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL
Dr MAHLER stated that this was his last attendance at the meeting, as he would be leaving in the evening for Rangoon to attend the meeting of the Regional Committee for South East Asia which would open tomorrow. He thanked the members of the Committee for the interesting experience he had had, for their constructive advice and for their friendship. The dialogue that had taken place during the meeting had certainly shown that a committee could work to the great benefit of all those who were involved in trying to make this Organization a better one.
The Committee rose at 12.05 p.m.
,
,~