No C 307/10 Official Journal of the European Communities 19. 11. 84 
1. The Committee endorses the amendments to the 
customs provisions set out in the basic Regulation. The 
new proposal constitutes a welcome move towards 
achieving uniform legal and administrative treatment of a 
subject hitherto covered by separate provisions. It also 
represents a practical alignment on other cases dealt with 
in a similar way. 
2. The Committee does, however, consider that the 
law would be more in line with practical requirements if 
Article 13 were to permit the reimportation of goods into 
a Member State other than the exporting State under less 
strict conditions. 
2.1. The monetary compensatory amounts (MCAs) 
currently still applicable to certain Member States have 
been introduced to prevent disruptions to the common 
market in agricultural products. MCAs are applied both 
in intra-Community trade and in trade with non-EC 
countries. They are thus applied in the case of returned 
goods which are reimported into a different Member 
State. Difficulties do of course arise in this respect as a 
result of the constant changes in the MCAs. If there were 
to be no restrictions on the reimporting of goods into 
Member States other than the exporting State, this could 
Done at Brussels, 26 September 1984. 
Francois CEYRAC 
Opinion on the social developments in the Community in 1983 
(84/C 307/06) 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 7 June 1984 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 122 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the social 
developments in the Community in 1983. 
Procedure 
The Section for Social Questions, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work 
on the subject, adopted its opinion on 21 June 1984 in the light of the report by Mr Danilo 
Beretta. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
At its 219th plenary session (meeting of 26 September 1984) the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted the following opinion by 85 votes to 34, with 10 abstentions. lead to speculative gains. If the reimporting of goods into 
a State other than the exporting State is banned, however, 
the reimported goods must not be subject to different 
customs treatment, depending on whether or not MCAs 
are applied in the Member State concerned. 
2.2. The Committee considers that equal attention 
should be paid to preventing undesirable advantages, and 
to the need for goods to be subject to the same customs 
treatment. Provided that there is no change in the MCAs 
between the key points in time (date of export and that of 
reimport), no advantage will be obtained anyway. There 
is therefore no need for exclusion provisions in this case. 
However, steps must be taken to ensure that no 
advantages may be derived from changes in the MCAs. In 
cases where advantages might be obtained because of 
changes in respect of the exporting country, the 
authorities in that country would have to furnish the 
requisite evidence. 
2.3. Provided that steps are taken in this way to ensure 
that no unwarranted gains are made, there is no reason to 
oppose the reimportation of goods into a Member State 
other than the exporting State. The Committee therefore 
recommends that Article 13 be amended accordingly. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
19. 11. 84 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 307/11 
1. Foreword 
1.1. The Committee notes that throughout 1983, 
despite a slight rise in GDP (0,8 %), unemployment in the 
Community rose again to reach 12,5 million, or 10,8% 
of the workforce. The number of unemployed who have 
been out of work for over 12 months has doubled in three 
years. In December 1983, youth unemployment had risen 
to 4,84 million. 45% of unemployed women and 
one-third of the men were under 25 years old. 
Community unemployment figures in the first few 
months of 1984 showed a further rise. In April they 
returned to the December 1983 level. 
In view of the seasonal factors possibly affecting the 
figures, the Committee is forced to note the absence of 
positive changes in the trend and confirmation of the fact 
that the Community economies are faced with a 
structural employment problem which cannot be solved 
by market forces alone. 
The Committee further notes that some 30 million 
Community citizens are forced to live on less than half the 
average per capita income in their Member State. At the 
same time, in some countries income is becoming 
West Germany 
France 
Italy 
United Kingdom 
(') = 1981. 
Source: OECD and Eurostat. 
In the light of these figures, and of GDP growth forecasts 
for the next few years, the Committee feels it unlikely that 
satisfactory social spending provisions can be 
guaranteed. 
1.4. The Committee feels it important to strike the 
right balance between control of social spending and the 
need to avoid a reduction in purchasing power which 
could produce further unemployment. 
The Committee therefore sees a vital need for an 
economic and social policy which (a) gives real priority to increasingly concentrated in ever smaller sectors of the 
population. 
1.2. In last year's opinion, the Committee drew 
attention to the social effects of unemployment and the 
problems faced by the various social security systems. It 
unanimously stressed the need for a European social 
strategy, backed by the Community deploying its 
'organizational and financial resources to the full', aiming 
to achieve a social consensus by exploiting opportunities 
to prevent social disintegration and promote economic 
growth. 
1.3. In a few short years, the European economies 
have been faced with rising unemployment and the 
pressures caused by increasing industrial restructuring, 
alongside imbalances in the social protection systems and 
the constraints imposed by the need to reduce the budget 
deficits of the individual countries. 
In this framework, the rates at which social expenditure 
increased in the various Member States were generally 
considerably lower in the second half of the 1970s than 
they had been in the previous years. In the same period, 
annual rates of increase in social spending as a proportion 
of GDP dropped still further (see table). 
employment, (b) supports and restructures investment 
and consumption to help the economic revival, and (c) is a 
necessary condition for political stability. 
1.5. The serious employment crisis has been caused 
not only by demographic trends and the slow-down in 
growth, but also by the technological upheavals which 
have affected the entire production apparatus and are at 
the root of radical social changes and changes in the very 
nature of employment. The Committee therefore feels it 
essential to introduce instruments to help reconcile 
demand and supply in the labour market and to Annual growth rate of 
social expenditure 
1960 to 1975 
6,7 
9,5 
7,4 
5,6 1975 to 1981 
1,9 
2,9 
3,1 
3,3 Social expen­
diture 
as % of 
GDP 1982 
29,4 
28,5 
25,4 
23,5 (») Annual rates of increase 
in relation to GDP 
1970 to 1975 
5,4 
3,3 
4,2 
4,2 1975 to 1981 
1 
2,9 
1,5 
3,2 
No C 307/12 Official Journal of the European Communities 19. 11. 84 
encourage employment in new jobs to meet the needs 
emerging from the new living patterns and the spread of 
increasingly advanced technologies. 
In this context, the Committee stresses that, given the 
necessary flexibility, social policy can revive and support 
the economy in the same way and at the same time as the 
economy can provide a guarantee of adequate social 
conditions. 
The Committee feels that this is even more the case at 
Community level, where the 'multiplier' effects of 
concerted action can encourage broader, faster and more 
reliable growth. 
1.6. Recent Community action in the economic and 
social field fits in with this, but the various proposals have 
rarely produced concrete results. Measures have been 
incomplete and fragmentary, and thus rather 
ineffective. 
Considering the further need to revive Community 
motivations and interests, the Committee feels there is an 
urgent need for the Community to clarify its social policy 
goals. Without necessarily being a further burden on 
Community and national budgets, social measures could 
help overcome the current fragmentation caused by the 
lack of a strategy. 
2. Preliminary considerations for the preparation of a 
social action programme 
2.1. A new social action programme, showing 
commitment and achieving gradual but tangible results 
on the employment front, can play a major part in 
restoring people's faith in the Community and involving 
them in Community policy. 
The Committee is aware that the idea of a social action 
programme may be viewed with scepticism and 
perplexity, as it is not certain that the necessary 
prerequisites exist. Having examined the obstacles which 
Community measures still face, the Committee would 
like to pinpoint ways of overcoming them. 
2.2. The Committee again stresses the need for an 
increase in the Community's own resources. These should 
be tailored to the needs and prospects of Community 
policies. The Committee realizes that this is unlikely to prove possible in the short term; it therefore emphasizes 
its conviction that, particularly in the present situation, 
the efficiency of Community policies can foster 
favourable conditions for an increase in the Community's 
own resources to a possibly greater extent than resources 
can guarantee the concreteness and incisiveness of 
Community policies. 
The Committee further stresses that by its very aims the 
implementation of a social action programme must above 
all be based on better reconciliation of the interests of the 
Member States and of the social groups involved. 
To this end, the currert problems could be assessed in a 
way that Member States can identify with, in order to 
solve their major problems, whose scale cannot be solved 
at national level, and thus requires greater Community 
cooperation. 
2.3. The Committee notes that to make the 
Community bodies fully effective, we must overcome the 
decision-making vacuum inherent in the current 
machinery which gives Member States the right of veto, 
and see that the Treaty founding the EEC is observed 
once more. 
2.4. The Committee is convinced that the changes in 
production structures are linked to the ability to control 
social changes. Changes as radical as those already 
affecting the social structure can only be effectively 
controlled by developing appropriate social dialogue and 
an active employment policy. 
The Committee feels that the parties concerned must be 
consulted on the decisions which affect their future. 
Information and consultation procedures are needed for 
better targeted participation in economic and social 
decision-making. 
The Committee would stress here the positive effect 
which such participation can have on consultation and 
concertation with the economic and social interest groups 
involved, from the very first stages of Community-level 
preparation of social policy. 
2.5. The Committee feels that the competitiveness of 
individual Member States and companies must be 
safeguarded. In this connection, the Committee stresses 
the adverse effect of the disparities in the social spending 
19. 11. 84 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 307/13 
burden on production and distribution costs. This is 
particularly true in a system where different legal and 
contractual arrangements are interlinked, and where 
companies subject to both these constraints compete with 
those who work without contracts or even use undeclared 
labour to get round the law and their contributions 
obligations. 
The Committee stresses the extent to which this 
aggravates the crisis in the social security systems, 
increases the imbalances in State budgets, diverts funds 
from investment, and saps the will to draw up the 
Community industrial strategy which the decline in some 
sectors and production areas makes necessary. 
2.6. As the largest trading block in the world, the 
Community is much better equipped than the individual 
economies of the Member States to redress the balance in 
relations with the major multinational groups whose 
decision-making base lies outside Europe. It can thus 
safeguard company competitiveness and at the same time 
support employment. 
2.7. The above considerations underline the need to 
boost Community interests and motivations. 
Convergence of social and economic policy thus has to be 
pursued with greater commitment, to arrive at measures 
which are to the mutual advantage of the social and 
economic sectors. 
To this end, the Committee feels that more efficient 
coordination of the various measures to boost 
employment can be achieved by a social action 
programme which encourages the involvement of the 
interests of both individual countries and groups, viewing 
them as aspects of Community requirements. 
3. The bases, guidelines and aims of a new social 
programme 
3.1. The Treaty establishing the European 
Communities set certain social criteria and goals. Articles 
118 and 119 charge the Commission to promote close 
cooperation with the Member States in this area. 
Since 1957 the situation has evolved in a way which 
brings a growing need for Community social measures. On this basis, a major social action programme was 
launched in 1974, and achieved significant results. 
In assessing this precedent, the Committee saw how, as 
the recession deepened and solidarity weakened, the 
programme became increasingly incapable of influencing 
conditions in the individual Member States and in the 
Community as a whole. The Committee further notes 
that there are now 10 million new reasons - the 
additional 10 million unemployed in the Community 
compared to 1974 - for a new social action programme, 
which calls for greater commitment and continuity than 
the first attempt at coherent development of social 
policy. 
3.2. The Committee therefore proposes the drafting 
and implementation of a programme which gives priority 
to employment and works for more secure, 
better-balanced conditions to protect living standards. 
More employment will also lead to a general 
improvement in living standards. 
The Committee does not mean this programme to herald 
a uniform policy on all Community social problems. The 
causes, nature and scale of unemployment bring a need 
for measures based on closer cooperation and greater 
consultation on economic and social policy. Below, the 
Committee lists proposed guidelines for a multiannual 
social action programme. 
3.3. The employment situation has various aspects: 
young people; women; renewed discrimination against 
the most disadvantaged groups; increased problems for 
immigrants and old people; and, with the emerging 
economic revival, the effects of the introduction of new 
technologies. 
This last aspect will have a significant impact on 
production organization, and thus on the quantity and 
quality of employment. It is reasonable to predict a long 
period in which the old and the new will exist side by side, 
before the most advanced technologies bring new jobs to 
offset those they eliminate. 
During this period there will be a need for (a) adequate 
measures to safeguard social interests and (b) the 
organization of policies to guide, train and retrain 
personnel to meet production needs, remembering that in 
10 years time more than 50 % of jobs will have changed 
radically. 
No C 307/14 Official Journal of the European Communities 19. 11. 84 
3.4.1. The aim of the programme should thus be 
twofold: maximum harmonization of Member States' 
employment measures and, in other areas of social policy, 
determination of the framework for government 
measures and agreement between the social partners. 
Social action has to fit in with the complex network of 
financial and economic policies, and in the fields of 
industry, agriculture and research, as well as competition 
and regional policies. 
3.4.2. When defining the goals of this programme, we 
must not underestimate the difficulties of introducing 
joint strategies in these areas, nor the potential multiplier 
effects of Community policies on development. 
More systematic use of the advantages offered by the 
sheer size of the common market and promotion of 
investment could provide an incentive for joint action 
(while bearing in mind the peculiarities of the national 
economies) to boost employment both directly and 
indirectly. 
3.4.3. Given a more orderly flow of information, the 
programme could facilitate recourse to the various credit 
opportunities, both by granting loans and by using the 
facilities offered by Community instruments such as the 
EIB and the NCI to support job-creating investment in 
sectors and measures which consistently follow the 
development models outlined by the Community. 
These resources, and those of the structural funds, should 
be used to reach clearly defined objectives. In addition to 
the areas already highlighted by Community policy -
energy, reconversion, research and technology — funds 
should be allocated to measures to protect or restore the 
environment, particularly those which require little 
capital and are labour-intensive. 
3.5. The difficulties which have emerged over liaison 
show that instruments are needed not only to facilitate 
coordination of the measures but also to assess the 
individual and overall effects. 
The individual Member States should therefore expand 
their information systems so that standardized data are 
available for better comparison at Community level. 
The Community should have an operating instrument for 
information and assessment of employment policies, to compare the experiences of the different Member States 
and gauge the effectiveness of national and Community 
policies, bearing in mind the conditions they face. 
Social and economic interest groups should be involved in 
this service, its task being to assist the Community bodies 
to adjust measures in the various areas as necessary. 
3.6.1. The programme should take as its starting 
point present or planned Community measures, avoiding 
fragmentation in order to meet more closely the priority 
need to fight unemployment. 
The programme should coordinate the various 
intervention areas according to the following grouping: 
— production and employment structure, 
— the groups of people involved, 
— working conditions and organization. 
3.6.2. As regards the structure of production and 
employment, measures should be taken, on the basis of 
ESC opinions (J): 
— to create jobs - especially in new production and 
service activities, small and medium-size firms, 
cooperatives - by providing support for local and 
other initiatives, 
— to extend pilot schemes to help people find first jobs or 
new employment, partly in view of the development 
(') See ESC opinions on the structure of production and 
employment: Technological change and social adjustment 
(see opinion of the Committee published in this edition of the 
Official Journal, page 4); 
Local employment initiatives (OJ No C 206, 6. 8. 1984); 
Comparability of vocational training qualifications between 
the Member States of the European Community (OJ No 
C35, 9.2. 1984); 
Vocational training and new information technologies: new 
Community initiatives during the period 1983 to 1987 
(OJNoC77, 21.3. 1983); 
Vocational training policies in the European Communities in 
the 1980s (OJ No C 124, 9. 5. 1983); 
Review of the European Social Fund (OJ No C 124, 
9. 5. 1983); 
Amendment of the European Regional Development Fund 
(OJ No C 140, 28. 5. 1984); 
Implementation of environmental job-creating measures 
(CES 855/83 (information report)); 
FAST Research Programme (OJ No C 211, 8. 8. 1983); 
Coordination of employment policy instruments (OJ No 
C112, 3. 5. 1982). 
19. 11. 84 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 307/15 
of a new employment network embracing social and 
cultural activities and tourism, 
— to expand training and retraining schemes, and 
measures to enable workers to adapt to the new 
technologies, and to introduce and coordinate the 
various structures acting as observers of the labour 
market, to make it easier to predict trends in supply 
and demand, 
— to give renewed life to training initiatives, according 
to local needs, in the most disadvantaged areas; this to 
make good use of the potential labour force and to 
ensure that measures to achieve greater balance in 
economic development are not in vain, 
— to improve vocational training in the areas of accident 
prevention, occupational medicine and social 
medicine, partly on the basis of exchange of national 
experiences and information on health and safety 
problems. 
3.6.3. The programme should help Community 
action become an increasing instrument of solidarity to 
support the social groups worst hit by unemployment (J). 
Greater priority should be given to the fight against youth 
unemployment, avoiding any form of discrimination 
against women, and bearing in mind the particular 
situations of the most disadvantaged groups. 
In the interests of solidarity, the programme should also 
take up the problem of migrant workers and, without 
neglecting specific national situations, work for greater 
convergence of individual Member States' measures on 
workers from third countries. 
On the basis of population trends, the programme should 
tackle the problem of defining an overall senior citizens' , 
H See ESC opinions on the employment categories involved: 
Women's unemployment (OJ No C 206, 6. 8. 1984); 
Youth unemployment (OJ No C 211, 8. 8. 1983); 
Second Programme of Action of the European Communities 
on Safety and Health at Work (OJ No C 176, 
4. 7. 1983); 
Equal treatment for men and women in occupational social 
security schemes (OJ No C 35, 9. 2. 1984); 
Action Programme on the Promotion of Equal Opportunities 
for Women (OJ No C 178, 15. 7. 1982). policy. This is needed because of the implications of their 
position in society, their rights, and the best ways of 
guaranteeing these rights. 
3.6.4. On the question of work organization and 
conditions, the programme should expand the measures 
already launched at Community level on guidelines and 
policies for social security schemes, early retirement, 
part-time and temporary employment, and the reduction 
and reorganization of working time (2). 
These can have many positive direct and indirect effects 
both on the employment prospects of the social groups 
involved and on production decentralization and work 
organization. A concrete, appropriate channel for these 
measures can play a major part in improving flexibility 
and in the fight against undeclared work and tax evasion. 
It can also remove causes of unfair competition. 
3.6.5. Measures to boost employment include those 
developed in some Member States - albeit in different 
forms - to shorten and reorganize working time. As the 
ESC stressed in its opinion on the social situation last 
year (3), the programme should therefore devote due 
attention to the complex problems involved in this 
process, both in the context of measures to boost 
employment by a fairer distribution of work and of job 
opportunities, and by pinpointing ways to achieve an 
economically and socially acceptable distribution of the 
costs which shorter working time entails for those 
involved. 
Measures to improve productivity, encourage investment 
and industrial restructuring, and to improve tax and 
credit policies are extremely important here too, to avoid 
jeopardizing the competitiveness of the European 
economy. 
(2) See ESC opinions on working hours: Flexible retirement 
(OJ No C 178, 15. 7. 1982); 
Temporary work (OJ No C 176, 4. 7. 1983); 
Voluntary part-time work (OJ No C 178, 15. 7. 1982); 
Reduction and restructuring of working time (OJ No C 23, 
30. 1. 1984). 
(3) See opinion on social developments in the Community in 
1982 (OJ No C 286, 24. 10. 1983). 
No C 307/16 Official Journal of the European Communities 19. 11. 84 
3.6.7. Finally, the goals of the programme should 
include the encouragement of a speedy, concrete outlet 
for Community action to establish norms which, with due 
regard for the relevant national legislation, confirm 
workers' rights to information and consultation (J) and 
their participation in decisions on the future of firms. 
0) See the ESC opinion on: Employee information and 
consultation (OJ No C 77, 29. 3. 1982). 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois CEYRAC 
APPENDICES 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
APPENDIX I 
Voting 
A roll-call vote was taken on the opinion as a whole. The following members, voting in person or through 
their replacements, were for the opinion: 
Messrs Beretta, Berger, Boddy, Bordes-Pages, Bornard, Brassier, Briganti, Burnel, Carroll, Cavazzuti, 
Chalioris, Cremer, Curlis, Dassis, Dassoulas, De Grave, d'Elia, Delia Croce, Delourme, Drago, Dunet, 
Mrs Engelen-Kefer, Messrs Etty, Flum, Germozzi, Glesener, Goris, Mrs Gredal, Messrs van Greunsven, 
Hammond, Hadjivassiliou, Hilkens, Houthuys, Jarvis, Jaschick, Jenkins, Kamizolas, Kirschen, Kitsios, 
Law, Lojewski, Margot, Masucci, Meraviglia, Milne, Mols Sorensen, Monier, Morselli, Mourgues, 
Muhr, Murphy, Nielsen B., Mrs Nielsen M., Messrs Nielsen P., Nierhaus, Ognibene, Mrs Patterson, Mr 
Pfeiffer, Mrs Plank, Mr Pronk, Mrs Quigley, Messrs Raftopoulos, Rainero, Ramaekers, Mrs 
Rangoni-Machiavelli, Messrs van Rens, Roseingrave, Rouzier, Roycroft, Schneider, Schoepges, Schwarz, 
Sir George Sharp, Messrs Soulat, Spachos, Spijkers, Tixier, Vandenbroucke, Vassilaras, Ventejol, 
Vercellino, Mrs Weber, Mr Zoli. 
The following members, voting in person or through their replacements, opposed the opinion: 
Messrs Antonsen, Binnenbruck, Mrs Bredima, Messrs Breitenstein, Broicher, Cammann, Campbell, De 
Bievre, Dracos, Fortuyn, Fuller, Hannon, Kenna, Kiibler, Low, Masprone, Noordwal, de Normann, 
Pearson, Pelletier, Poeton, Schnieders, Stahlmann, Staratzke, Storie-Pugh, Storm Hansen, Swift, Tamlin, 
van der Mensbrugghe, Van Melckenbeke, Wagner, Wick, de Wit, Zinkin. 
The following members, voting in person or through their replacements, abstained: 
Messrs Arena, Bagliano, Bernasconi, Eelsen, Hemmer, Hovgaard Jakobsen, Kolble, Querleux, Romoli, 
Strauss. 3.6.6. Using its instruments to improve coordination 
of the various initiatives, the programme could encourage 
the gradual convergence of treatment of the labour force 
in the various sectors, and help improve relations between 
the social partners. These relations are crucial for 
improving job opportunities and at the same time 
providing a better safeguard of company competitiveness 
and worker purchasing power. 
Done at Brussels, 26 September 1984. 
19. 11. 84 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 307/17 
APPENDIX II 
Rejected amendments 
The following amendments, tabled in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, were rejected by the 
Committee during plenary session discussions: 
From point 2 on page 5 onwards replace 'social action programme' by 'outline social programme'. 
Reason 
This amendment speaks for itself. 
Voting: 
For: 31. Against: 74. Abstentions: 4. 
Page 8: 
Delete point 2.6. 
Reasons 
I could go along with this point if it stated that the Community as a whole is in a better position than the 
individual Member States to redress the balance in relations with Japan and the United States. I do not 
understand what the major multinationals have to do with this. Community multinationals come under 
Community law. So do EEC subsidiaries of multinationals whose headquarters are outside the 
Community. 
These subsidiaries often pursue a very different line in the country in which they are established from that 
pursued by the parent company. Under Article 86, abuse of a dominant position is incompatible with the 
common market, and prohibited. 
Voting: 
For: 45. Against: 69. Abstentions: 8. 
Page 15: 
Add the following to the first paragraph of 3.6.5: 
'In the first place this means that a reduction in working hours must not affect the competitiveness of 
Community industry. Secondly the reduction and reorganization of working time by means of economic 
and social measures should be left primarily to the creativity and inventiveness of the two sides of 
industry.' 
Reasoijs 
The last two lines are a paraphrase of last year's ESC opinion, but they are not complete. 
The most important points which follow are not mentioned. The purpose of the amendment is to 
incorporate these in the text so as to make it more balanced as a whole. 
Voting: 
For: 41. Against: 60. Abstentions: 4. 
Page 16, points 3.6.6 and 3.6.7: 
Delete. 
No C 307/18 Official Journal of the European Communities 19. 11. 84 
Reasons 
On the whole, the concrete employment policy measures proposed by the rapporteur are to be supported. 
However, the proposals on harmonization of pay and working conditions (point 3.6.6) and the outline 
Commission programme on workers' rights to information and consultation (point 3.6.7) are definitely 
unacceptable. I feel that pay and working conditions cannot be regulated at Community level, and that this 
can only be done according to the respective practices of the social partners at national level. I too am in 
favour of better worker information and consultation, and dialogue with the social partners at European 
level. However, the instruments proposed by the Commission are unsuitable. 
Voting: 
For: 30. Against: 65. Abstentions: 7. 
The following texts of the Section's opinion were deleted as a result of the page-by-page debate: 
Page 3, point 1.3: 
'It feels that there are risks in continued cuts whose effects on society are incalculable.' 
Page 6, first paragraph: 
'to secure a positive response to their growing structural inability'. 
The following passages of the Section's opinion were modified as a result of the page-by-page debate: 
Page 1, last paragraph: 
'The Section further notes that some 30 million citizens in many countries of the Community are forced to 
live on less than half the average per capita income in their Member State. At the same time, income is 
becoming increasingly concentrated in ever smaller sectors of the population.' 
Page 3, point 1.4, second paragraph: 
'The Section therefore sees a vital need for a social policy which (a) gives real priority to employment, 
(b) supports and restructures consumption to help the economic revival, and (c) is a necessary condition for 
political stability.' 
Page 10, point 3.3, second paragraph: 
'This last aspect will have a significant impact on production organization, and thus on the quantity and 
quality of employment. It is reasonable to predict a decade in which the old and the new will exist side by 
side, before the most advanced technologies bring new jobs to offset those they eliminate.' 
The following passage of the Section's opinion was replaced as a result of the page-by-page debate: 
Page 7, second paragraph: 
'The Section feels that the concern of individual Member States and companies about the cost of social 
measures to their competitiveness is justified. However, this attitude underestimates (a) the financial, social 
and political cost of "non-Europe", and (b) the disparities in the social spending burden on production and 
distribution costs.' 
19. 11. 84 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 307/19 
APPENDIX III 
Minority statement 
Following the vote by roll-call on the opinion as a whole, various members (listed below) of the Employers' 
Group, who had voted against the opinion or abstained, issued the following statement: 
Members of the Employers' Group agree with the rapporteur that unemployment is the most serious 
problem in the Community and that every effort must be made to restore a satisfactory level of 
employment. They take the view that more importance must be attached to economic measures. They 
consider that the Member States should make greater efforts to achieve adequate economic growth. 
The measures should be focused on promoting productive investment, both private and public, in 
industry, small and medium-sized enterprises, and services. Consideration should also be given to how 
the formation of venture capital can be boosted in order to make possible the establishment of new 
businesses, particularly smaller firms, which are still the mainstay of the Community's economy. 
These members take the view that a social action programme can make only a limited contribution to 
improving the employment situation. Preference should be given to outline programmes at Community 
level. These members find it disquieting that the opinion calls for a maximum of State intervention and 
guidance to improve the employment situation. Government employment programmes and economic 
intervention and controls cannot replace market-oriented entrepreneurship. These members also 
disagree with the rapporteur's proposal to gear all Community measures to employment policy, since in 
their view this goes too far. Moreover, they maintain that lasting jobs are created not only through 
consumption but also, and above all, through greater investment. 
The Community should intervene only where national policies can lead to distortions of competition. 
Extensive harmonization in all areas is rejected. Community instruments should not invariably be used 
for upward harmonization. It is also necessary to preserve the autonomy of the two sides of 
industry. 
These members take the view that wages and working conditions in the Member States cannot be laid 
down at Community level, but can only be settled by the two sides of industry at national level in 
accordance with relevant customs and practice. They advocate better information and consultation of 
workers and call for a dialogue between the two sides of industry at Community as well as national 
level. The instruments proposed by the Commission are, however, rejected as unsuitable. These 
members therefore oppose points 3.6.6 and 3.6.7. 
Finally, there are also objections to the proposals on reduction and reorganization of working time. 
The members of Group I have repeatedly drawn attention to these objections. General reductions of 
working time are rejected since it is to be feared that more jobs would be endangered thereby. 
Messrs Antonsen, Arena, Bagliano, Binnenbruck, Mrs Bredima, Messrs Breitenstein, Broicher, 
Cammann, Campbell, De Bievre, Dracos, Fortuyn, Fuller, Hannon, Kenna, Low, Masprone, Noordwal, 
Pearson, Pelletier, Schnieders, Stahlmann, Staratzke, Storm Hansen, Swift, Tamlin, van der 
Mensbrugghe, Van Melckenbeke, Wagner, Wick, de Wit, Zinkin. 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 81/363/EEC on aid to 
shipbuilding 
(84/C 307/07) 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the European 
Communities No C 86 of 28 March 1984, page 5. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 2 April 1984 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal.