31. 12. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 356/13 
Opinion on the reform of the structural funds 
(87/C 356/06) 
On 15 September 1987, the Council of the European Communities, acting under Article 
130 D of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, asked the Economic 
and Social Committee for an Opinion on the abovementioned reform. 
The Committee instructed its Section for Regional Development and Town and Country 
Planning to prepare the Opinion. The Section adopted its Opinion, based on the report by 
Mr Serra Caracciolo on 11 November 1987. 
The Committee adopted the following Opinion at its 250th plenary session of 18 and 
19 November (meeting of 19 November 1987) by 91 votes to 2, with 9 abstentions: 
1. Foreword 
1.1. The Single European Act has set the Community 
of Twelve an important new objective: a large barrier-
free internal market based on greater economic and 
social cohesion and geared towards rectifying imbal­
ances between countries, regions, production sectors 
and economic and social groups. Since the Single Act 
chiefly seeks to achieve economic and social cohesion 
within the Community, it is encouraging to hear the 
Commission declare, in the document COM(87) 376 
final, that it is particularly anxious to reduce regional 
economic disparities and promote growth in less-
developed areas. 
1.2. Economic and social cohesion ought, therefore, 
to be a common goal by all Community policies, 
whether present or planned: the common science and 
technology policy, the strengthening of monetary pol­
icy, the creation of a Community social area, the devel­
opment of a transport and communications infrastruc­
ture guaranteeing complete freedom of movement of 
people and goods, as well as coordinated environmental 
action. 
1.3. Cohesion very much depends on implementing 
the right programming and financial measures. 
This in turn implies the use of the following economic 
and social policy tools: 
a) the coordination of Member States' economic poli­
cies for boosting growth and employment; 
b) the common regional policy, which is geared to 
redressing geographical imbalances by developing 
backward regions and restructuring areas in indus­
trial decline. Regional policy should, therefore, involve: 
— the running of structural activities in the above-
mentioned regions, 
— the coordination of all common policies with a 
regional impact (beginning with the common 
agricultural policy (CAP) and the policy for 
completion of the internal market), 
— the coordination of Member States' regional 
policies, 
— the coordination of national aids; 
c) the creation of a Community social area consisting 
of: 
— an employment policy aimed chiefly at combat­
ing long-term unemployment and promoting the 
occupational integration of young people, 
— a social policy based on Community legislation, 
— the encouragement of dialogue between social 
groups; 
d) regular monitoring to ensure that cohesion grows 
as the internal market is completed. 
1.4. The Committee therefore invites the Com­
mission to present additional regulatory proposals for 
means and programmes for achieving economic and 
social cohesion within the Community. 
1.5. Reforming the structural funds is not, then, the 
only way to bring about economic and social cohesion 
and discussions on the reform of Community financing 
and the CAP should therefore take place within a 
general context. An overall approach is needed to 
ensure completion of the single market and to highlight 
the importance of achieving widespread solidarity. 
No C 356/14 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 87 
1.6. Reform of the structural funds is an essential 
element here. After all, redressing imbalances is an 
ambitious goal which cannot be attained as long as 
structural funds are treated as mere vehicles for trans­
ferring funds and making compensation payments, 
instead of giving them the means to generate real econ­
omic growth. 
1.7. Structural fund reform can help in: 
— adding a Community dimension to assistance, 
— achieving wider and more lasting internal stability 
and greater control over external imbalances, 
— allocating resources in such a way as to make the 
most of the scale advantages and, at the same time, 
stimulate innovation and competitiveness, 
— combating medium and long-term unemployment 
effectively, 
— stimulating economic activity and distributing 
wealth more fairly, thus narrowing the income gap 
between the Community's citizens by allotting 
resources on the basis of specific criteria. 
2. General comments 
2.1. Although the Committee endorses some of the 
Commission's proposals — particularly its decision to 
focus intervention on five main objectives — it con­
siders the regulation to be inadequate overall, for the 
following reasons: 
— there is no clear ranking of the five objectives, 
— the decision to concentrate assistance, which the 
Committee endorses, is contradicted in the descrip­
tion of the objectives themselves, 
— the mixing together of geographical and horizontal 
objectives has the effect of blurring the whole pro­
posal, 
— there is a certain amount of hedging and indecision 
concerning the integrated approach option and the 
role of the regions, 
— there is no specific mention of the role of economic 
and social pressure groups. 
In such conditions, words such as quality, effectiveness 
and complementarity lose much of their relevance. 
2.2. The Committee endorses the Commission's call 
for swifter, more coordinated management. However, 
it is convinced that even if existing funds are doubled 
in real terms (which is not in fact the case), resources 
will still be insufficient to promote development and 
redress all imbalances. There is a glaring disparity between the importance of 
the objective and the inadequate, not to say meagre, 
financial resources for achieving it. 
2.3. This aspect is clearly linked to the overall evalu­
ation of the reform of EEC financing which has itself 
been the subject of a specific Committee Opinion. With­
out wishing to go into a matter which lies outside the 
scope of this Opinion, one can nonetheless say that the 
proposals are a backwards step vis-a-vis the Single Act 
and could encourage the spread of renationalization. 
The Commission's treatment of revenue is particularly 
disturbing as it involves self-limitation fo expenditure; 
this contravenes both the spirit and the letter of the 
Treaty according to which expenditure should be based 
on concerted political decisions. 
Structural funds are clearly liable to be pushed aside, 
under a budget which cuts back on non-obligatory 
expenditure. 
3. The objectives 
3.1. The Committee approves the priority given by 
the Commission to the development at least-favoured 
regions where the gross domestic product (GDP) per 
capita is lowest. 
3.2. The five objectives proposed by the Commission 
cannot be endorsed until their real horizontal and geo­
graphical validity has been elucidated. Two of the 
objectives are clearly of a geographical nature (objec­
tive 1: development of backward regions; objective 2: 
conversion of areas in industrial decline). Two are 
plainly horizontal (objective 3: combating long-term 
unemployment; objective 4: occupational integration 
of young people). One combines both characteristics 
(objective 5: adjustment of agricultural structures and 
development of rural areas). Moreover, it is not clear 
whether or not objective 1 covers objective 2. 
3.3. The horizontal objectives are reasonable enough 
but for practical purposes their geographical scope 
needs to be clearly defined, particularly as regards the 
allocation of funds between the five objectives. 
This means that, in accordance with the information 
provided by the Commission: 
— objectives 2 and 5 should deal with areas not 
covered by objective 1, 
— objectives 3 and 4 should deal with areas not 
covered by Objectives 1 and 2. 
This should not be seen as restrictive. There is no 
reason why horizontal intervention should not be 
undertaken in areas covered by objectives 1 and 2. 
31. 12. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 356/15 
3.4. It is on this geographical basis that the five 
objectives should be ranked. In the Committee's 
opinion, priority must be given to objective 1. 
3.5. As regards the activities of the funds under each 
objective, the proposals relating to objectives 1, 2, 3 
and 4 are endorsed. 
3.6. However, the reference to the development of 
rural areas under objective 5 can be criticized on the 
grounds that this is a regional development matter. 
Objective 5 should concentrate instead on adjusting 
agricultural structures in areas not covered by 
objective 1. 
As far as objective 5 is concerned, therefore, the Euro­
pean Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the 
European Social Fund (ESF) should confine their oper­
ations to island and upland areas. 
3.7. As regards concentration, the proposal to set 
aside up to 80% of ERDF funds for objective 1 is 
noted. However, in view of the proposed geographical 
extension (see 7.5), a minimum of 80% would be more 
appropriate. In addition, precise figures are needed for 
the ESF and the European Agricultural Guidance and 
Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) guidance section. 
4. Quality of intervention 
4.1. Obtaining positive results for all five Com­
mission objectives will depend on improving inter­
vention techniques. 
Better programming, and improved procedures and 
coordination, should be the hallmarks of any attempt 
to reform the structural funds. 
4.2. The Committee believes that integrated pro­
gramming methods should be employed as widely as 
possible, though not necessarily exclusively. 
The trouble with intervention at the moment is that 
there are too many individual projects; this allows 
national authorities to take use of Community grants 
for past schemes and planned expenditure which would 
have been carried out anyhow. 
4.3. An integrated approach that was applied not 
just to traditionally disadvantaged regions but to others 
as well would bring out the local potential of such 
regions and enable it to be used to the full, with active 
participation from local government and other inter­
ested parties. 
4.4. Developing local programmes in objective 1 
regions does, however, pose a number of problems. 
Semi-public agencies could usefully be set up in the 
regions to promote economic development and employ­ment and thus provide the impetus for putting inte­
grated programmes into effect. The agencies will need 
to be part-financed by the structural funds. 
4.5. As for the conversion of declining industrial 
regions (objective 2), development programmes should 
put most emphasis on encouraging private investment 
in order: (i) to create alternative job opportunities; and 
(ii) to combat unemployment and promote vocational 
training, skill upgrading and retraining. Preventive 
measures are more effective at tackling unemployment 
than ones taken after the event. Objectives 3 and 4 call 
for a more flexible approach than the others. 
4.6. As regards objective 5, two key-words stand 
out: compensation for the negative effects of the CAP, 
and conversion (to other activities) for those hit by 
restrictive Community measures. Such actions certainly 
have their place—in some regions, the creation of non-
farm jobs is of especial importance—but that does not 
necessarily mean this should be the priority objective 
for agricultural and rural communities. 
5. Methods and instruments 
5.1. If anything is to be achieved by the five objec­
tives, care will need to be taken to choose instruments 
and methods which do not conflict with one another. 
It is hoped, therefore, that the funds will not merely be 
coordinate, but properly integrated. 
5.2. The main task of the ERDF will be to encourage 
investment. This will sometimes mean giving priority 
to investment in infrastructure for the less-developed 
regions; at other times the target will be private invest­
ment in declining industrial areas in need of restruc­
turing. 
Apart from this general priority, much more private 
investment will have to be funnelled into the less 
developed areas than has recently been the case. 
5.3. Integration will also mean upgrading the social 
fund as an effective employment instrument. Wherever 
appropriate, measures must be at regional level. How­
ever, some measures to promote new technologies may 
be implemented under wider non-regional programmes. 
The Community's technological innovation pro­
grammes will have to be backed by vocational training 
courses to help workers master the new technologies 
and thus retain their jobs. 
No C 356/16 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 87 
5.4. As regards the EAGGF, guidance section, assist­
ance should be used to help adapt farm structures. 
However, rural development is such a vast area that we 
must avoid using agricultural funds to finance projects 
which may in the end have only the most tenuous links 
with farming. 
5.5. The relationship between structural policies 
backed up by structural funds and other policies (e.g. 
transport and communications, energy, environment) 
which, as stated in the foreword, also involve structural 
intervention of a sort, should be more clearly delineated. 
In this connection, it would be misguided to attempt 
to dismantle any structural intervention already under 
way. 
The reference to a genuine Community framework 
perhaps offers a clue to the basic question: what kind 
of structural policy does the Community want? 
5.6. Complementarity is essential if the Com­
munity's structural actions are to be effective. 
The Commission's proposal here is far from clear. The 
point of Community assistance is not to complement 
that of Member States but to promote synergy between 
the two. 
The additionality of Community assistance, in terms of 
added value, should be guaranteed. 
5.7. On the subject of partnership, the Commission, 
for all its expressions of hope and declarations of good 
intent, is far from clear. It repeatedly calls for a joint 
effort by the Community, Member States, regions and 
economic and social groups; but it goes on to remind 
us of the legally binding, exclusive nature of its relation­
ship with the Member States, denigrating itself to the 
role of humble purveyor of technical assistance to sim­
plify procedures. 
In other words, although the Commission says that we 
must in future involve 'local economic agents' it goes 
on to emphasize that local and regional authorities will 
only be included if this is deemed necessary by the 
central government. Without imposing conditions, why 
not allow non-State bodies a share of Community 
funds? 
It would be interesting to know what possible meaning 
and scope a partnership involving local and regional 
authorities, as well as interest groups such as workers 
and firms, could have when the greatest obstacle to any such partnership in the past continues to loom as large 
as ever. 
5.8. The Integrated mediterranean program (IMP) 
experience here is instructive by by-passing normal 
official channels; at least as regards programme 
implementation, the Commission is able to reach the 
real protagonists (regions, other local authorities, econ­
omic agents); in addition, it is the parties themselves 
who determine the extent of their financial commit­
ment. 
5.9. The level at which consultations with economic 
and social groups are to be held is of major interest to 
the Economic and Social Committee. Consultations 
with local authorities must also take place during the 
second stage of the two-part procedure prescribed (pres­
entation of national programmes and establishment of 
a Community framework of reference), otherwise these 
bodies will be even more marginalized and centralizing 
tendencies will become even stronger. 
This brings us to the question of whether the second 
stage of the Commission's proposed partnership scheme 
is democratic: consultations should not only be decen­
tralized, but should also take place within the insti­
tutional framework of the European Parliament and 
the Economic and Social Committee. 
5.10. The Commission refers to the 'budgetary 
authority' which is to participate in the definition of 
the financial framework for the use of the funds, 
through the joint preparation of multiannual financial 
forecasts and via the annual budget procedure. It also 
stipulates, in Article 15 of the final provisions, that an 
annual report on the application of the Regulation shall 
be submitted to the European Parliament. 
The Committee feels strongly that it, too, should be 
involved in this procedure. 
5.11. It is regrettable that the Commission does not 
wish to strengthen the partnership by involving the 
consultative assemblies to varying degrees in discussions 
on: 
— the allocation of resources amongst the funds, 
— the complementarity of Community and Member 
State assistance, 
— policy decisions and the relative scale of actions 
targetted to the five priority objectives, 
— identification of measures within a Community sup­
port framework. 
5.12. The Commission's view that the concepts of 
integration and efficiency are pre-requisites for giving 
impetus and substance to the reform of the structural 
funds is fully endorsed. 
However, as regards the 'integrated approach', apart 
from the theoretical considerations already referred to, 
the Committee is concerned to see that these principles 
31. 12. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 356/17 
have often been relegated to a marginal position and 1 
apply only to 'specific cases'. 
5.13. This is all the more unacceptable if we look at 
the track record of integrated programmes. They have 2 
been correctly conceived as a means of increasing the 
impact of Community and national assistance by mak­
ing the best possible use of each region's potential, thus 
boosting added value, and by concentrating financial 
aid on specific objectives and geographical areas. 
An integrated approach is the only way of implementing 
a multiyear programme. 
i 
Furthermore it ensures the highest possible level of 
coherence between: 
— different objectives, and £ 
i 
— different partners. i 
The approach: methods and solutions — although they 
cannot work miracles — still offer the best means of 
carrying out the commitments undertaken in the Single 
Act. 
5.14. Efficiency is not achieved by simply fulfilling 
the wishes of those who want support. Efficiency must 
be considered from the start as a 'sine qua non' for the 
conception and success of a project. 
5.15. In the absence of adequate funding, available 
resources must be carefully used in order to reap the 
maximum benefit. The Commission's emphasis in prin­
ciple on sectoral and geographical concentration is wel­
comed. This will help to prevent wasteful 'scattering' 
of assistance. 
Financial concentration also contributes to efficient 
programming. It should be backed up by multiyear 
programmes in order to avoid fragmentation of assist­
ance. 
The fact that the outline for programmes contains not 
the slightest indication of a quantitative appraisal of 
projects and programmes is a distinct weakness. Fur­
thermore, it is regrettable that document COM(87) 376 
final contains no mention of the efficient 'programme 
contracts' formula outlined in the document COM(87) 
100 final (page 17). It should be reinserted in the new 
regulation as it is by far the best tool for planning and 
carrying out interventions. 
5.16. Finally, if efficiency is to be measured in terms 
of effectiveness, the Section feels that it is essential to 
publicize the Community's work: 1. beforehand, as part of the information policy 
described by the Commission in document 
COM(87) 100 final, but not referred to in the pro­
posal for the reform of the structural funds; 
2. afterwards, by circulating results as widely as poss­
ible. Efficiency would be enhanced if local authori­
ties and economic and social operators, acting in 
partnership, could be given a free hand in spreading 
news of positive results. 
6. Financing 
6.1. The Committee has repeatedly criticized the 
inadequacy of the funds' allocations. Particularly in 
its Opinions (*) (2), ERDF and ESF funding has never 
represented more than a tiny percentage of Member 
States' social and regional spending. EAGGF-Guidance 
funding has fallen to a paltry 2,8 % of all agricultural 
spending, compared to the 33 % (sic) recommended by 
the Stresa conference and the 25 % recently requested 
by the European Parliament. The qualitative leap now 
required of EEC structural policy can thus only 
strengthen the political call for a level of financing 
consonant with the Funds' new tasks. 
6.2. The Commission proposal to double of the 
funds in real terms in inadequate. This assessment was 
arrived at on the basis of data contained in Commission 
document COM(87) 230 final. 
a) in the space of 13 years, the membership of the 
Community has doubled. With each successive 
enlargement, one of the newcomers has invariably 
come at the bottom of the income league table; 
b) with the last enlargement, the Communities' popu­
lation has increased by 18% and its area by 36%. 
Whilst the number of employed and gross domestic 
product (GDP) have risen by only 12% and 13%, 
the number of jobless has shot up by 30%, and the 
number of farmers and farm workers by 36 %; 
c) the number of lagging regions has doubled as a 
result. One-fifth of the population of the enlarged 
Community lives in regions where per capita GDP 
is 60 % below the Community average. 
t1) OJNoC344, 31. 12. 1985. 
(2) O] No C 180, 8. 7. 1987. 
No C 356/18 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 87 
6.3. The proposal to double the structural funds' 
commitment appropriations in real terms by 1992 
requires some explanation. 
The total for the period under consideration comes to 
approximately 61 000 million ECU. However, if the full 
impact on the structural policy of Spain and Portugal's 
entry into the Community had been taken into consider­
ation in the basic calculations, this figure would be in 
the region of 75 000 million ECU. This, then, is the 
figure we should have in mind if we are going to talk 
about 'doubling' resources. matter of re-utilization which is responsible for so many 
resources lying unused. A possible solution here would 
be to draw up, in conjunction with the competent 
authorities, a timetable for phased payments, and to 
use this as a means of regulating commitment appropri­
ations. 
c) The conditionality of Community aid should be 
extended to encourage more efficient national and 
Community decision-making. 
6.4. It should also be pointed out that, with or with­
out the reform, the funds' resources would have 
increased at any rate by 40 % over the next five years. 
Even if we reduce the Commission's initial figures to 
the minimum possible, by basing them on the Com­
munity of 10, what we have is not a doubling of 
resources but a purely linear increase of 60 %. 7. Detailed comments 
7.1. The Committees 
6.5. As the reformed funds will play an active econ­
omic and social role rather than simply handing out 
financial compensation, it is considered especially 
important for the 'doubling' of the funds' resources to 
be based on their relative percentage of the overall 
Community budget. This comes to 28 % and not 25 % 
as the Commission claims. 
6.6. a) Finally, it is necessary to make a comment 
which may appear purely technical, but is in fact of a 
political nature and is also mentioned in Commission 
document COM(87) 100 in the chapter entitled 'New 
rules for managing the budget'. One of the reasons 
for the Community's deepening financial crisis lies in 
'overbudgeting' caused by excessive leniency in carrying 
credit from one year over to the next. 
This is largely due to the inability of some Member 
States to spend the sums within the time limit. b) -The Commission's views on Management Com­
mittees have been noted, as has its proposal to 
replace them with Advisory Committees. 
Some aspects, however, require fuller treatment. 
First of all, the criteria and methods the Com­
mission intends to apply in carrying out the 
proposed changes are not clear. In fact, the 
Commission has absolutely no authority to 
replace the present ESF Committee with an 
Advisory Committee since the former has its 
legal basis in the Treaty; 
These three Committees are to be classifed by 
objective, meaning that each one should be 
capable of tackling and solving the problems 
facing each fund. The Economic and Social 
Committee believes this could give rise to con­
fusion, with overlapping responsibilities and 
opinions. 
The problem could be solved by making better use of 
the technical assistance provided by the Commission. 
Frankly speaking, the Section feels that it is time to call 
a halt to this practice of swelling annual commitment 
appropriations to proportions which the Commission 
can no longer handle and Member States can no longer 
absorb. We must put an end to 'dormant commitments' 
once and for all. 
b) In mentioning payment appropriations, which are 
the mainstay of socio-structural policy, the Commission 
suggests that it is differences between the funds in the c) The connection between the three Committees 
and the five objectives is therefore a matter for 
concern. The three Committees could each end 
up specializing in one fund, just as they do at 
present; 
It is suggested that there should be a single 
committee responsible for all five objectives. 
Finally, when one considers the primary func­
tions of these Committees (establishing the list 
of regions and assistance within the Community 
reference framework), reservations about their 
31. 12. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 356/19 
membership are not unjustified. Restricting it to 
representatives of Member States would, for 
example, be unacceptable. 
— The ESF Committee has long had a balanced 
membership, including representatives of other 
interest groups. It is hoped that this format will 
be adopted in the reform and extended to all 
five objectives. 
7.2. The burden of the past 
The absence of any reference to the 'burden of the 
past', or to possible solutions for dealing with it in the 
years to come, is a worrying one. This problem has to 
be settled; it must not be allowed to stand in the way 
of the structural funds, still less to reduce them to 
impotence. The Commission is therefore urged to sub­
mit its solutions as quickly and in as clear a manner as 
possible, together with its estimate of the impact the 
burden is likely to have on the Community budget each 
year. 
7.3. The transitional period 
The Commission envisages a transitional period during 
which various adjustments will be made to smooth the 
changeover from the present system to the proposed 
one. The ESC fails to understand why not even the 
most general indication of how this is to be done has 
been provided by the Commission. Particular concern 
is felt about objective 1. If 75% of the appropriations 
under this objective are to be shared out between Mem­
ber States, the remaining 25 % should be used as a 
Community reserve to focus intervention on the most 
backward regions or vulnerable sectors, e.g. certain 
frontier and cross-frontier regions in difficulty. 
These funds should not be used to finance schemes 
decided prior to the reform and implemented under a 
system now judged to have serious shortcomings. This 
would postpone the benefits of the reform and hold up 
action in support of regions identified under the first 
objective. Effective solutions are needed, but special 
budget lines, which could only blur the issue and defer 
it solution, are not the answer. 
7.4. Relationship of the funds with other structural 
instruments 
The relationship between the funds (the ERDF in par­
ticular) and the European Investment Bank (EIB), the 
New Community Instrument (NCI), the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) etc. during the tran­
sitional period should be spelt out more clearly. It is 
hoped that the Commission will provide more details 
concerning the balance it intends to keep between capi­
tal grants and bank loans. Similarly greater efforts 
should be made to clarify the EIB's role in structural 
fund reorganization. Special emphasis should be placed 
on equal access to bank guarantees. The present system 
actually makes the situation worse because the more 
backward a region is, the less able it is to benefit from 
these guarantees. 
7.5. Geographical eligibility criteria 
As regards objective 1, it is proposed to extend its 
application to mountain and island areas in regions 
whose per capita GDP does not exceed the Community 
average. 
As regards objective 2, the relevant administrative units 
should be NUTS III (J). NUTS II is too broad an indi­
cator for this purpose as it does not take labour market 
characteristics into account. The Commission is 
requested to define firm parameters for identifying eli­
gible areas not covered by objective 1. 
7.6. Assessment of regional impact 
In the absence of such an approach, the Commission 
would require more experience in assessing regional 
impact, over and above the sort of 'Community follow-
up' which simply involves ex /?os£-coordination. Were 
the Commission to develop a much more ex ante-
approach, it would find it easier to coordinate and 
increase the synergistic effects of all the structural inter­
vention involved in common policies. 
7.7. Financial engineering 
In discussing possible forms of assistance, the Com­
mission proposal mentions other 'financial engineering 
techniques'. The Commission's willingness to try new 
methods is welcomed. The Economic and Social Com­
mittee is in favour of the Commission taking practical 
steps to promote new forms of shareholding to give 
impetus to business in backward regions. By reducing 
the risk factor for small- and medium-sized businesses 
trying to start up and expand in the new technology 
sector, backward and industrially-declining regions 
could return to the mainstream of economic develop-
(!) NUTS: Nomenclature of Statistical Territorial Units. 
No C 356/20 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 87 
ment and competition. The Economic and Social Com- these lines, adapting it to take full advantage of the 
mittee urges the Commission to continue research along new forms of financial assistance. 
Done at Brussels, 19 November 1987. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT 
APPENDIX 
to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
The following proposal for amendment, based on the Section Opinion and tabled by Mr Hancock, was 
rejected in the course of the debate: 
Point 1.3 (b) 
Delete the first indent. 
Reason 
This would appear to advocate a major and unwarranted extention of the Commission's powers in an area 
of policy which should be essentially one of partnership between the Commission and Member States. 
Voting 
For: 25, against: 63, abstentions: 6.