8. 2. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 35/15 
Opinion on the third periodic report on the social and economic situation and development 
of the regions of the Community 
(88/C 35/09) 
On 10 June 1987 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under the second paragraph of Article 2 (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1787/84 of 19 
June 1984 on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), on the abovementioned 
report. 
The Section for Regional Development and Town and Country Planning, which was respon­
sible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 24 November 
1987. The rapporteur was Mr Delia Croce. 
At its 251st plenary session (meeting of 16 December 1987), the Economic and Social 
Committee (ESC) adopted the following Opinion unanimously: 
1. Introduction 
1.1. The Commission has asked the Committee to 
deliver an Opinion on the third periodic report, as it 
did on the first and second periodic reports in June 
1982 (!) and March 1985 (2). 
1.2. These major Committee Opinions remain valid 
today, and reference will be made to them accordingly. 
In its Opinion on the second periodic report, the Com­
mittee made a number of comments and suggestions 
on the problems raised by the forthcoming enlargement 
(1986), on other possible indicators to be used in the 
report, on the effect of ERDF assistance on beneficiary 
areas and its implications for national regional policies 
and, finally, on the layout and structure of the report 
itself. 
1.3. This Opinion concluded that economic and 
social convergence—one of the Community's main 
objectives—was seriously hindered by the worsening 
regional imbalances, sectoral decline, and widely diver­
gent standards of general infrastructure. The Opinion 
called for a more resolute regional policy backed by 
more material means. 
1.4. The Committee is pleased to note that the third 
periodic report is even more wide-ranging and detailed, 
and that the Commission has taken on board many of 
the suggestions put forward by the ESC and the 
Regional Policy Committee. 
Through the report, it is genuinely possible to become 
acquainted with the situation in the various regions of 
(!) OJ No C 252, 27. 9. 1982, p. 20. 
(2) OJ No C 160, 1. 7. 1985, p. 8. the Community and to formulate appropriate policies 
for overcoming the severe imbalances which exist. 
1.5. The picture placed before the Community insti­
tutions, European political authorities and general pub­
lic shows a critical situation urgently in need of appro­
priate assistance. 
1.6. The first part of the report (summary and con­
clusions) is particularly important as it enables the 
reader to form an overall impression and contains a 
number of implicit ideas concerning the Community's 
regional policy. 
This is not to underestimate the main body of the report 
or the graphs and tables which make it so interesting. 
The chapters on regional disparities, infrastructure, 
convergence and cohesion, on the regional aspects of 
other common policies, and on agricultural policy in a 
regional context deserve special attention. 
2. Structure of the report 
2.1. The structure of the third report is different 
from that of the second report. 
It starts with a summary of the contents and a set of 
conclusions providing, in a nutshell, an immediate and 
useful overview of the report. 
The main report follows, divided into four basic sec­
tions: 
— regional imbalances in the Community, 
No C 35/16 Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 2. 88 
— convergence and cohesion in the enlarged Com­
munity, 
— regional policy and problems of cohesion in the 
Community, 
— development of regional policy in the past. 
The main report is followed by an Annex containing 
maps, tables and special analyses on specific topics, 
including: 
— unemployment rates, 
— underemployment of labour and problems of 
measurement, 
— calculation of the 'synthetic index', 
— difference in labour costs, 
— problems of declining industrial regions, 
— typology of agricultural regions, 
— peripherality, 
— future developments in population and job require­
ments, 
— regional impact of the common agricultural policy. 
2.2. The new lay-out is welcomed, firstly because it 
provides a balanced summary, and secondly because it 
makes it easier to consult and use the mass of data, 
statistics and analyses contained in the report. 
It should also be pointed out that many of the topics 
included are new, in particular the analysis of the 
impact of the ERDF on regional policy and the detailed 
account of the regional implications of the common 
agricultural policy (CAP). 
2.3. The periodic report, with all its additions, has 
thus become an extremely important and useful docu­
ment for anyone wishing to acquire a specialist know­
ledge of the issues involved. The Commission deserves 
to be congratulated on its work. 
3. General comments 
3.1. First and foremost it must be borne in mind that 
the report has been shaped by two important events: 
— the entry of Spain and Portugal into the Community 
in 1986: this has brought considerable change to the 
existing regional pattern, with major shifts in the 
gross domestic product (GDP) and employment 
indicators, — the adoption of the Single European Act which 
highlights regional policy as one of the key factors 
for bringing about convergence and cohesion within 
the Community. 
3.2. We must start by mentioning the grave regional 
imbalances apparent from the report, signalling once 
again the failure of both Community and national 
regional development policy. 
3.3. Inadequate funding is not the only reason for 
the shortcomings of regional policy. Even when 
resources are theoretically available there is insufficient 
spending power, and red tape forms a serious obstacle. 
3.4. There was a marked improvement in the 
regional situation between 1960 and 1974, with 
inequalities being reduced by a third, but nearly all the 
ground gained was subsequently lost (1974-1985). The 
main reason for this reversal was the economic down­
turn, though population trends were a contributory 
factor. 
The period of convergence was characterized by a com­
bination of: 
— low unemployment, 
— low inflation, 
— stable exchange rates, and 
— only minor deficits in public budgets and balances 
of payments. 
3.5. Inadequate infrastructure hampers development 
prospects. The regions lagging behind the rest of the 
Community are very poorly equipped. 
3.6. The most alarming aspect of the situation in 
disadvantaged areas is the significant increase in the 
number of people out of work (up 250 % between 1975 
and 1985). 
3.7. The report makes a brief comparison of regional 
inequalities in the Community and the United States, 
noting that they are far more pronounced in the Com­
munity; income disparities are twice as wide and unem­
ployment disparities three times as wide. 
3.8. It is disheartening to see how little effect the 
Community's regional policy has had during the period 
of convergence or during the subsequent period of 
divergence—which, incidentally, is exactly when the 
ERDF came into operation. Further evidence of this 
8. 2. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 35/17 
failure lies in the fact that the evolution of regional 
disparities in the Community of Twelve has been more 
or less the same as in the Community of Ten. 
3.9. The poorest countries and regions lack the 
resources to implement a regional development policy, 
and thus are unable to use Commmunity aid. 
Moreover, Member States tend to use Community aid 
for work which they would have had to carry out 
anyway, i.e. aid does not fuel extra activity. 
SPECIFIC COMMENTS 
4. Enlargement 
4.1. The Report confirms, as did its predecessors, 
that regional inequalities exist. But it stresses that a 
further deterioration in the situation has been caused 
by the recent enlargement. 
The population of the Community has increased by 
18 %, whereas the number of jobless has risen by 30 %. 
The GDP of some disadvantaged regions is as much as 
60% below the Community average. About one fifth 
of the population of the enlarged Community lives in 
these regions. 
The differences between Spanish regions are even 
sharper than those between the north and south of 
Italy. The basic features of regional imbalance have 
not worsened with enlargement, although imbalance 
inevitably poses a greater problem (in terms of both 
geographical area and scale) for the enlarged Com­
munity. Aid will now have to be spread over larger 
areas. The basic nature of the problem remains the 
same, however, because the causes of the underdevelop­
ment of the new member regions are the same as those 
in the Community's other disadvantaged regions. 
The need for an effective regional policy is not a result 
of the accession of Spain and Portugal, but of the 
seriousness of the problems requiring solution. 
At the same time, enlargement brings a need for general 
policies more closely geared to the Mediterranean area. 
5. Unemployment 
5.1. The report uses unemployment and employment 
figures based on Community data. However, these are drawn from national data which are prepared by vari­
ous methods and which do not always follow Com­
munity guidelines. Hence they do not always reflect the 
situation accurately, particularly in areas where there 
is structural unemployment, a high number of self-
employed or casual workers, or above average employ­
ment in agriculture. Official figures show Greece and 
Portugal to have very low unemployment levels, when 
the actual situation is probably very different. 
5.2. However, even the limited statistics used show 
that the present situation is extremely serious. The 
average rate of unemployment is over 20% in the 
Community's twenty-five poorest regions, whereas it is 
only 5 % in the twenty-five most prosperous regions. 
The twenty-three least developed regions (out of a total 
of 160) contain 25 % of the Community's unemployed. 
The unemployment rate in the farming regions of Anda­
lusia and Estremadura is as high as 30 %. 50 % of young 
people in Spain are out of work. 
6. Peripherality 
6.1. The problems inherent in a peripheral location, 
which the report addresses in detail, are most acutely 
felt in areas situated along the Community's outer 
perimeter. 
6.2. According to the report, 56% of the Com­
munity's total territory consists of peripheral regions, 
whereas only 33 % of the population lives there. 27 % 
of the Community's jobs, 39 % of the unemployed and 
45 % of unemployed people under the age of 25 are 
found in peripheral areas, where GDP is 25% below 
the Community average. 
Other factors relating to agriculture, the structure of 
industry and the services sector aggravate the situation. 
6.3. Given the importance of the issue, it might not 
be amiss to describe the 'peripherality index' (point 
2.2.3, E of the Annex) more fully in future. 
7. Islands 
7.1. Islands constitute a sub-group of peripheral 
regions where the problem of remoteness is even more 
acutely felt. 
7.2. The income and employment situation of island 
areas is even worse than that of peripheral areas taken 
as a whole. There is a particularly high proportion of 
No C 35/18 Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 2. 88 
farmers and farm workers (20 %) and very little indus­
try (23%). 
7.3. Islands are particularly hard-hit by transport 
and communications problems arising from a periph­
eral location. 
8. Problems of infrastructure 
8.1. Inadequate infrastructure is a major problem in 
the Community's less-favoured regions. Consisting for 
the most part of border areas and islands, they are 
particularly vulnerable to the transport situation, tele­
communications difficulties (telephone, telex and com­
puter networks) and problems with supplies of water 
for irrigation and household use, etc. 
8.2. The report pays infrastructure problems less 
attention than they deserve. More space could in future 
be devoted to this issue, either by describing in greater 
detail the 'infrastructure endowment' indicator, or by 
including new studies on specific aspects of the problem, 
e.g. the percentage of total costs attributable to trans­
port of raw materials and the finished product—this 
has a very real bearing on the competitiveness of disad­
vantaged and peripheral areas. 
8.3. Proper plans and programmes will be required 
to adapt the infrastructure of such areas to meet the 
needs for vocational training and refresher courses, and 
to provide firms with up-to-date information, research 
and marketing services. 
9. Synthetic index 
9.1. One aspect of the report which deserves careful 
consideration is the method of evaluating the situation 
of the regions. The Commission's 'synthetic index' 
incorporates a number of varying-weighted indicators. 
9.2. The 'synthetic index' described in Annex 
2.2.1, D takes the synthetic index of individual regions 
and compares it with the national average, and likewise 
compares the synthetic index of each Member State 
with the Community average. 
This method of calculating the index in two stages 
takes specific account of disparities within and between 
Member States. The intermediate indices are calculated in exactly the 
same way as those in the second periodic report, though 
the number of variables has been increased. 
This has produced a number of striking differences in 
the ranking of the regions, which cannot simply be 
attributed to the fact that new regions have been added. 
9.3. The variables used are: GDP per person 
employed, in ECU (25 %); GDP per head of population 
in purchasing power standards (PPS) (25%); the unem­
ployment rate, adjusted to take account of underem­
ployment in agriculture (40%); future additional job 
requirements (10%). 
9.4. The criteria thus only cover GDP and unemploy­
ment (albeit adjusted); a greater number of variables is 
required to take fuller account of the different types of 
region. 
9.5. In the light of the report, the synthetic index 
could probably be extended to include: 
— an indicator of the problems of decline and growth 
in urban and other areas (described on p. 109), as 
some regional capitals have considerable problems, 
— a peripherality indicator (see p. 119), 
— an aggregate infrastructure indicator (see p. 34). 
Weigthed coefficients will obviously have to be applied 
to these indicators, and should be drawn up on the 
basis of a thorough assessment. 
9.6. Adding these indicators to the synthetic index 
would help to 'adjust' and 'balance' it. 
This suggestion is in line with the statement of the 
Regional Policy Committee, reproduced on page 86 of 
the report. 
9.7. The relation between national averages and 
Community averages plays an important role in the 
establishment of national indicators. However, as 
national averages do not illustrate the scale of regional 
inequalities within one Member State, precise data on 
national regional inequalities must be used. 
9.8. While the synthetic index can, with appropriate 
expansion, provide an excellent gauge of regional situ-
8. 2. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 35/19 
ations, it should not be used to determine eligibility for 
regional policy assistance. Moreover specific indicators 
need to be developed for different types of region. 
10. Comparison with the situation in the United States 
10.1. Regional differences are far greater in the Com­
munity than in the United States. Discrepancies are 
twice as wide for incomes, and three times as wide for 
unemployment. 
10.2. This is the first time the Commission has 
attempted to draw a comparison between the situation 
in Europe and that in the United States. The attempt 
is to be welcomed, although it is difficult to assess its 
usefulness. 
10.3. The report attempts to pinpoint the reasons 
for the lesser imbalances in the United States, and 
argues that the American model of a single, large market 
has, in the long run, produced conditions conducive to 
convergence. This claim is qualified by a number of 
caveats, but remains questionable, as it is difficult to 
compare two such contrasting situations. 
10.4. It must also be remembered that the United 
States is not just a single large market, but is also a 
political federation. 
11. Wage costs in disadvantaged areas 
11.1. The Report examines regional disparities in 
wage costs, productivity and competitiveness in para­
graphs 38 and 46 of the initial summary and con­
clusions; in paragraphs 10 to 13 of chapter 2.2.1, B; in 
chapter 2.2.2, A and Annex 2.2.2, A. It concludes that 
labour costs are especially high in those areas which 
face the most difficulties. It suggests that productivity 
be boosted or that wage structures be adapted according 
to the economic situation of each region. The Com­
mission makes the same recommendation in its 1986-
1987 Annual Economic Report. 
11.2. This argument is partly contradicted by the 
analysis contained in Annex 2.2.2, A of the report. 
The Annex states that at Community level, the highest 
labour costs tend to be found in the regions with a high 
level of per capita GDP. Labour costs in northern urban 
regions are double those in southern Italy or Ireland, 
and 2,5 times those in Greece. 
The problem is thus extremely complex. Nevertheless, the drive to introduce new indicators of 
regional disparities is to be welcomed. Further work is 
needed on this, in particular: 
— a clear definition of the concept of 'regional compe­
titiveness', its economic significance, its significance 
for regional problems, and its effect on regional 
development. 
11.3. Pay levels and structures must continue to be 
freely decided by the parties which draw up collective 
bargaining contracts. It is up to the public authorities 
to decide on economic policies and instruments which 
will improve overall productivity so that individual 
firms can also become more competitive. 
11.4. Underdeveloped regions lack all types of infra­
structure. Transport is difficult, with the main commer­
cial centres a long way away. The organization of work 
and production structures are outdated, the industrial 
base is in some cases non-existent, and R&D services 
are inadequate. 
These shortcomings need to be remedied in order to 
improve competitiveness, though this cannot be done 
overnight. 
12. Declining industrial regions 
12.1. Recent years have witnessed the decline in 
many areas of traditional industry (e.g. mining, iron 
and steel, shipbuilding, textiles), which has been super­
seded or rendered obsolete by new activities. 
12.2. At first sight the situation may seem less serious 
than in lagging areas, because the standard of living 
and infrastructure is reasonably high. Yet in fact the 
problem is just as serious, and solutions are urgently 
needed: the longer we leave it the more likely these 
regions are to lose touch with their industrial past, to 
allow their experience and skills to go to waste, and to 
plunge their once active workforces into a dangerous 
state of inertia, or, worse still, to provide grounds for 
serious social unrest. It should also be stressed that 
infrastructure in these areas is so outdated that recon­
version is not advisable. 
12.3. Rapid and effective measures are therefore 
required to reorganize industry in these areas. Particular 
efforts, taking account of both technological and socio­
logical needs, should be directed to reemploying redun-
No C 35/20 Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 2. 88 
dant workers. In addition, a study should be made of 
the effects on these regions of the changes which are 
proposed in the use of the structural funds. 
12.4. It is very difficult to identify declining regions. 
The criteria used by the Commission raise some misgiv­
ings, as their data are based exclusively on past trends 
and do not take account of more recent developments. 
An assessment is needed of the relative importance of 
the industries affected, and of the regions' ability to 
adapt. 
12.5. Measures should take particular account of 
internal potential (infrastructure; age pyramid; geo­
graphical location; net migration; availability of indus­
trial, service and tourist infrastructure; skills and versa­
tility of the workforce; existence of established 
companies and cooperatives; trade networks; infor­
mation networks) and of the stance of the various socio­
economic groups. 
13. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) 
13.1. The report contains a lengthy and interesting 
discussion of the influence of agricultural policy on the 
regions. 
13.2. It is difficult to quantify the arguments pre­
cisely, but available figures do provide dramatic evi­
dence of the role of agriculture here. 
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund 
(Guarantee Section) spending in the various regions 
varied widely in 1985. 
13.3. In the regions which benefited most, expendi­
ture came to 5 100 ECU per active member of the 
population, whereas the figure was only 1 500 ECU 
in the regions which benefited least (almost entirely 
southern peripheral areas). 
Of course, these figures must be examined in the light 
of many other factors; nevertheless, they do provide 
some indication of the situation. Even when the other 
data are taken into consideration, however, we can say 
quite candidly that the CAP has not served the interests 
of the poorer regions. 
13.4. The adverse effect of the CAP on regional 
development highlights the need for radical reform of 
CAP intervention. The priority goal of cohesion and convergence set in the Single Act must also be pursued 
by the new CAP, as well as by the other sectoral policies. 
14. Single European market 
14.1. Achievement of a single Community-wide mar­
ket will provide an opportunity for improving the gen­
eral economic situation and for setting the convergence 
process in motion once again. Nevertheless, care is 
needed to ensure that the richer regions do not mon­
opolize the benefits of the Community-wide market. 
14.2. Consideration must be given to the difficulties 
encountered by peripheral regions, which are remote 
from the main centres of supply and demand. 
14.3. Declining industrial regions also face the risk 
of getting left behind, as it will prove difficult to restruc­
ture their economies quickly. 
14.4. It is therefore necessary to have a clearly-target­
ed, efficient and adequately funded economic policy, 
and to provide adequate financial resources so that 
aid to productive investment and infrastructure can be 
stepped up as appropriate. 
15. Development of the Community's regional policy 
15.1. An entire chapter of the report is devoted to 
the 'history' of the Community's regional policy, in 
which the main events are: the preamble to the Treaty 
of Rome, the setting-up of the ERDF, the first Regu­
lation, the creation of the Regional Policy Committee, 
the decision to establish a 'non-quota' section, the 
Council Decision of 1980 acknowledging that regional 
policy formed an integral part of the economic policies 
of the Community and the Member States, and the 
new, revised ERDF Regulation. 
15.2. If we add to this the important statements 
contained in the Single Act and in the Commission's 
most recent documents, it cannot be denied that, at 
least on paper, regional policy has developed consider­
ably since the early days of the Community. However, 
declarations of intent have, alas, not been followed up 
by a suitable range of instruments and, above all, the 
necessary decisions on funding have not been taken. 
16. Conclusions 
16.1. The situation of the regions as charted by the 
report is one of dramatic inequalities. The most-disad-
vantaged region registers 36,9 on the synthetic index, 
8. 2. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 35/21 
against 171,8 for the most prosperous region. Unem­
ployment in 1986 ranged from 3,3% to 30,2%, while 
per capita GDP in PPS varied from 43,2 to 237,4. 
Regional employment in agriculture ranged from 59,6% 
to 0,5%. 
16.2. Regional imbalances have become more pro­
nounced in the last twelve years and the ground gained 
between 1960 and 1973 has been lost. 
Disparities have been worsened by the last enlargement, 
which has significantly increased the number of disad­
vantaged regions. 
16.3. The financial resources spent on regional policy 
to date have been very low: 7% of the Community 
budget at most. Even an increase in funding, such as 
the proposed doubling of the resources of the structural 
funds, will not necessarily achieve adequate results. 
Such results are contingent on a coordinated effort 
by the whole Community and all the Member States, 
involving all those able to influence regional policy at 
whatever level, exploiting to the full the regions' 
internal potential, planning and combining the various 
measures, and using swifter and more flexible pro­
cedures. These funds must be disbursed as scrupulously 
as possible, paying attention to the effectiveness and 
value of the projects and not just distributing funds 
uncritically. Constant monitoring is needed. 
16.4. By setting convergence and cohesion as its pri­
ority goals, the Single Act lays the foundations for a 
proper regional policy and offers the chance to reverse 
the present trend towards greater disparities. 
However, we must realize that regional policy alone is 
not enough: it must be backed by a much more vigor­
ous, growth-oriented economic policy than at present. 
Investment, and hence production and employment, 
needs to increase at a significantly higher rate in the 
lagging regions than elsewhere. 
16.5. The disadvantaged regions' economies are less 
competitive than those of the more prosperous regions, 
because of their remoteness, lack of infrastructure, and 
their cultural and structural disadvantages. 
What is needed to overcome these obstacles is above 
all genuine solidarity at both national and European 
level, as well as a patient and firm political will, taking account both of past experience and mistakes and of 
suggested improvements. An early start should be made 
on substantive reform of the CAP and of the other 
sectoral policies. 
16.6. First and foremost, the Member States and the 
Community must tackle the employment problem. No 
civilized society can tolerate unemployment levels as 
hogh as those currently faced in some regions. Nor is 
it acceptable that many regions have over 50% youth 
unemployment. 
16.7. Chapters 3 and 4 of the report analyze the 
problems of convergence and cohesion. 
The points made in these chapters are right and fitting. 
In particular, the Committee agrees on the need to 
resume the process of real convergence and to see that 
the lagging regions achieve above-average growth rates 
of income generation (employment and productivity). 
The Committee also agrees that regional policy must 
bring about a supply-side improvement that will make 
it easier to boost output and employment in problem 
regions, thus making general economic policy more 
effective. The suggested way of achieving this (pro­
motion of investment and training and adaptation of 
the labour force) is also to be supported. 
16.8. The Community must implement an effective 
regional development policy of its own, but it cannot 
substitute the regional policy of the Member States. 
States with an excessively low level of development 
need special support. 
16.9. Apart from special assistance for the least 
developed regions, regional and local authorities must 
be given greater powers of initiative and additional 
political powers, as well as the necessary financial 
means. They can then act with greater autonomy, with 
help from all the economic and social interest groups, 
to adopt suitable measures, first and foremost to create 
adequate infrastructure. 
Regional authorities are better placed than central 
governments to know which measures can exploit the 
region's internal potential to best advantage. 
16.10. However, the Committee is afraid that despite 
the detailed analyses, proposals and commitments 
undertaken, the Community's regional policy has not 
yet reached the point where its goals (although they are 
clearly indicated) can become reality. 
No C 35/22 Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 2. 88 
The development of regional policy theory, the new 
ERDF Regulation, the Single Act, and the proposed 
reform of structural fund resources certainly provide 
Done at Brussels, 16 December 1987. 
1. General comments 
1.1. The Commission's intention to co-ordinate the 
regulations on insider trading in the European Com­
munity through a Council Directive is supported in 
principle. Differences in national insider trading regu­
lations, or the absence of such regulations, hamper the 
completion of a European capital market by 1992, 
jeopardize equality of opportunity for investors in gen­
eral and protection for savers, and make it more diffi­
cult to expose cross-border misuses of inside know­
ledge. 
1.2. While it is recognized that the current West 
German voluntary code on insider trading is effective, 
it is thought that such an arrangement cannot be trans­
ferred to all EEC countries. Two things lead us to the 
conviction that binding regulations at EEC level are 
more desirable than a voluntary code: 
— the Commission's Recommendation of 25 July 1977 
on a European code of good conduct for securities 
trading has not had the success that was hoped for, 
and 
0) OJNoC 153, 11.6. 1987, p. 8. the means and the opportunity for greater convergence, 
fostering the political will which is vital if the problems 
are to be solved. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT 
— on the EEC's most important and experienced 
financial market, the London Stock Exchange itself 
pushed for legally binding regulations instead of the 
former City Code; these came into force in 1981. 
The Commission has therefore understandably mod­
elled its proposal on British and French insider trading 
legislation, although it goes further than British law, 
which raises certain questions (see point 1.3). 
1.3. In principle, we support the Commission's con­
cern to introduce Community-wide laws on insider 
trading and abandon voluntary codes of conduct, which 
are only obeyed by companies and/or persons which 
agree to do so. Such a concern is in keeping not only 
with the British and French insider trading legislation 
already mentioned, but also addresses considerations 
which have been mooted in other Member States— 
such as Ireland, Belgium and Luxembourg—with the 
aim of punishing insider trading by criminal law. 
1.4. The Commission is asked to see whether insider 
trading can be prevented in yet another way than by Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive co-ordinating regulations on insider 
trading (!) 
(88/C 35/10) 
On 29 June 1987 the Council decided, under Article 54 of the EEC Treaty, to ask the 
Economic and Social Committee for an Opinion on the abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Economic, Financial and Monetary Questions, which was responsible for 
the preparatory work, adopted its Opinion on 8 December 1987. The rapporteur was Mr 
Meyer-Horn. 
At its 251st plenary session (meeting of 16 December 1987), the Economic and Social 
Committee unanimously adopted the following Opinion: