No C 53/8 Official Journal of the European Communities 3. 3. 80 
Opinion on the consultation on migration policies vis-a-vis third countries 
The text referred to the Committee has not yet been published in the Official Journal 
of the European Communities. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 12 October 1979 the Commission referred the abovementioned proposal to the 
Economic and Social Committee in accordance with Article 198 of the Treaty esta­
blishing the European Economic Community. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The Economic and Social Committee prepared its opinion on the above matter at its 
172nd plenary session held in Brussels on 24 and 25 October 1979. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the Euro­
pean Economic Community, and in particular Arti­
cle 198 thereof, 
Having regard to the request made by the Commis­
sion of the European Communities on 12 October 
1979 for an opinion, 
Having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau 
on 3 April 1979, in anticipation of the referral, in­
structing the Section for Social Questions to draw 
up an opinion and a report on the matter, 
Having regard to the opinion adopted by the above-
mentioned Section at its meeting on 11 October 
1979, 
Having regard to the report submitted by Mr 
Williams, the rapporteur, 
Having regard to the discussion at its 172nd plenary 
session on 24 and 25 October 1979 (meeting of 
24 October 1979), 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
with no votes against and 13 abstentions: 
INTRODUCTION 
1. The Community has for long been concerned 
with the problem of migrant workers and in 
February 1976 adopted a comprehensive action pro­
gramme for dealing with various aspects of the question. At the time when the action programme 
was adopted, it appeared to be generally accepted 
that the attempt should be made to ensure that the 
actions of individual governments conformed to 
certain common standards. In particular the pro­
gramme of action in favour of migrant workers had 
as its objective measures to ensure equality of treat­
ment for all migrant workers, including those from 
third countries, throughout the Community. Experi­
ence since that date, however, has indicated the res­
ponsible authorities in the different Member States 
have lacked the political will to ensure that ade­
quate steps are taken to reach these standards. 
2. The Economic and Social Committee has sev­
eral times taken up the question of migrant workers 
and expressed opinions on it or upon some aspect 
of it. Most notably on 30 October 1975 the Commit­
tee delivered a lengthy opinion on the action 
programme {}) described by the Commission as 'com­
prehensive and valuable'. More recently on 23 
February 1977 (2) and on 31 May 1978 (3) the Com­
mittee gave opinions on the problem of illegal mig­
ration and illegal employment. 
3. The present proposals, however, set out in 
COM(79) 115 on the consultation on migration poli­
cies vis-a-vis third countries differ from most of the 
previous proposals considered by the Committee in 
(') OJNoC 12,17.1. 1976, p. 4. 
O OJ No C 77, 30. 3. 1977, p. 9. 
(3) OJ No C 269, 13. 11. 1978, p. 38. 
3. 3. 80 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 53/9 
that they are exclusively concerned with migrants 
from third countries. Accordingly, this opinion by 
the Committee will as far as possible be limited to 
considering this aspect of the matter, particularly in 
the light of the economic prospects for the Com­
munity from 1980 onwards. It is, however, not en­
tirely possible to divorce the problem of migrants 
from third countries from that of migrants from one 
Community country to another for three reasons: 
(a) National governments (even with the establish­
ment of the Community) still have the major res­
ponsibility for deciding employment policies within 
the context of a given demand for labour. Their ca­
pacity to absorb labour from third countries will de­
pend in part on what labour is on offer from other 
Community countries, especially when the latter has 
to be given priority. Moreover, some of the social 
problems raised by migrants are the same whether 
they come from Community or from third countries 
(e.g. schooling of children, especially in their native 
language). 
(b) The action programme for migrant workers 
adopted by the Council in February 1976 envisages 
a similarity of treatment in a number of important 
respects for workers migrating from third countries 
and those migrating from one Community country 
to another. 
(c) The proposals in the Commission document 
deal, amongst other matters, with migrants from three 
countries (Spain, Portugal and Greece) which have 
hitherto been third countries but which, by virtue of 
their application or their acceptance for full mem­
bership, will have to be given some form of special 
treatment eventually. 
The problem of migrant workers from third coun­
tries therefore needs to be set in the context of 
migrant workers as a whole, if the widest measure of 
Community consensus envisaged in the action pro­
gramme of 1976 is to be achieved. 
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS 
The general economic background 
4. The whole question of policy towards migrants 
especially as it relates to the possibility of future im­
migration, has to be considered against inter alia the 
background of the economic situation of the Com­
munity and its future prospects. Their influx will also be influenced by many of the external econ­
omic policies of the Community. The Annex to 
COM(79) 115 correctly points out that the level of 
immigration into the Community has in the past 
closely reflected economic conditions within the 
Community, in two respects, viz. (a) peaks and 
troughs of GDP growth have corresponded closely 
with peaks and troughs of immigration, and (b) 
immigration into the Community has declined 
as unemployment within the Community has 
increased. 
5. Although these patterns have obtained in the 
past, several factors are now at work which may 
produce changes in the future in certain important 
respects. Four such factors deserve special mention, 
viz.: 
(a) It cannot be excluded that the scale of unem­
ployment in most countries of the Community may 
be greater in the period 1980 to 1985 than probably 
at any time since the Community was first esta­
blished. Moreover, there is a general concern that, 
although much of this unemployment may be due to 
cyclical factors such as the world economic reces­
sion or the deflationary effects of the rise in energy 
prices, an increasing share of it will be due to tech­
nological changes such as the beginning of the mi­
cro-processor revolution, which may have much lon­
ger-term effects. There is even the possibility that 
these technological changes will proceed at such a 
rate that there can be increases in productivity and 
production (and hence of GDP) even with a dimin­
ishing demand for labour. 
(b) Also as a result of the technological changes 
described above, combined with certain energy use 
changes caused by rising oil prices, the structure of 
unemployment may likewise differ from anything 
seen in the past. Changes in the patterns of energy 
consumption may affect many forms of economic 
activity from transport to farming and hence the 
patterns of the demand for labour. The changes 
produced by technological innovation are likely to 
be even more drastic, though how long they will 
take to make themselves felt remains to be seen. The 
point, however, becomes important when the pat­
tern of unemployment in the Community is com­
pared with the pattern of migrant employment. 
No C 53/10 Official Journal of the European Communities 3. 3. 80 
There are now six million migrant workers in the 
Community and six million unemployed. But many 
of the migrant workers are doing jobs which Com­
munity nationals are reluctant to undertake even 
when unemployed. Nevertheless a situation in 
which there may be a bigger hardcore of unemploy­
ment than anything so far seen in the Community's 
existence, and in which it may extend to occupa­
tions so far comparatively immune, may create a 
permanent and drastic change in the Community's 
demand for labour from third countries. It may even 
produce a change in the willingness of Community 
nationals to undertake certain forms of employment 
unless the terms and conditions of such employ­
ment were greatly improved. 
(c) Demographic trends within the Community 
will in any event have increased the labour force by 
between eight million and 10 million in the decade 
1975/1985 from indigenous sources alone. Employ­
ment opportunities are not at present expected to be 
adequate to absorb this amount of additional 
labour. 
(d) Population pressure in some of the countries 
which have traditionally provided third country 
migrants to the Community is likely to grow consi­
derably faster than will the employment opportuni­
ties in those countries. It will also incidentally grow 
much faster in the countries which are not applicant 
countries than in the three which are. Therefore, 
pressures on the Community to take migrants may 
greatly increase at the very moment when traditional 
opportunities for them are drastically declining. One 
effect will be to increase the reluctance of existing 
immigrants and their descendents to return to their 
countries of origin. Another effect may be to in­
crease the profitability of illegal immigration. 
6. The conclusion to be drawn from this brief ex­
amination of some of the elements in the economic 
and demographic background against which the 
Community ought to decide its policy is that, as far 
as can at present be foreseen, it is one in which 
unemployment levels in the next few years are likely 
to rise even if GDP increases; in which the structure 
of employment will undergo radical changes (in­
cluding a drop in demand for imported unskilled 
labour); and in which pressure to export labour from 
the Community's traditional suppliers is likely to in­
tensify, owing to increasing populations in those 
countries for which adequate employment is not in 
prospect. In these circumstances, all responsible au­
thorities (i.e. the Community institutions, govern­ments and social partners) should be prepared for 
the patterns of migration of labour to differ in the 
future from what they have been in the past. 
The Commission's proposals 
7. The Commission's proposals in COM(79) 115 
are for an early exchange of views in the Council on 
virtually all aspects of the problem of migrants from 
third countries as a result of which the Commission 
hopes to be authorized to 'organize within the exist­
ing Community institutions strengthened as neces­
sary consultation with and between the Member 
States'. It is not possible for the Committee, in the 
time before the matter is to be discussed in the 
Council, to examine all aspects of the problem of 
migrant workers. 
Accordingly in what follows an attempt is made to 
select certain points only, which appear to the Com­
mittee to be of main importance in the Commis­
sion's present proposals and to comment on them. 
The Committee could consider, however, making a 
more detailed study of the recent aspects of the 
problems of all migrant workers at a later date. 
SPECIFIC COMMENTS 
A. The political difficulty arising from differences in 
national circumstances 
8. On the first page of the Commission's paper oc­
curs the statement that what they are seeking is a 
'consultation on migration policies vis-a-vis third 
countries'. It is then explained that the word 'con­
sultation' is to be understood as 'Afstemning' in 
Danish, 'Abstimmung' in German, 'concertazione' 
in Italian, 'overlag' in Dutch and 'concertation' in 
French. These definitions do not accord with nor­
mal linguistic usage in other Community activities. 
The Committee concluded that they had been 
adopted in this instance to allow consideration of 
the issues to proceed despite differences of ap­
proach to this problem among Member States. 
These differences arise from their political situation, 
their historical circumstances, their geographical lo­
cation, their- economic and social conditions and 
such matters as their legal obligations, social sys­
tems and administrative practices. Many of these 
differences are lucidly described in a Commission 
decument entitled 'Policies of the Member States of 
the Community as regards migration with respect to 
non-member countries and nationals of non-mem­
ber countries resident on Community territory', 
3. 3. 80 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 53/11 
dated 29 November 1978. Others are comprehen­
sively tabulated in a further Commission document 
entitled 'comparative survey of conditions and pro­
cedures for admission of third country workers for 
employment in the Member States', dated April 
1979. Clearly in the light of all these differences, uni­
formity of treatment for migrant workers through­
out the Community in the immediate future is im­
possible. The Committee, however, supports what 
they believe to be the Commission's broad aim in 
making their proposals, namely, to ensure that in 
dealing with workers from third coutries Commun­
ity Member States should, under the Commission's 
guidance and despite these many differences, in­
creasingly apply common standards (especially 
those recommended by the Commission in its action 
programme of 1974), pursue common objectives and 
adopt national immigration policies which do not 
conflict one with another. What this might involve 
in practice is examined in more detail below. 
B. Member States' policies — differences and simi­
larities and the problem of coordination 
9. Of the two Commission documents referred to 
in the preceding paragraph, the first is a descriptive 
account of the main features of the policy of each of 
the Member States, country by country. The second 
is a comprehensive analysis of each Member State's 
procedures on the various administrative controls 
such as work permits, entry permits and residence 
permits. It is impossible here to summarize ade­
quately the wide differences in policies and proce­
dures between Member States revealed by these 
documents. They are considerable but not surprising 
given the wide differences between the national 
labour markets. Some Member States are still coun­
tries of emigration, as well as of immigration, 
though this is a situation which economic develop­
ments could rapidly change. Some Member States 
have bilateral agreements with third countries while 
others do not. The sources of migrants differ widely, 
Member State by Member State. Regulations about 
the acceptability of migrant families or the educa­
tion of their children are not uniform nor are the 
regulations about their period of stay, their return 
home, their political rights or their access to social 
services. The influx of migrants has created a wide 
range of social problems in the different Member 
States and great variety in the methods of handling 
them. 
10. At the same time, despite these differences in 
practice, it is clear that governments do face com­mon problems (e.g. that of securing the acceptance 
of immigrants by indigenous populations or that of 
ensuring a standard of education and training for 
their offspring sufficient to ensure their integration 
into the Community), and that they are prepared to 
subscribe to common standards for dealing with 
them. Most of them for example seem to subscribe 
to the principle laid down in the action programme 
that there should be a 'gradual extension to third 
country migrants of equality of living and working 
conditions, and particularly the right to be accom­
panied by their families; and the transfer of wages 
to the country of origin'. 
11. In general, the picture is one of a broad simi­
larity of objective combined with a wide divergence 
of practice. Moreover, it appears to the Committee 
that progress made towards securing greater uni­
formity of practice within the Member States, even 
after the Council resolution on the action pro­
gramme of 9 February 1976, has been disappoint­
ingly slow. The Committee suggests that in these 
circumstances the Council may wish to consider 
whether the existing machinery, well though it has 
performed its task of discussing these issues in the 
past, would be adequate to secure the larger degree 
of concerted action envisaged by the Commission in 
document COM(79) 115 final. While working within 
the existing institutional machinery, the Committee 
suggests that consideration should be given to 
strengthening it along the following lines: 
(a) There should be an agreement between Mem­
ber governments that their official representatives 
on the consultative or coordinating body should al­
ways be the most senior officials responsible for 
executing policy on these questions; 
(b) The consultative or coordinating body should 
be under permanent Commission chairmanship, as 
of right; 
(c) Each Member Government should be required 
to submit an annual report on its handling of 
migrant labour questions, the form of which, includ­
ing the subjects to be covered and the statistics to be 
provided, should be carefully prescribed by the 
Commission, so that adequate comparisons can be 
made between the policies and performances of na­
tional governments when judged by the standards 
set out in the action programme; 
(d) Most important of all, every two years each 
government policy would be examined in depth by 
this coordinating or consultative body. This exami-
No C 53/12 Official Journal of the European Communities 3. 3. 80 
nation would consider both oral and written evi­
dence presented not only by representatives of the 
government concerned but also by the social part­
ners and by representatives of the migrant workers; 
(e) The outcome of these examinations would be 
reported to the Council of Ministers, the European 
Parliament and the Economic and Social Commit­
tee. 
The Committee urges prompt implementation of 
these provisions, on the gFound that introduction of 
a Community labour market — constantly urged by 
the Committee, and accepted as an objective by all 
the Community institutions — should progressively 
include Community responsibility for the policy on 
migration from third countries. 
C. Other matters 
12. The Committee considers that parts III and IV 
of COM(79) 115 fin. read in conjunction with the 
action programme set out in S 3/76, and especially 
the section of the action programme headed 'coordi­
nation of migrant policies' on page 22, provide a 
good check-list of the matters which will have to be 
covered initially by a policy of 'consultation', 
though others might be added later. The Committee 
would like, however, to comment on the following 
points: 
(i) Priorities and the position of nationals of the ap­
plicant States 
The Committee agrees that as a general rule 
Member States in need of migrant workers 
should offer jobs to workers from other Member 
States in preference to workers from third coun­
tries. In principle workers from the applicant 
States should have precedence over migrant 
workers from other third countries during the 
period when the applications are being consi­
dered. The Commission document recognizes 
that careful consideration needs to be given to 
securing some consistency in the transitional 
provisions of the new treaties of accession to the 
clauses dealing with migrant labour. Consis­
tency, however, may not imply complete uni­
formity. The three applicant countries will each 
have a different effect on the labour market of 
the enlarged Community because levels of 
unemployment and their patterns of employ­
ment differ one from another. Although free­
dom of movement of workers is a fundamental tenet of the EEC Treaty, the Committee consi­
ders that this does not imply absolute uniform­
ity of treatment for all migrant workers from the 
applicant countries in the transitional period; 
nor that the duration of the transitional period 
should in each case be the same. 
(ii) Standards of treatment 
On treatment of all migrant workers, no matter 
what their origins, the Committee accepts that 
the objective should be to ensure them equality 
of treatment once they have been legally admit­
ted for employment in the Community. There 
should also be a similarity of treatment of all 
migrant workers throughout the Community on 
the matters peculiar to them (e.g. reunion of 
families) to facilitate the attainment of these 
goals. The Committee suggests that Member 
Governments should examine whether adher­
ence by them — and possibly by the Commun­
ity also — to the provisions of the European 
Convention on the legal status of migrant work­
ers adopted in May 1977 by the Council of 
Europe would help them to harmonize their pol­
icies while at the same time keeping the flexibil­
ity required by the application of different 
codes of domestic law. In the opinion of the 
Committee, Community Governments should 
also attempt progressively to accept the relevant 
conventions and recommendations of the ILO, 
and the declaration of principle and the pro­
gramme of action adopted by the Tripartite 
World Conference on Employment. 
(iii) The impact of migrant labour on the development 
of third countries 
The impact of migrant labour on the countries 
from which they come is undoubtedly mixed. 
Their remittances provide a valuable source of 
foreign exchange to their countries' reserves and 
of income to the families they leave behind. On 
the other hand, their absences from home can 
create serious economic and social problems in 
their home countries. This has led to a number 
of suggestions designed to ensure that in some 
way migration policies throughout the Com­
munity should be deliberately designed to con­
tribute to the development of the countries from 
which the migrants come and even that this 
might be done under Commission auspices or 
direction. The suggestions offered range from 
vocational training for migrants designed to 
equip them for work in their own countries after 
their return home to financial aid from the 
Community on such a scale that they would 
3. 3. 80 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 53/13 
have so many job opportunities at home that 
they would not wish to migrate at all. Many of 
these proposals would be difficult to administer 
and expensive to finance. The Committee sug­
gests, however, that the experience of receiving 
countries in adopting schemes of this kind 
should be carefully monitored, over as large a 
range of exporting countries as possible, and 
that if this shows that some Community action 
on these lines is desirable, consideration should 
be given to financing it from Community funds. 
The Committee also suggests that greater atten­
tion should be paid to migrant labour questions 
in any future negotiations between the Com­
munity and developing coutries. 
(iv) Illegal migrants 
Attention is drawn to the views already ex­pressed on this matter by the Committee, most 
notably in its opinions of 31 May 1978 and 
23 February 1977. The Committee would, how­
ever, wish to point out that in some Community 
countries at least the numbers of illegal immi­
grants continue to increase and their social con­
dition to deteriorate. 
(v) Community migrants to third countries 
The Commission proposes that the. Community 
should also concern itself with securing 'equita­
ble treatment on a reciprocal basis for Com­
munity nationals living and working in these 
third countries'. The Committee considers that 
this matter should be kept under review by any 
relevant Community machinery established to 
consider migration policies. 
Done at Brussels, 24 October 1979. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social 
Committee 
R. VANNI 
Opinion on the second European social budget (1976 to 1980) 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 3 April 1979 the Bureau of the Committee decided, under the third paragraph of 
Article 20 of its Rules of Procedure, to deliver an additional opinion on the above-
mentioned subject. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The Economic and Social Committee prepared its opinion on the above matter at its 
172nd plenary session held in Brussels on 24 and 25 October 1979. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard the third paragraph of Article 20 of 
its Rules of Procedure, the Commission communication to the Council on 
the European social budget (1), 
Having regard to its opinion of 31 March 1976 on (') OJ No C 131,12.6. 1976.