31. 12. 81 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 343/53 
Opinion on the new regional policy guidelines and priorities (Commission communication 
to the Council) 
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 30 September 1981 the Commission referred the abovementioned matter to the 
Economic and Social Committee in accordance with Article 198 of the Treaty 
establishing 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 
191st plenary session held in Brussels on 28 and 29 October 1981. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the 
European Economic Community, and in particular 
Article 198 thereof, 
Having regard to the request made by the 
Commission of the European Communities on 
30 September 1981 for an opinion on the new 
regional policy guidelines and priorities, 
Having regard to the Committee Bureau's decision of 
24 February 1981 authorizing the Section for regional 
development to prepare on opinion on this subject in 
anticipation of the formal request for consultation, 
Having regard to the opinion of the Section for 
regional development, unanimously adopted on 
16 October 1981, 
Having regard to the discussions at the 191st plenary 
session of 28 and 29 October 1981 (meeting on 
28 October 1981) following the oral report presented 
by Mr Loebl, rapporteur, 
Whereas Article 2 of the Treaty confers on the 
Community the duty to promote harmonious 
development of economic activity in the whole of the 
Community; 
Whereas the Council resolution of 6 February 1979 
laid down that: 
— the strengthening of regional policy is one of the 
conditions on which the further economic 
integration of the Community depends, — Regional Policy is an integral part of the 
economic policies of the Community and the 
Member States, which contributes to the 
attainment of a high degree of convergence of 
their economic policies, 
— the principal Community policies have regional 
implications which must be taken into account 
when these policies are being formulated and 
implemented, 
— coordination of national regional policies and 
Community regional policy is essential; 
Whereas the first periodic report on the economic 
and social conditions in the regions has shown that 
the disparities which have developed within the 
Community in the 1970's are inconsistent with 
point 2 of the Council resolution of 6 February 1979 
and so indicate that regional policy has not achieved 
its goal; 
Whereas the Commission report on the Mandate of 
30 May 1980 states that the reduction of regional 
imbalances remains a priority Community 
objective, 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
by a majority with two votes against: 
No C 343/54 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 81 
A. GENERAL COMMENTS 
1. The Committee welcomes the general trend of 
the new guidelines, particularly the priority given to 
the creation of jobs in the regions, the greater 
emphasis on support by public aid programmes for 
indigenous development and the geographical 
concentration of resources. 
2. The Committee strongly supports the proposals 
for progressive transition to joint financing by 
Community and Member States of regional 
development programme contracts as a means of 
promoting a more truly integrated regional 
development policy. 
3. The new guidelines appear at a moment when a 
radical re-thinking is called for, not least in regional 
development policy because: 
(a) the first periodic report has shown that the 
disparities in the Community have developed 
differently from that expected or intended by 
earlier regional policies. The present state of 
crisis in the Community intensifies the 
problems of the less favoured regions and 
makes convergence even more difficult; 
(b) the regions must, at the same time, make rapid 
adjustment to the facts of competition, both 
from the developed and less-developed parts of 
the world, an adjustment facing the whole of 
the Community but which is particularly 
difficult for the regions; 
(c) the reversal of past trends and the adjustment 
to competition have to be effected in a situation 
of severe budgetary constraints. Problems more 
serious than in the past have to be solved under 
conditions of greater financial stringency; 
(d) the enlargement of the Community increases 
still further the disparities to be overcome. 
4. One of the innovations in regional policy aims 
arising from the guidelines is the emphasis on the 
creation of employment as a top priority. The 
Committee draws attention to some of the 
implications of this: 
— first, all regions in the Community will be making 
strenuous efforts over the next few years to reduce 
unemployment, whether it be recorded or hidden, 
including those regions far better placed than the 
less favoured regions. Unless the measures 
adopted achieve a reduction of unemployment in these regions at a faster rate than the average in 
the Community as a whole, the overall divergence 
noted in the first periodic report will further 
increase and the requirement of the Council 
resolution of 6 February 1979 will not be met; 
— second, other Community policies, in particular 
social policy, and especially vocational training, 
must be adapted so as to ensure and increase the 
contribution to attaining this priority objective 
and, furthermore, all Community policies — not 
only those in the field of regional development — 
must be judged by their effects on convergence in 
economic performance as defined above; 
— third, this priority for employment creation will 
impose great changes both on regional policies of 
member governments and on Community 
operations in the less favoured regions; 
— fourth, while inward investment into the less-
favoured regions remains highly desirable — 
particularly in the short-term because of the rapid 
employment creation which this usually implies 
— the best prospects for employment growth in 
the medium term are now generally seen to be in 
the indigenous SME and handicraft sector: future 
policies for SME's and regional development will 
therefore need to be integrated; 
— fifth, concentration on this vital priority does not 
dispense with the need to pursue other wider 
aspects of regional development policy. 
5. Since the proposed policy of greater 
concentration of effort requires an even better 
understanding of the situation in each region, the 
Committee attaches great importance to the periodic 
report and intends to make detailed proposals for the 
improvement of future reports in a supplementary 
opinion. 
B. SPECIFIC COMMENTS — INTRODUCTION 
1.1. The Committee believes that the reference 
(introduction, paragraph 3) to competitiveness and 
productivity throughout the European Community 
could be misleading. It is often stated in the regional 
development programmes of member governments 
that the less-favoured regions cannot prosper unless 
the national economies do. Overall economic growth 
is clearly of great importance for regional 
development. This obvious fact shoult not, however, 
lead to the assumption that the less-favoured regions 
will always tend to limp behind the national 
economies in economic performance. This notion is 
in conflict with the Commission's view, expressed in 
31. 12. 81 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 343/55 
paragraph 4, accepted by the Committee C1), that the 
solution of the increasingly serious regional 
problems will not be found by entire reliance on the 
state of the general economy and on a permanent 
flow of regional development aid and that the aim 
must be to stimulate self-sustained development in 
the weaker regions. This appears to the Committee to 
be even more true under the present world economic 
conditions rather than less. 
1.2. The aim of restructuring the regions and 
supporting their efforts to achieve self-sustained 
growth can also be looked upon in another way: 
instead of remaining a drag on Community resources 
— and requiring 'fire-brigade services' like those 
arising out of the top priority of the guidelines, 
successful restructuring should eventually enable the 
less-favoured regions to make a contribution to the 
economic growth of the Community. The methods 
used to stimulate development in the less favoured 
regions will not automatically be the same as those 
used previously or elsewhere. At all events, a genuine 
transfer of financial resources will further this aim. 
C. SPECIFIC COMMENTS — GUIDELINES AND 
PRIORITIES 
II. 1. Employment 
II. 1.1. The Committee agrees with the two main 
objectives: 
(a) top priority must be given to the creation of 
new jobs; 
(b) the greatest effort must be made in those 
regions where structural unemploment is 
persistent and high (paragraph 11.4 of new 
guidelines). 
II. 1.2. The Committee notes the Commission's 
recognition of the importance of the right quality of 
job. In this connection however the regions will be 
faced with what may well be contradictary 
requirements: labour in the regions must become 
highly productive in order to create stable 
employment; at the same time, the industries which 
(i) Opinion of 30 April 1981 (OJ No C 185, 27. 7. 1981). will make the most important contribution to job 
creation will be labour-intensive. In addition 
particular attention must be paid to provide work for 
young people, a need that will remain most pressing 
until the middle of the 1980's and greater scope for 
women jobseekers. 
II. 1.3. The Committee agrees to the outline 
proposals on employment and looks forward to 
Commission proposals for their achievement in 
practice. 
II. 1.4. The Committee regrets that the Commission 
has not pointed out that priority for employment 
creation involves a better balance between 
infrastructure investments and direct aids to job 
creation than in the past. Those infrastructure 
projects which are most likely to have the greatest 
effect on direct and indirect job creation in the short 
and medium term should be given preference over 
other infrastructure schemes. Exceptions should only 
be made in areas where infrastructure is seriously 
deficient. There should be no illusion, however, that 
such a balance is easy to achieve. Member 
governments have favoured infrastructure funding 
by the ERDF for reasons which are well known. 
II. 1.5. Priority for employment creation, and in 
many instances less emphasis on infrastructure, 
means, in practice, a much closer involvement of the 
Community through regional development 
programme contracts. The Committee is bound to 
advise the Council that member governments must 
accept, in their own best interests, that regional 
problems will continue to become more intractable 
unless they are dealt with in a Community context. 
II. 1.6. The acceptance of the priority for 
employment creation highlights, once again, the 
question of how the Community and member 
governments can best promote those sectors of the 
regional economies which promise the most jobs. The 
Commission refers (Introduction) to the need to 
make the ERDF rules much more flexible, and the 
Committee awaits the Commission's proposals with 
the greatest interest. The Commission may in 
addition have to introduce changes, however, in the 
structure and staffing of its own organization to 
enable it to be better equipped to implement this top 
priority. Given the importance of the SME sector in 
this respect, the Committee considers it necessary for 
the Commission to integrate its regional and SME 
policies to adjust the eligibility conditions for 
Community financial assistance and to take account 
of the special needs and opportunities of SME's. 
No C 343/56 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 81 
II.2. Productivity 
II.2.1. The Committee agrees with the two main 
points made here: 
(a) that firms operating in the regions in any sector 
must be efficient, and innovatory, whatever the 
short-term consequences on employment. This 
applies not only to the SME sector but, indeed, 
particularly to the declining industries, whose 
modernization may well lead to a further 
reduction in employment; 
(b) that much greater attention must be paid in the 
regional development programmes to 
indigenous potential and resources, including 
human, material, technological, educational 
and tourist resources. 
II.2.2. The Committee considers that the Social 
Fund has a key role to play in this context. 
II.2.3. While finance is of the first importance, it is 
not, in the opinion of the Committee, the only issue. 
Attitudes are of great importance. For example, 
many of the older, industrial areas — having 
depended for so long on a few, interconnected heavy 
industries — still have too little tradition of 
indigenous light manufacturing enterprise, in spite of 
the settlement of light manufacturing firms from 
outside the regions for many years. The necessary 
change in attitudes is, perhaps, the most pressing 
need and presents the most formidable problem. 
II.3. Indigenous development potential 
11.3.1. The new emphasis on self-sustained 
development has already been approved by the 
Committee (1). It was hoped by the Committee that 
the new guidelines would underline that this 
represents a change in direction when translated into 
practical policies and actions, both by member 
governments any by the Community. 
11.3.2. The Committee considers it essential that the 
implications of this change of direction should be 
spelt out clearly, so that all those concerned with 
regional policy shall become aware of it. Although 
indigenous development is taking place in the less-
(') Opinion of 30 April 1981 (OJ No C 185, 27. 7. 1981). favoured regions, it is as yet on a wholly inadequate 
scale, both in relation to the needs of the local 
economies and the opportunities of the market place 
for specialist goods and services. The problem how to 
increase the rate of growth of existing SMEs and the 
formation of new ones and the best way in which the 
Community and member governments can stimulate 
such growth remains to be solved. The revision of the 
ERDF rules must make a contribution in this respect. 
The Committee is studying certain problems of 
SMEs in the Community as a whole, including in the 
regions, and will make its views known in due 
course. 
Public aid support for indigenous development may 
also diminish the grey economy, which by definition 
would not benefit from such aid. 
II.3.3. One way in which the Community should 
help towards this end is to pay much greater attention 
to the impact of its horizontal policies on the regions 
and to ensure that such impact is positive. One 
example is the common policy for science and 
technology (another is competition policy, see 
below). In COM(81) 66 final, the Commission has 
drawn attention to the fact that Community R&D 
policies were from the beginning (1974) conceived to 
support Community sectoral policies, not regional 
development. This has led to a chicken and egg 
situation in the less favoured regions. Since, almost 
by definition, there are few or no indigenous 
contractors in such regions which can participate in 
the Community's R&D programmes — for example, 
in telematics — the regions have little chance to 
acquire such industries. Yet the products of some of 
the new industries may be particularly suitable for 
the regions on the periphery, because they are 
relatively transport cost-insensitive. The Commission 
should seriously think what can be done to help 
create entirely new contractors in the less favoured 
regions, particularly in those where the educational 
and training infrastructure for new technologies 
exists (for example, in the older industrial areas of 
the UK — a fact which is not apparent from the first 
periodic report). Apart from the obvious benefit to 
the regions, this may also unlock unused 
technological talent and add to the total capabilities 
of the Community. 
II.3.4. Consideration must also be given to ways in 
which the socio-economic characteristics of the less-
favoured regions can be turned towards new, 
entrepreneurial activities, particularly where 
individual initiative is low and collective attitudes 
deeply ingrained. In other words, there must be a 
sustained educational effort as a pre-condition to 
new, indigenous growth. While this is mainly a task 
31. 12. 81 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 343/57 
for the member governments, the Community may be 
able to help by promoting studies in those regions 
where the change in attitudes has been successfully 
accomplished and by disseminating such examples as 
widely as possible. 
II.3.5. The Committee is of the opinion that the 
development of the indigenous potential of the 
regions must involve the participation of the local 
and regional authorities and the social partners in the 
elaboration and implementation of the regional 
policies and draws attention once more to its opinion 
on this matter ('). 
II.3.6. The Committee draws attention here to the 
fact that the first periodic report provides almost no 
information on the basis of which any indigenous 
development potential could be assessed, and it will 
make detailed recommendations on how this might 
be done in its supplementary opinion. 
II.3.7. In conclusion the Committee draws 
attention to the danger that, given the size of the 
problem, progress resulting from indigenous growth 
may be seen to be too slow and that the policy may 
therefore not be given the time required for 
success. 
11.4. Geographical concentration 
II.4.1. The Committee has already stated that 'it is 
imperative that the Community regional policy is 
more concentrated in its geographical scope' (2). The 
reasoning by the Commission — crystallized in II. 1.1 
above — is, therefore, in line with the Committee's 
views. The implementation of this guideline will, 
however, require a high degree of solidarity on the 
part of the more prosperous members of the 
Community and the more prosperous areas within 
each Member State. The Committee is convinced that 
this in the best long-term interests of all, but it will be 
necessary to demonstrate this in the current 
economic climate. 
II.4.2. The guidelines do not, in fact, contain 
anything on this point beyond what has already been 
proposed in the mandate of 30 May 1980. The 
Committee looks forward to detailed proposals from 
the Commission. In order to strengthen European solidarity the Committee hopes, however, that the 
Commission will find ways of retaining the 
involvement of all Member States in regional 
development and actions. One way of doing this is to 
make the quota-free section of the ERDF available to 
all those situations in any Member State where it can 
make a significant contribution. 
II.4.3. The Committee has already pressed for an 
increase in the quota-free section of the ERDF(3). 
The Committee continues to support this, even if 
progress in the implementation of the first special 
programmes by member governments has been far 
too slow, and no results are available for evaluation 
so far. 
Given that the Commission made its proposals 
almost two years ago the Committee considers it 
unacceptable that the deployment of the relatively 
small sums should be delayed for so long, 
particularly because it considers the special 
programmes very relevant to the priorities of the new 
guidelines. Some better administrative procedure 
must be devised to ensure that the special 
programmes are prepared much more quickly, if they 
are to have the desired impact. The Committee 
considers that the machinery of central governments 
of Member States may be too complex to deal with 
such relatively small funds. 
11.4.4. The Committee would like a definite and 
unequivocal confirmation that the quota-free Funds 
are truly complementary and additional funds, and 
that reimbursement of member governments 
expenditure is not possible. 
11.5. Effective use of Community instruments 
II.5.1. The call for the concerted and simultaneous 
application of the various Community Instruments 
and their integration with national regional 
development measures is not new. In practice, 
however, Community instruments, including the 
ERDF as at present constituted, are either not very 
relevant to the priority for employment creation 
contained in the new guidelines or they cannot be 
used for one reason or another, or the funds are over-
applied for (Social Fund). The new guidelines point 
to the need for the suitability of such instruments and 
their concerted application to be tested as to their 
usefulness in promoting the growth of employment, 
(') Opinion of 25 October 1979 (OJ No C 53, 3. 3. 1980). 
(2) Opinion of 12 April 1980 (OJ No C 205, 11. 8. 1980). (3) Opinion of 30 April 1981 (OJ No C 185, 27. 7. 1981). 
No C 343/58 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 81 
for example, in the SME sector and the creation of 
new enterprises. 
II.5.2. The Committee disagrees with the 
Commission in its views of the importance of the EIB 
for this sector. EIB security and creditworthiness 
requirements are no less than for loans from the 
national banking systems, while the interest rebates 
are of marginal importance given the relatively small 
sums involved. Furthermore EIB loans are subject to 
other conditions (e. g. very high minimum qualifying 
conditions, exchange risks,) which make them still 
less attractive for SME's. Where government policies 
aim to bring down inflation through control of public 
borrowing, the Ortoli facility merely adds to the 
public spending and the facility may therefore not be 
available in practice. 
II.5.3. So far as the Social Fund is concerned it can 
and does play a certain role in the regions, a role 
which will increase if there is agreement to the 
proposed experiment for training entrepreneurs who 
set up new firms, before they start and in the first 
phases of their business. But again, this is a small, 
marginal activity, which depends on half the total 
expenditure becoming available from local public 
sources. The Committee considers that the Social 
Fund should play a central role in the regional policy 
context and, for this reason, believes that the revision 
in 1982 of the objectives and rules of the Fund must 
take this into account. While recognizing that the 
Social Fund's field of intervention must not be 
limited to supporting ERDF measures, any 
concerted action between the ERDF and the Social 
Fund would be very desirable, but there are 
administrative problems as between a quota and 
non-quota Fund. Finally, the Social Fund is 
notoriously over-subscribed almost permanently. 
II.5.4. In the less developed agricultural areas the 
EAGGF has not been able to fulfil its own role 
adequately, still less to meet the overall needs of 
regions in collaboration with other EEC and national 
instruments. Despite recent improvements, which 
cannot yet be assessed in the structural (guidance) 
section of EAGGF — increased funds, especially for 
Mediterranean areas, greater flexibility with lower 
thresholds making aid more appropriate to less-
developed regions, etc. — experience so far is that the 
guidance sector has not met the test for regional job 
creation since (a) it represents an excessively small 
proportion of the EAGGF, not least because of the 
continual increase in the guarantee section and (b) it 
has in the past been more beneficial to the developed 
areas of the Community than to those in greatest 
need of assistance!1). As regards coordination with 
other Funds, three pilot 'integrated development programmes' were approved one year ago but have 
not yet been implemented in the absence of detailed 
actions for the non-agricultural measures. Clearly 
coordination, whether at national or Community 
level, is still very insufficient and has not met the 
requirements of the new guidelines. 
II.5.5. As far as tourism is concerned, the 
Community has not yet taken any systematic action 
(except for some help under the ERDF) despite the 
fact that the climate and the historical, cultural and 
environmental worth of such regions is of 
considerable tourist potential, and tourism can help 
to create jobs and promote local economic 
development. 
II.5.6. For all these reasons, the Committee is not 
very hopeful that the mere recital of the desirability 
of the concerted use of Community instruments as at 
present constituted and funded will aid greatly in the 
achievements of the aims of the priority for 
employment creation. Furthermore, the coordination 
of the ERDF with national policies has proved to be 
most difficult in the past and the guidelines give no 
indication on how the problems are to be 
overcome. 
II.5.7. The Committee is currently studying 
integrated operations, in particular those for Belfast 
and Naples and this opinion cannot anticipate the 
Section view. 
11.6. Coordination of regional policy and other 
Community policies 
II.6.1. The Committee(2) has pressed for an 
assessment of the regional impact of all Community 
policies and instruments. It notes the work already 
done on R&D and the agricultural policies. 
11.6.2. In addition to considering the impact of 
certain Community policies and the need for 
accompanying measures to offset any negative 
effects on the less-favoured regions arising out of 
such policies, the adverse consequences arising from 
the centripetal effects of the common market must 
now be seriously dealt with. For example, the 
(') Opinion of 24 October 1979 (OJ No C 53, 3. 3. 1980). 
(2) Opinion of 30 April 1981 (OJ No C 185, 27. 7. 1981). 
31. 12. 81 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 343/59 
competition policy may have to accommodate 
additional measures in order to counteract these 
centripetal effects on the location of certain 
industries. Nor can the fact be ignored that the next 
two countries likely to acceed to membership will 
greatly increase the problem in the future, if the 
Council resolution of 6 February 1979 (on 
convergence) is to be implemented. 
11.6.3. Although aid flows should not be such as to 
weaken the driving forces of the European economy 
and reduce the level of financial support provided by 
the better-off regions, any measures deliberately 
undertaken to assist the less-favoured regions may 
often have a negative effect on the more favoured 
regions. This is another aspect of the solidarity of 
which we hear so frequently. There is no point in 
disguising the possibility that measures essential to 
the less-favoured regions may be painful to those 
parts of the Community and those States which have 
benefitted most from the common market so far and 
from the centripetal effect this has created. But if the 
aim of convergence is to be more than a pious hope, 
such measures may have to be considered. The 
Committee is under no illusions that such measures 
will be readily acceptable to the more favoured areas, 
particularly not under the present economic 
conditions, although it believes them to be in the 
interest of the Community as a whole, including the 
most favoured areas. This underlines their necessity, 
not least since grave damage to the Community 
cannot be evaded unless convergence is in sight in the 
next 10 years. 
II.7. Coordination between the Community's 
regional policy and national regional policies 
II.7.1. The Committee has provided already an 
opinion on the regional development programmes(*) 
on which the Commission will continue to base such 
coordination. The Committee has reviewed that 
opinion in the light of the new guidelines and it 
strongly reiterates the views expressed in that 
opinion. 
II.7.2. The guidelines propose a revision of the 
ceilings and the amount of aid permissible under the 
ERDF rules, which is to be related to the severity of 
the problems of particular regions, according to the findings of the first periodic report. This proposal has 
already been approved by the Committee (2). Aid 
must also be geared to the national aid systems. 
Furthermore, the existing framework of rules 
governing regional aid must be strengthened, so as to 
complete the present general directives on aid and so 
achieve a better control of national aids. These 
should neither conflict blatantly with Community 
criteria nor lead to obvious competition between 
regional aid systems. 
II.7.3. The Committee particularly welcomes the 
consideration of the total volume of aid, because it 
will highlight development needs of regions where 
even the greatest latitude towards support measures 
has not led to any significant investment in contrast 
to those of regions where strict ceilings on aid 
percentages has not prevented major public support 
expenditure. 
The Committee is also concerned that the writing of 
programmes should not become a source of long 
delays — as has already happened with the quota-
free funds — and it recommends that the 
Commission and Member States should think 
through all the problems involved in order to arrive 
at the simplest possible requirement which will 
achieve the policy aims. 
II.7.4. The Committee cannot, however, appraise 
how the transition to joint financing will assist the 
priority for job creation in the guidelines. This will 
depend on how far new means will be found within 
the proposed programmes to stimulate employment 
in those sectors with the most promising growth 
prospects, i.e. the SME and new enterprise sectors. 
II.7.5. While the Committee shares the 
Commission's hopes, it is not as optimistic that the 
new financing arrangements will ensure that more 
resources are going into the regions. In the 
introduction to the new guidelines, the Commission 
has pointed out that the Member States with the most 
serious regional problems are also those with the 
weakest economies. Their governments may find it 
very difficult, therefore, to invest more in the regions 
at a time of tight budgetary constraints. It is however 
necessary to convince member governments that 
assistance to less-favoured regions is one means of 
revitalizing the economy in general and that 
consequently it should be the last to suffer from 
budgetary cuts. The ultimate test of the Commission's 
hopes is whether total aid for the less-favoured 
regions is increasing. 
(!) OJ No C 205, of 30. 4. 1980. (-) Opinion of 30 April 1981 (OJ No C 185, 27.7. 1981). 
No C 343/60 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 81 
II.7.6. The change of the Commission's role from 
that of a financing body to one which is more akin to 
that of a development agency would be welcome. The 
Committee recognizes however that this will involve 
a fundamental change in attitudes by most Member 
Governments to the Commission. The Committee hopes that this change can be achieved. The 
Committee also reiterates its doubts whether the 
Commission can play this new role with its present 
structure and staffing and it would like to know how 
the Commission itself sees the problem and possible 
new arrangements. 
Done at Brussels, 28 October 1981. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Tomas ROSEINGRAVE