E\rropoan Social Erdget does not inalud.e alL categories of such expen- diture. .r:
....11 covers current but not capi-tal expenCiture (in ttre'forn of investnent) 1 ...
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES coii(TB)
:rS fLnar/a.
3russels, 12 July 19?8,
SMOIN ]fi.NCPEA}i StrIAL BIJ}GET
(rgZo-rgao)
(submitted.
cc,i,i(?8)
\ \ \\ N
.\
\\
:ig iutal/A,
to the Co'*i:cil by the Corrimission)
|'!t'i i.
ti,",...'
coMMtssloN OF TH;
i
,::l
:;.
:
,.
'
..
.,
EUROP EAN:. COMMU N ITI ES ,-"':.,.1,,,,,-'r,.
oNtT coi{cEa$s rHn
ENGII'ISH
csu(ts) He nnat/4,1!
viEfftlot{'
$quq*e1e'
.'
c0RRTGENDIJMJ
CsApnm
v
. .:
.-
(pages 8?
i ,,,. -t,., 1 ',
gg!(?8) :'
.a
i
-
93)
19,
*yq,ryt 19?8
,
COMMIS$ION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES cou(?8)
ONtY CONCESI{S fITE ENGT,ISI{ 1TENSION
ltl
ttrc-t/ ilz
Bnrssels, f8 AWust f9?8
coRRIGu$UMi ctlAPggn
V (pages 8? -
93)
tr#ffiffiffi$f SECOI{D EUROPEAI{ SOCI,AI
SUDGEN O
\'
;
'
(tgtr.;tgao)
(sutnittett by the Conrnission to the
r ---l (I)Ml -^ al Q .oi .-.---\ .7xl - la/O rv I J-v LLn&L! .L{
-
C-ouaoff
)
'
*87-
v/tt+l/lt-xx
CHAPTER V ,ir
-.
!
CONCTUI)INC REI,'IRKS
J
lr
--ftris
is an opportrrne moment to recall that the second' l?3. ',.t the firs't step towards the achievenent .'t Buropean Social Badget constitutesoperati'on as a shole, which rviLl call of the general aims fixed, for the over a to*, period' of time (l)' i;"-;-ei"taineA effort in nany field.s An effort is mace hero to arrswer t$ti sets of qrrestions concoming the limitations and short-oornings of the operation and' how they might be overcorl€o
I.
I?4.
LnffrArro]is oF' TiE-SECOND I]IJ--L0P3A]I-S9CLA! $ryCgr-ry EEIE !o[s!eP!c!s
LigllglioTs-3f lhe segond lt\rgpean s99ia1 *3,P1 Follor+ing the gui.deLines adopted by the Cowrcilr the
E\ropeas Social Bud.get vras confined to the,areas covered by the present Social Accounts (see points 8-1O). In addition to sociaL protection, which is a very significant item, social policy covers many other fields : vocational training, Low-cost housing, asset forma'uion, education, etc. However, even though limited. to social protectionr the E\rropoan Social Erdget does not inalud.e alL categories of such expensecond.
diture.
of
.r:....11 covers current but not capi-tal expenCiture (in ttre'forn investnent) 1 $irect beneflts (narnely, those that give rise to
financial flows), but not ind"irect benefits in the form of tax rebates. In this corvrection, it m:st be borne in mind that social protection policy ca.n be implemented. mainly througtr palrrrent of benefits t+hich may or nay not be accoppanied by tax advantages for certain categories : fanitri"es, old. peopLe, the.unenpLoyed,, otc. in sone countries, such tax advarrtegea can represent a significarrt pelcentage of benefits. ./,
(f)
seo'points
2!o 6 of
Chapter
I
and Altnex
II
point. 1,
'v/t343fi?-Et{
-88-
fixed to t'he fieLd' of survey, there social protection sche:nes' are limits on, ths analysis of irends inapproxlmate estima'te of the an AlthouSh it-r,ay le pooliirL. io make ro}ep)'ayedt,ytheoconomicenvironmentinthesetrends,thisisnot ehange (l'ogisLationt tmo as ""gu",i" the other faciore rnaking forfeatures of various schemee Ou*o#tpftio factor=L:ryli{io . regula.i".ron", should' p.4otea it Howevori or tlreir r6g'r6ctive degree of iniluenco). that, e.s for'-tax rebatos, the various national reports d'o contain infor-;aation,cln these Points'
1?5.
b-:.^:,r^i the flimits ldsides +tra
- vali.clitIjf
comqSlisog:
il the 9oci31 p:g!'qctllgn field
a
t
solely
$ince the second suropean social Budgpt concentretves l?6" of the comparisons made j'n this on sooial.protection, the ""ff"lifity ' area as rega::de beneiits and receipts should' ba exarnined'
Various iactors play a role trers- i
First).Xr as rnentioned above, there are major lacwtae in ; . ' ths field str:rveYed. eountlTr to ln add,ition, there are _differ€ncos from one seetora and' of oug*"ds the criieria used. for the subdivision another thie field "" o:f-total expondlture, despite the efforts in breakd,owng nade by the $tatistieai offics of -the E'ropean Coonrxrities' differences in the econornic and - The escond factor'ls Thoir sconomio stmctures wete States. social stnrctursa of the l,lember to social cond'itions, to respect with .brlefly desorlbed in chapter IY; in each country mrrst be situalion obtain a realistic idea the general conditionst', working thoroughly exarnined., particularly as regard's d.onogrlphic and fanily stmctures, inco*e distribution, and. bow tbe ' different eocial security schenee are adapted..accord'ing1y' ,i 1?7. - ThE third f,actor ie the projectious thenselves, wbtoh give rdee, to several oriticlEus t a
(") asstmptlons und.erlYing the projeotionst (r) tine taken to prepare the projootionst (") linited. tine-spa,n oovered by the - projeotlons'
./;
v/\iqt/tt-ss
-89-
f
) .
grojectiogs
Assgrntlions underlging tbe
/'
uB.'Acomparison.oftheprojectionsreveals significant differenccs as to how each country interprets thair nature and significance' The assumptions anC nrethods used are far from difficulty in preciseiy homogeneous. this j.s due to itre conslderabre by the reLatively vague concept defining what is meant in each country or lesser extent to r"hich of ,,const"nt f"gi"Iation", and the grlater co'sistent with the each count"y 1"i"" to make realistic projections patterns. behaviour econonic enlironment as regards the anarysis of I
L/ - rhe_macro-ecg:gmig_:E1l-:l!91*"|sed 1: og r
\!)-!
glggll_gye r_the_perr.
I?9.
de
scrile
>2w
{tre basis is the fourth revised medium-term econonic progranme, which has been updated' to a varying extent that took depending on the country. foday, view of the developments the prog'amme shouLd be place 9i&f 977 it lt_oks as though two angles : from be regard,ed , thi" ."tt 'n-f reconside"*i
the assumptions
seem
unrealistic in
19?g
extent varying from one country to anotherl
to T
not cast doubt on the!-yearprojectionsforeachcountryinthesarneway. two years Conslguentfy, iire I'growth paths' observecl during the first eituation a show diverglnt i""rri" whicir are reversed in 19?8-1980 the results for 1976-1977
d'o
whic|hardlyetandsuptoh&Cfo-g0onornicanalysis... ' Detailed information on this point is given in Chapter I (see Points 2O io 2J) ' Thus, the first trap to be avoid'ed vrouLd be to they invalidate the Sqropean Socia1 Budget projeciiqrs for LgBO' since | '" based on nore or less sound t"croiconomic assdmptions. I
,2
180. . proJeatlon for
/:-
ffisff}i*#d#5s*tr#:##s**'
the.problem here eacb Member State.
It
could be done
is to
design a mediurn-terro
in three
ways i
,/.
-90-
vlrullrt-nu !-
i
(a) rrgiectigng gt-cgngtgn! $eerSretlon (in the restrictec sense/
Projcctlons at constant legislation assune that no change r+il} oocur auring the period" covered, as regards scope
a.ndmet}:.asorapp}ication,andthatarrychangginthe}3ve1of (ittau*-iittt ing of prices or rvagee) ealling for a, benef1', or to extremel'y ".ru.iii . legis ;ivo d.elcision is excludeal (Such conventions Lead period's inflaticnary -stic er;tiroates and. - particularly in prit"") ' unr6a constalt at of benefits treni 1;he upward, ' eharply curb '
' (t) lrgigcligns :n99gperglirrs.*l.g !"!?]?+: botl IaliErgslog 3u!t!c-a.gt!1:,i3,iSs-qd' the SiE"E gf:i+}gsIlf i" relation to economic situation
This t;pe of projection calls for a fuII analyois of the past from which stable nrl"es of behaviour nay.bp inferred over tirne (for exanrple i an implicit assuranco regarding use and.conseqrrentLy presupposes the the progress.rrf purehasing power) -5ueh m&f,' however, be inadecluate techniques of econonetri6 tichnigues. in a macro-economlo described ghera new problems aiise in a situation significant if become projection, I:r particu).ar, rando,n elenents developr for problems grotrbh with lpe"ific sooi;e} need.s connected texa*pl,e, point to hitherto projections the extent that u.nemplopnent
131.
propose specific measuies €ogol lowerin,gi the retirement age or adjusting ths level of unemploy-' nent'iniurane,a benefits, in accordance with the situation
gnlceovnr-Ievs},s,
it
would be
. .. ,
verydiffitult to
(") lrgjgcligng inglgdlng ge$i3mltgrg Goyerngegt_oljgcliyeg
This option is the last stage in preparing a mediurn-term proj'ection which seeks to take acoount of priority lmprovenente in rnediun-term sociai. policy and the implementation of noasures.noedod. to cope r+ith problens arising in tho framework of a rsalistic projection, as d.escribed' in the previous ca,se.
182.
The dlfferent countries have to a varying extont ad.opted. assunptions involving a}l three conceptsr whlch ..r compllcates comparisons for 1980.
./.
*91 -
vlt
yl/ll*!,N
Z) . Sitg tg'ken to prepare-thg projec'i;lons
lB3.InClrapterlwenotodthattheEuropeanSocial Suriget was prepared over 4 +'1';Q-]rgaf period' Thsre is therefors a aangorl in i time of urcertain ocononic doveloprnent, that both the p"ojeoitons and the comparisons base{i on them at Comnlrnity love1 rnay i"pidly roso iituit reLevancsr '
3) . Extending-thg time-spen 9f lhe-projection 3y lirniting the iime-span of #e pro3ection to'th" nocliuur-term, l.ong-torm trencs - particularly C'enographio, - cannot be taken lnto consideration. Tnus, by about 1985, there is likely to be a substantial increase in the number of oLd.-age pensionexs and an egually eharp decline in the number of recipients of family allorvances.
II.
IRgrysll! Io-rl:!PloIE:w-c9ir4All$!v-ol !ry tRgrEclrgN! .a
ttre proposals belou follos frorn the foregoing remarks o1 th9 Iimitations a:rd. 1*cnrr". in the second $rropean Social Sudget, and their consoquencos for the comparabili.ty of the projections.. comments wiII, hovrever, be confined.-to the present fiel-d' of sulvey - sociaL protection - without attemptt"" *: cover the ground
184.
.
exhaustivoly.
3y approving the pgidelines for the seoond European social Br.rdget, the Clunclf also agreed to thq extension of thb Social Budget to other ieotors of soci.al action - most urgently to adult vocational training and lou-cost housing, on nhich the Comrnission staff are at' present working.
185.
subjects l
ltre proposals ni1l concentrate on the three foll"owing
(a) hp"ovement of the social protection account i
.
by includ.ing tax ai.vantages relating to the sectors cov6red, by tha Dropean Social Budget t *ar ^ara.rs* capital expenditure exptrioitly. accourrt - by taking .iinto
./.
-92-.
v/tzEt/l?-E
{
I
(t) Bxpngloljrg-*?r:9ygg94 of informe!1g1 (t) IB5,
The analYses gi'ven in the second Europban SociaL called. fort Br:dget 5enera1ly concern aggregates' l'lhen moro detail vras inforrnation had to be obtained from other sourcos; this was the case itr Chaptcr III o
. I,t
. ,
therefore be desirable (and this is.erpressly tfrg prov,ded for in.the objectives of the guropean socil],Budget) for budgrt to contain nore items of inforr:ration to facilitate more deteiiled' *t"Iyt"", uhich coultl irnprove eomparability'
1B?,
be directed.
kind).
to
r*cu1d
The search for new items of information ehould. first a1I ,or some sectors or.t;ryes of benefits (in cash or
,Forexa:nple,overa}ld.ataonbenefitsinkind.in
gensral, or for the sickrress sector, should be systematically accornpanied, by inforr:ration on'their conponents : cost of hospitalization, I medicaL fees, pharnaceutical costs, etc'
'
'
.
unemployment, information shoulC be provid.ed on the actual numbers receiving compensation, the average d,uration of unernplolanent, the average a*ount of compensation and' ihe distributiorr of the benefit payments. It vrouldr moreover, be d.esira'ple to hnow.this distribution for all functionsl .this trould, make it possibl,e to thfor.r light on the extent of reCistribution phenomena iesulting fr.on Member Slatesf social protection po}icies. Consequentlyt there would. be a need, to d.istinguish between net and gross benefitst so far abeerrt fron comniunity statistical .comparisons.
In the case of
'
The search for nen informat:,on should also iouch on the deterrroining'the evolutj-on of social- protection systems, either endogenous or exogenous, overall or sectorial". The first staS;e should' be limited t;o general legislative, econoinic (pr5.ces and wages) and, demogiaphic (insured. persons, beneficiaries, changes in po.oulation target groups) factors. (Sorne national reports already contain'ihis
IBB.'factors
type of infornation).
!\rther, inforrnation of this i;'p(i has aLreadgr bee:: colLected for particular studies or research projects (for exampie 3n health), o.r statistics concerning recipients of .bonefits. This wo:::': /./.
(f)
t'tore dotaileti information
is giverr i.ri.l,n:cex TI, point 1.
-93-
v/rJ+5ii{"xr\
*.
shouli I ol ul al ol I €l
ol FI
€
/ llN
N
o
N
,,.,,|p
: il+ .'ltot
{:_r c L
I
.l I I
ot
I
c o
I
c
i I
6O oF @ o AFeoSFaO e O Eet,t6lSOe,tt@ 6-.-rto-6-,or=_!-oq=
g8 oF
o u)l v'
-l
't
E
o o
-2L-
severaL countries if the situation in early \)ll continues until 1980 (1). Spend.ing on child.ren and maternity uould account for more than a tenth of the total in most countries, except the Federal Republic of Cermany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. Although it is difficult to make accurate pro.jections of the total amount of unemplo;rment benefits, the data for each country show shares ranging from 1 .O ',t" to 5.9 '1' for 1!BO, in most but not all cases lower than the share taken in 1975 Q).
III.
BEgEIPTS
Ing-gl-rgggipts The question of the ways in which such social expend-iture 4O. is financed will now be examined. Although figures are given for the Community as a whole, there is far greater apparent C.iversity in the methods for financing expend.iture than in the functions of the expencliture itself. The main feature of this situation lies in whether greater ernphasis is given to contributions or to taxation. Even thou3h they may be treated. as similar for certain economic purposes, it is arguable whether such similarity is perceived. by the general public, and d"ifferent traditions have grormr up in this respect.
In the Communi-ty as a whole, contributions are projected to up over two-third.s of receipts in 1980, and taxes over a quarter, showr in the Chart for table TI,4. Revenue from capital and other receipts would be Less than ) i(. Great differences exist between countries. Over 80 ;r3 of receipts would be collected by contributions in France in 1!80 rvhile at the other extreme Denmark would only rely on this method for 13 !, of the total financing pro;tected. Alternatively, the part played by recei-pts from taxes would vary between 16.2 /, tn Ii'rance and B?.I '|L in Denmark. 0f the two final categories, I'i-ncome frorn capital" and rrother receipts'r, the first would" oniy account for more than )'1L of toial recei-pts in the Netherland-s and the United. Kingdom, while rrother receiptsrr are only of importance in the Federal Republic make
of
Gerrnany anC
ltaly.
11I.
Compared to I)IJ, contributions would increase in importance while the share of taxes would. fall back somer.rhat, for the Community as a whole, although this pattern does not apply to ltaly, Luxembourg, the I'Tetherlands and the United. KinEdom.
(l) Aftnough ltaly seems to have the highest share devoted. to health, the reason for this is the inclusion of inval-id-ity pensions, payable after retirement age, in the health function rather tharl in old. ager accordins to the framework of the Social- Protection Accounts. (e) On Issrunptions provid-ed. by the Commission, except for France, where a national assumption concerning the number of unemployerl. was used. in projecting 1!80 benefit amounts. (See paragraphs 16, 18, 22-24).
l,l
"
;
t t, l,: r; t
@
t
=
a
+\
Eg o L o
;I
€ o
-
-E
\t,'
r.!
o qq L
Ld o€
6
N
oo oo FG 6C
El3 3g cleffi 9l ol
E
FI -l ol
r.J I
PI al
o @
o o t @
?ldts -o ulo olc o arl€c 4to
G
:l= glc fl-5
.tS *.b
o N
-,a
N
a
I N \... '.. \\.
.)
+
*
+
di
d
E
o 0
N
@
\\ \o\
.-O
8'a
t1a sl
=l
i
s
E o
EI
€-
L co o
6
o
6
og o .L o gL t o+ IO o
EE
-d
-r
rt ot t€
-'
.-A OF do
E
= 'E co o
8L LL
@
(,ao oo xocgop F6
Jtb
s)
o H
+
d
rf\ E
lU
6
E
+)
h0
f] .rl
o
M
o d d
a)
c)
+)
rn
;
rT!+' b/t m t NH/ Lttr{t
l|v
I\ll-^'t uz
(d
-lc) !
H c)
+)
o o
f{
c\,
5
o\ a tf\
I 6
erd .t{ a{
A Ett
/-. t\ft\
{-JHl \il t\nEP{ \llr.\lll\J \IJJU
lr
E
(U
ca
to 6
CU
c
o
rd
Fil cO Hl Or+ ()l+ '-l f.nl o
,Itr I'a I
rr(n
,ri
zl ol Hl
fil P.l .. cal
t
E
P!
Q)
g
lf
r\
IU
h g
E
h q)
Cil-{ O 5l o tr i J ol @l'-r t'l
tr o
q-r
qr
I
o
E
a
.rl
E .r{
tr
h0
r-l
a
b0
r1
\o a
N\
oo
YI ^l q-l o'l
Hl
tad trO lrO
'd
oo
+) ri
0)
E
rf\l
til. o(l)
Ht
FI
>-c O.u I
tl
CEODN
fc\ c\l
-22-
Source-gf regeipts
42.
have been reclassified- as (including the self-employed.) households coming fr.om enterprises, paid in contributions includes Governmelt and other" Covernment now enterprises collected. from its capaoity as employer, as well as taxes
In this section, the receipts
and houserholds.
fn the Community as a whole enterprises are shown as directly contribut;ing 38.5 fo and. household"s 21.6 /" of total receipts in the 1t80 projectionsr although indirect contributions via taxes have not been apportiorred. between these sectors. The part played. by Goverrunent is shown in the Chart for table II.J as varying between 26,6 f" and 87.I %. Compared. fo L)IJ, the share provid.ed. via Goverrrment will increase in Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the United Kingd.omr if policy remains rmchanged, Tn the same period, d"irect household- contributions are projercted to increase in importance in 3elgium, the Fed.eral Republic of Germany and France.
rv.
$38_09 giry guIOlElN-sgcIA! sggi
43.
44.
a
]"
exp egdi tu
rg
c
BimGEr
gmpare d_t 9_gro
g:_$gtg:!f 9-PI9g39!
In this section, a brief indication will be given of the social expenditure in relation to the economic enol'total amount has become customary to express social or other expendivironment;. It of g?oss domestic product (C.D'P.) in order to percentage ture as eu provid-e riuch an indication. [tris comparison nay be somewhat misleadingt for reasons explained in paragraphs 45 and 46. In the Community as a who1e, the sooial expenditure included in the European Soeial Bud.get i.s projeoteiL to be equivalent in 1!80 to 2J.A f" of G.D.P., a slight fall compared to I)lJ when it amounted to 25.4%. (See Chart for table II.5). In the Federal Republic of
Germany, Denmark, Treland and. the percentage projected. for 1t80 would be also less United Ki.ngdom, the on legislative and economic assumptions IJIJ, the observed. Ln than that; in G.D.P. leve1s in reflects the fa11 this fa1l used.. To some extent, it otherarise mi.ght percentage be higher than caused. to 1!ll whioh the of in certain measures reflects the effects have been. The fall also public in expenditure. donn increases countries designecl- to d.amp
For Lrrxembourg, the percentage in 1980 would" be significantly higher than in 1975. This picture may reflect a relatively lower growth rate in 1;he G.D.P" to 1!BO as well as increases in social benefits. Increases; in the percentage ind-icator are also projected for Belgiumt France, 1.ta1y and the Netherlands.
22q f{_lable ll.6
C}|ARI
J.t)
(Aqjcnai
ilCj.-r E4l td
\)
Jq F
i{
'!1 f{
Fr
d
(s
c-
o)
d
-1
H C)
a f*
h .d
H
II
n
d
o)
ii
F{
c! i.
fi
F:I
HI
-+
a\.
o
f{
o
\o
ll
H
rn .-l
a
$or
H H H q F1
a
Er
H
x
,A H
Er
tr
0)
f,
$
-46-
Chart for table III.2O the proportion taken by benefits in kind for childre:n would rarrge from about a quarter in the United Kingdom to under 5 /" ,n the Netherlands, this latter figure being perhaps connectred. w'ith a lower participation of women in the Dutch labour force' (See last item, table TII.25 on this point). The picture as regards maternity benefits is not so clear-cu,t. Although for the Cornmunity as a whole in 1t8O just over two-fif'ths of maternity benefits would. be in cash, variations would range f:nom fl .5 /o in Luxembourg to 18 .9 /o in the United Kingdom.
legrg (benefits in cash and in kind) 84. Farnily benefits are not projected. to increase as quickly between 19?5-80 as they did in the previous five years, partly because of the legislativ€ assunption mentioned- above, but also because of the decline in the birth rate in recent ;r€&rsr In fact at estimated constanl; prices, the Community as a whole projects hard.ly any increase. This oveirall total masks consid.erably divergent pro.jections for individual countries. For a more complete view it is necessary to look at benefits in oash separately from benefits in kind... 2.
85,
Chengeg lptwgeg
At oument prices, total farnily benefits in kind. slightly more rapid.ly than those in cash betr.reen ltJO and l)lJ fot: the Community as a whole, and are projected to do so again from \p'l'l to 1p80. (See table III ,221 Appendix I.H). These nominally greater increases are not likely to be reflected. in real terms, however, because of the growing cost of providing benefits in kind.. increaserd
a) Idaternity benefit: Over the Conmunity as a whole, total maternity benefitsr in kind. are projected. to increase at about three times the rate of total cash benefits. The rate of increase of the former is similar in fact to that of health benefits in kind. No information is available in this report on the birth rate in 1980. Oreat differences occur in. projections of individual oountries, shown in Charts rrArr attd frBrf for table III.22. Considerably larger increases in total caeh benefitsr are projected in Luxembourg arrd the United Kingd.om, and in Belgium and Fra^nce for total benefits in kind.
4bq
CHART rrArr
for
MATERIIITY BmIEFITS
s
PRoJECTED CiIANGE t9?5-198O
Table III.22 (Appendix f.H)
1. In
Equivalent an:oual average fo
cash
AT
I-.*
I
Belg:.urn
I o.t _
1.
AT
COIISTANI PRICES
at] f.-. Dt.r
10.
Denmark
!r.R. of
I
Lpl
Germany
France
11.
treland
La.z
| (no d.ata arailable on this basis)
Ita1y I
Y.r
CURREWI' PRICES
LuiKembourg
Ib.b _
| |
Netherlands
|L
.^a1-5r
United Kingdom
-
0.6
EUR
-
CHART IBII
2. In
kind"
AT CO}IS[AI']'I
AT
PRICES
CURRM{T PRICES
Belgi"un Denmark
I 0.,
F.R.
of
Germany
1
20.2
_
l-.." I
I reland
I r5"8 _.
I
Italy
,, | (No data available on thj-s
rr|l-r t4F:53
rz3]
E}
_--l basJ-s)
Luxembourg
Netherlands United Kingd.om
a
|
rl.6 -1
EIIR I I
ehange
41,6 I'C"
for 1A3LE III.22
CHART
q-1OBO PROJECTSD C1IANGES 147
OtHER FAMILY BHItr'ITS
Equi-valent arurual avera€e % change
l. rr\ -1.n/ (Appenolx
1. II-EL AT CURRM{T PRICES,
AT CO}[S[I$TI PRICES
fr"
1
Belglum
- r-.3 tf -
Denmark
r.9l-l
F.R. of
ED
-1.0
n
tril
Germany
France
L::.p-.
I
[g E] fTB::-f
lreland
f-eI-:
Italy
| 1ro a"t" available)
Lurembourg
f
I iro a"tr available)
Netherla^nds
1
23.4
1l_.0
United Kingdom
'o.9
ci{allr
I
EI'R
ttDrl
2. Ig@ AT
AT CURREI'IT PRICES
COTISTANT PRICES
28.0
tra
Denmark
tr'.R,
t-ol
of
German.y
France
(I'lo
beneflts in
ftaly
(No
d.ata available)
Luxembourg
(tto
data available)
I
Ireland
I
I
f-3^l
SE
r; t_J
t_3:
Netherlands
United Kingdom
EUR
I
f
.^r ::l
rr.f
ki-nd)
-47-
b) otler g3nllflg3el*: For the Comnunity as a whole, other fa,rnily benefits to increase uuch less rapid.ly between r)lJ to 1p80 at current prices than they did in ttre earlier five y"a""r-a,nd even to fa}1 in estinated. real terms, at constant prices. A large increase is however projected. for the un_ited Kingdom, reflectins the introduction of a child benefit scheme extending coverag€ to the first child,r together with withdrawal of the appropriate tax allowances. This country also projects the greatest decrease in rear terms for benefits in kind., with d.ecreases also in France a^nd" the Netherland.s. The greatest increase, equivarent to 28 % p., year at current prices, would occur in Belgiuml from a fairly 1ow base. (See Charts rr0rt alrd rfDtr for table II'T.22). in^cash are projected.
3. Avgraqg benefit s3gr_pgrgog
a) &Lgrrt3r 86.
Statistics are available at Cornmunity level on the number of live births per Jrear in t97o and 1!l! a,nd these have been used. to attempt an estimate of average benefits for these two years (1). In L)IJ, it would seem that Denmark and France paid. out above-averagp
a^mounts in maternity cash benefits, followed. by the Fed.eral Republic Germany and Luxembourg. As regards the average amount of benefits in
of
kind r the Federal Republic of Germany, Fra.nce and the United" Kingd.om paid the highest amounts in I)IJ, It should be remenbered. that high input figures may partly reflect high costs of med.ical facilities, perhaps related, to an excess of hospital places provid.ed. before fa11s in the birth rate were recognised. As wel1, the lower than average figure for naternity benefits in kind for the Netherlands reflects the policy of encoura€l-ng births in the home rather than in hospital, a policy which presupposes the existence of adequate accomnod.ation for young families. (fatte III.23, Appendix I.H). Other lega1 or institutional features of the schemes are listed. in the 'rcomparative Tables" (2).
b) 9!!er-!es:lu-!gelrt" B?.
In the absence of comparable statistics at Conmrnity Ievel on recipients of fa"nily benefits other tha"n maternity, estimates were made by the Commission of the nunbers of children entitled to
(1)
Source : 'rSocial Ind.icators 1960-19?5" S.O.E.C., L977. No infornation was available on the projected. nunbers of births in 1t80. See footnote on page 26.
(Z)
h1o CHAXT
for
OTHER FAMILY
BElIff'ITS IN CASH :
PEN
g,ISISLE
CHITD
(eetinate)
TA3LE ITT.24
(APtrrur r.H) IN
AMOTITITS
EUROPEAII
INfiTS OF
ACCqJNT
F-] = Projections for 1!80 s*r (Oct. ?? exchange rates) = Statistics for 19?5 : Erti*raLcl co..ectio^ lor /ll' gurcha5ial pau,e, poiit\.s in 1975 V 11vit\ re (ri"n." fo'*ort crferrive couatrl 3go
fr
lr
d & -r t5
-.r--rr
"-]-l
LI
123
163
i--'n
r.
lllj
i ,.ii: Llill.,iit
l
t-ij
58
{iiui(
343
n i-jl elrl
tl
I
lrl
ill lrl
ni
,LJ-
t
L
iea
76L
,J-
til tll
59e4
d
il
673
-48-
these benefits (f). tn so far as such estimates do not represent the comect numbers of recipients, because in certain countries the benefits include those for other dependent relatives besides children, an exact conparison will not be provided. The importance of considering both benefits in cash and those in kind is evident in this sort of average measurer since d.ifferent countries have different policy mixee.
88.
Per child entitled, the Chart for table }.II.24 indicates that the av€rage annount of cash benefits is highest in Belg'iumr followed by Fra^nce a"nd lowest in lrela.nd.. France also projects a fairly high level- of benefits in kind. per child., whereas in the other two countries the arnounts are row. Dennark provid.es the highest average benefits in kind. for children, at a leve1 three times higher than the nert highest cor:ntry. Although this level reflects perhaps a somewhat different view as to the place of mothers in society and therefore the need for child.-minding facilities, it is also a problem of statistical definition of the borderline between family benefits in kind and education benefits. In Denmark day nurseries are regarded. as part of the childts schooling (although included. in that countryrs Social Budget data) and are therefore also used by farnilies where the rnother is not enga6ed. in paid. employzrent. ft should be noted that, in contrast, the Germa.n figur"es do not include expenditure on kindergartens and crbches. Other differences in legal or institutional features of national schene6 are listed in the trComparative Tables" (2).
4t lverage legelits_related_tg g.!.!. 89. Differences in absolute amounts of benefits between countries may be related" to differences in wealth or income between countries. A comparison using G.D.P. per menber of the active population is illustrated in the Chart for table UI.25. (The reasons for using this indicator have been outlined. in the relevant section under health benefits). (paragpaph 5T). a) tvtaternitg
90.
This comparison shows an increase for both benefits cash and in kind between 1!'f0 and lpll for the Community as a whole and for each country. (No information was available on the projected
in
of births in f98O). For benefits in cash, the position of cor:ntries is similar to that shorrn by comparing absolute amounts on averag€, vrith Denmark having the highest amount tn I)lJ, except that Italy in this case joins the Federal Republic of Germany and Luxembourg. As far as the cost of maternity benefits in kind. are concerned, the number
(f ) me Statistical Office of the European Communities has begun a progTamme aimed at establistring such statistics. The sources of the estimates are given in the footnote to table III.24, Appendix f.H. (e) See footnote on page 26.
4Eo CIIART FOR
oTHffi FAI4ILY BEIff'ITS IN
Table III,,25
per estinated chld entitled
1met,.rr.*
AS /o OF G.D.P. PER
CASH
in active population
r.tt\ r975
/"
lgBo
,/" 4/" 3/" z/'
sca,Ie
t/"q/" 5/"
6%
lei-s[un
4oY
F.R. of
3.8
5.6
3.4
Ge
4.6
4.r
e
1.5
No data
2.8
1n
for
1!80
available for
1!BO
data available
Z oO
retnerrLas
3.3
3.o
I I
EURr I
I
PERSOI{
3.5
-49-
the effect of previously mentioned, policy d.ifferences on the cost of these benefits is hightighted in table III.25 by the relatively high figure for the United Kingdon in ltll and the low one for the Netherlands. Tttis difference, not reflected in statistics for infant and maternal mortality (l), illustrates the dangers of judging the sta^nd.ard. of social conditions by reference sirnply to the amount of expenditure as measured under the present statistical framework.
u) 9]tt"LlegllU_lgnefit s Consid.ering the IlJl results first of all, the level 9L. of provision on average would seem to have been widely different depend.ing on the country, implying that d"ivergencies in absolute average amounts are by no means wholly due to d.isparities in economic resources. It should. be mentioned. that the extent of the dj-fferences are reduced, from about four-to-one comparing the highest and lowest amounts in absolute terms d.own to about two-to-one in this relative comparison. Belgiun remained the country with the highest leve1 of cash benefit provision according to this comparison, and lreland the lowest, as ca"n be seen in the Chart for table TII.25. fn looking at the projecti.ons for 1l8O on this basis, it should. be remembered. that certain countries (e) feft unable to includ.e probable increases in child. benefit levels since these were not covered. by legislation when the projections were d.rawn up. Ttre ltBO results therefore indicate what would. happen, gtven the econornic and. demographic assumptions, in the absence of new legislation. As regard.s cash benefits, it would seem that the leve1 of provision in Denrnark would be reduced. in 1t80 to near the }evel in lreland, when account is taken of relative economic resources. Without further legislation, the level of provision in the Fed.eral Republic of Germany, the Netherla^nds and the United- Kingd.om would also be below the Comrunity averager on such a relative comoarison.
As regards benefits
in kind", this type of relative
comparison with economic resources would. seem to ind.icate that provision would by 1t80 be rnore than keeping apace with economic development in Be1gium, the Fed.eral Republic of Germany a"nd the Netherlands, admittedly fron a relatively low base. llhe opposite can be seen to some extent in Denmark and parti,cularly in France and the United Kingd.om. (See table ITI.25, Appendix I.H).
(r) see
t'Social Indicators t95O-19?5r', S.O.E.C. Table vT/z. (z) tire Fed-eral Republic of Germany, Irelandy ltaly and the United. Kingdom.
-50-
Iig"! gegarks gn_fgmifg benefits It is important to keep in mind that this tyge of 92. comparison, of the absolute amounts of average benefits contained in the expernditure figures in relation to a neasure of economic resourcest is a somewhat blunt instnrnent. It does not take into account the f\r1t ra.mificertions of tax allowances for farnily support, the structure of housing policies, reductions in the cost of travel for large farailies, or many other measures which are d.ifferent expressions of family policy. if these neasures were fully taken into account, however, and bearing in mind. the inexactitude of the numbers of persons invoJ.ved;, it remains questionable whether the gap observed for the Comrnunity as a r.*tole wou1d. be closed to any great extent - that is, when average benefits for oId. age (includ.ing d"eath and survivors) related to the particular measure of economic resources chosen are contrast;ed with a\reragts family benefits (exoluding maternity), Average benefits for old age in 19?5 were 28.2 /" of G.D.P. per person in the active p,opulation for the Community as a wholer oonpared to 4.4. /o f'or average 'rother fa,urily benefits[ per estinated child entitled. - more than a six-fold, d.ifference. Such a comparison at national level reveals considerable differences from the overall Community figure. (Tables III.U and III .25). Even
93.
SUUMARY
OF MAIN RESULTS
a. In 1!8O, child. benefits are projected. to just account for less tfian IO /" of the total benefits includ.ed. in the European Socia1 Bud.get and maternity benefits about I /o. rrOther fa.mily benefitsft
in cash seem to be important than benefits in kind for ev6ry eountry except Dennark. For 1t80, the United Kingd.om is placing much more emphasis on cash benefits with the introd.uction of a new chilrl benefit scheme. Several countries project lower real levels of benefits in kind, at
much more
!.
-fl-
estirnated constant prices.
cr
The averagg
level of rrother fa,mily benefitsrl
per child. entitled. to tf,em varles greatly bstween cor:ntries, being highest in Belgiun. Benefits in kind, consid.erably affect amor:nts of total benefits in certain countries.
d.. When the averag€ amount of maternity benefits per live birttr-is compared with a measule of economic d.evelopment, the trend between 1!10 and ltl) indicates that spend.ing on maternity benefits ran ahead of available resources at Community leve1, in line with health benefits. €o Given the legislation when projections were dravrn up, the 198O-1eve1s of expenditure on frother family benefitsrr per estimated child entitled. would, not keep up with the pro;jected. increase in G.D.P. per person in the active population, in most countries.
o
oo
IV.
EUPTON,IEI\TT-SENEFIT!
1. Introduclign 94.
Employrnent benefits amounted in 1!'f! to w,det J /o of all social benefits included in the European Social Budg€tr which was however double their share in 1!10. On the basis of assumptions for unemployment levels in I!8O supp1ied by the Commission (1), the amount of these benefits would. continue to increase between 19?5 and 19BO for the Commr:nity as a r*role. They would. still take up less than 5 ,/" of total social br.rclget expenditure, as indioated in the table below.
(t)
See comments on
15 a^nd 17
the vi.ability of these assumptions in of chapter T.
paragraphs 13,
5\a
a
,tt
,s
e
1
/,'r,!
\__t/^^)
r
( d\
I ,--1
1't 't c,
fJ
t( 1
\
d
fi
U
I
)
{"-ti"' --,
)
-57-
ltre.expla^nation for the relatively higher anount in mainly the higher rate paid by the insurance scheme which ls Denmark for up to three and a half years. Details of the main continued is legal or institutional provisions affecting each countryts general schemes of unemplotrrment benefit are given in the "Comparative Tablesrr (f). tn the Netherlands, although the insurance benefits (BO /" of' gross earnings) are continued only up to -a ma:rimum of six months, afterward.s the unernployed may receive l5 % of gross earnings social aid schene. If the resulting for a furrther two years through the f'gross minimum benefit'r, heads of figure f'alls below the estimated or over have their benefit mad.e househol,d.s and single persons aged 35 gross a week in July 1975). (at fl . 325 up to tl:ris minirmrm-amoi:nt payable by benefit remain It should" be noted that contributions recipierrts in the Netherlands.
l-01.
As a contrast, it should be borne in rnind. that contriburtions are not payable by benefit reciplents in the Federal Republic of Germany, so therefore the "net'r amounts wouLd tend. to be lower thran the rrgrossrt amounts in certain other countries such as the Netherleurnds. In the Federal Republic, the insurance period. can last for a maximurn of one year (3tZ working days) and during this perlod the unemployed person receives 68 /, of net earnings immediately preceding unemploynent. After one year, social aid. for unemployment (Arbeitslosenhilf;) i;atces over, providing a smaller percentage (58 /") ot the net earningel before the period of unemploynent, as long as certain contribution oond.itions have been met. If not, the person would only be eligibler for general social aid (Sozialhilfe) which does not aim at replacing previous income. Batitlenent to assista.nce or aid benefits is subjerct to a mears test, in which any earnings by the spous-e, parents or chilclren living at home are consid.ered. In I)'lJ, only J.4 y'" of unemplo;nnent benefits was paid. in the Fecleral Republic of Germany wia social euid. rather than inzurance schemes, oompared. with 45.3 f" in tne Netherleurds. (latte III.34).
102.
103.
The results of this type of average calcul.ation for 1!80 should. be approached. with even more caution, particularly since it is not possi.ble to adjust them for d.ifferences in purchasing power betueen countries, in the absence of more up-to-d.ate estimates. As wellt projecti-ons were based on the minirmrm amor:nt of ind.exation allowed by leg!s1a1;ion, although it is possible extra increases may be awarcleil by Governments.
ft is nevertheless felt that average figures based. on the 1!80 projections should be given, as an aid to policy-making at nationalL and Comnunity 1eve1s.One advantage of such averages is that they are unaffected. by whether total benefits are based on a realistic projecti.on or not of the numbers of unemployed- persons.
(f)
See
footnote on page 25.
-58-
1O4. The main changes in 198O compared fo L)lJ are that, firstly, average benefits in Denmark would no longer be at the top of the scale. Without ad.justnent for purchasing power parityr Selgium a.nd the Netherlands would pay out higher avera€e arnounts of unenployment cash benefit. At the other end of the scale, Italy projects for 1!80 an avera€e anount higher than Ireland or the United. Kingdon. (ffris increase for ftaly nay however be due to the inclusion of increased patrments to persons for whorn work has been provid"ed via public fwrds in ord.er to avoid unemploSment). A further change worthy of note is the effect of new legislation in Fra.ncel gfeatly increasing averagg benefitg. The averages for f975 a,nd ltSO are illustrated in the Chart for table III.33. A final point is that average figures may conceal large discrepancies in individual a^rnounts, partlcularly when only certain countries follow a policy of ensuring a minimrm level for all. No d.ata on the distribution of benefits is available in the present Europea.n Social E:dget.
5. legefits3er_pergog gelale! to_G.D3P. lel lelsgn As with the other functions examined in this reportt 105. as well as lookingl at absolute values of average benefits per headt it is useful to compare these amounts with sone measur'e of national wealth or income. Unemplo;rment benefits per registered unenployed person have been related to the g?oss donestj.c product per person in the active population to provid.e a conparable basisr although the drawbacks of using this sleasure should. be borne i.n mind.. (See section 5 on Health Benefits). lgain, it should be remembered that both the projected. numbers of unemployed. and levels of G.D.P. in 198O are based on Cornnission assumptions (eicept for Fra.nce) and. may not eoincid.a with national asswnptions or forecasts. Taking results based on the 1!l! statistics first, considerable differenceg still existed" nnong the oountries in the Community, even though the effect of this ttrrye of indicator would be to level them out if every cor:ntry was providing absolute a^mounts according to its sconomic resources. As with everage unemployment benefits per person, Dennark and the Netherlandg ca"ne at the top end of the scale. At the bottom end, France jo.ined Ireland and ltaly. The other countries were placed between these two groups.
IO5.
llhe picture projected for 1!8O shows little sign that these differences would narrolt, on the basis of leg:islation in
5xa CIIART TASLE
for III.35
BH'IEFITS
UNEMPL0YIT{UIIT
IN
AS % OF G.D.P. FER
CASH :
PERSON
in *.t*e prt\\4+i.,\
per registered unemployed. person
/itremprra.l) t9't5
5q"
19BO
40 /" 3U/"
rq" zq,
2V/"
3vh 4q"
4a'7
5Z.Y
2Jo)
5uk
Jl.o
\J-
F.R. bf ZL.'
Ge
13.7
L4.g
lZcv
IOoJ
l_0.9
,u.,
,rrF-o**-l ,*
data arailable
40.1
United Ki
19.9
)
19Bo)
44.2
29.a
(r
for
Includes expenditure on placiqS
*l
rl .
I
19.5
-19-
micl-1977. The Netherlands would have the highest percentage figire in 1980, followed by Belgium a.nd then Denmark. 0n this basis, the Federal Republic of Germany would have the lowest figure, close to Irelandrs and near to those of Italy and the United Kingdom. At first
sight, this ranking of the Federal Republic of Germarty is d.ifficult to und"erstand, since unemplo;rment benefits have been linked since 1!l{ to movements in earnings over the previous three years, in the same way as old age and invalidity pensions. Part of the explanation, but a relatively minor part, is the higher rate of growth j-n G.D.P. than in earnings, between L975 and the assumptions used for the 1!80 projections, coupled with a slight assumed decline in the size of the
active population. These projection assumptions would by themeelves cause a slight decline i.n the percentage for the Federal Republic of Germany. A more significant reason for the d-ecline is the L.6 ,4" fatt in average benefits per head in the It80 projections compared fo $lJ (measured in national curency, as is G.D.P. in this.comparison, rather than EUA"s). This fall contrasts with a 51.8 % rise in G.D.P. per head of active population.
10?.
A special stud"y rather than brief comments in this reguired to explain satisfactorily the underlying such a falt in average unemployment benefits per registered reasons for person in the Federal Republic. Moreover, the overal-I unemployed average may conceal divergent trends for particular benefit schernest and at the national level other types of emplo;rment benefit should also be taken into consideration (in the Federal Republic, for example, pa;rments for short-time working, for interruptions in emplo;rment due to bad weather or wirrter, etc) for a more complete picture. Data in such detail was not available by country und.er the statistical framework
report
used
108.
would. be
in this
Socia1 Budget.
A significant fal1 in the percentage produced by this projected for 1980 compared. to 1975 in the United also comparison is Kingdom. An important part of the explanation for this fall is the linking of lnemployneni benefits to prices (rather than earnings), since prices are assumed. to rise more s1ow1y (+ ?O %) comparerl to G.D.p. (+ lOt -/") tetween i-97, and 1!80, The continuing d-ecrease in the role played. by national insurance benefits, particularly earningsrelated, compared to supplementary benefits would be another factor | , I See -Eao]e
III
---
r.\
o54 )
o
The effect of recent legislation in France underlying the increase in average benefits per head. in 19BO is reffected in this comparison by an increase in the resulting percentage' A significant increase would also occur for lta1y.
6. Final 109.
gemarkg on-emplogment benefits
It should be noted that legislative change at national Ievel affecting the total of unemplo;rment benefits is occurring as it becomes accepted that the period of acute economic crisis has
-50-
d.eveloped into a more chronic cond.ition, and therefore the 1!8O projections includ.ed. in this report nay well have becorne unrealistic from this point of view in certain countri€Br As well, future nunbers of unernployed, persons are rather more d.ifficult to forecast tha,n, say, nunbers of o1d age pensioners but changes in these numbers can greatly affect any total of benefits. fhe duration of uaenplo;rment ls a further signifi-cant factor in d.eternining banefit Ieve1g. It is therefore necessary to read. the releva,nt sections of the national reports, which give further insight into the factors affecting totaLs, as well as describing recent legislative changes.
110.
SUMMARY
OF MAIN RESILTS FOR EMPIOTMU{T 3trNEF'ITS
&o After the threefold increase in total benefits, conparing llll with L97O, a further two-thirils increase is projected for lt80, at cument prices, for the Cornnunity as a whole. b. lbw countries were able to supply separate d.ata for job plar:ing adtivities in contrast to unenploymlnt income-maintenance patrnnents, nor for benefits in cash compared. to benefits in kind. co Betgiun and the Netherland.s would. provid"e mrch levels of benefits per unemployed person than most other countries in 1980, on the assumptions used.,
higher irverag€
g.
Conparing benefits per unemployed. person with a neasure econornic resources, Belg:ium, Denrnark and the Netherlands would have relatively hieh figures, in 1980. Ttre Fed,eral Republic of Gernany,, Ireland, Itaiy and the United Kingd.om would have relatively
of
low figures,
-51 -
6r Duration of unemploJrment and the extent of reliance aidl as well as the nunber of persons unemployed., have a significant effect on total benefit a.mounts. The 1tB0 projections could be consid"erably affected. by changee in these factors, as well as by a^ny legislative changp before then. on social
o
oo
-62-
IUIPIEUEUTARY sEgrroN
HEALTH BENEFITS
IN MONE DETAIL
lnlrgdgc!ign
111.
Part I of this chapter discussed the total of health benefits, that is, adding together the functions of sicloessr invalid.ity, d:isability, emplo;rment injury and occupational disease. This section presents a brief examination of these functions separatelyt without the inclusion of charts d.epicting results in the relevant table s.
a) s!3l9_or_!9g9ltt s in-!o!"1_Ie3ll!_9Ig*g!gr9 II2.
It will be recalled from table IIf .l in the rrl{ealthil section that sickness is the most important function, projected to account for over 7O {" of total expenditure on health benefits in }t80. Invalid:ity and d"isability together would. account for over I f,, wi.ftemplo;rrnent injury and occupational disease over 5 /,. Substantial variations from these figures occur for individual countriesr as table III.36 illustrates. Explanations for all d.ifferences cannot be given irr the space available. France would spend in I!8O less than lO (" ot the total on invalid.ity and disability benefits. Denmark, freland and the United Kingdom are projected to devote less than 3 /o of the rbotal to benefits for emplo;rment injury and. occupational disease,, in contrast to Belgium, France and Luxembourg with over LI /o. b
113.
) 9!glg9:-!gtgg"Ugars -fun"llol:_e5j-$91e :
Expenditure on invalidity and d.isability is projected L975 and 1l8O by slightly more than siclcness for the Community as a whole, at current prices. Both would have a greater rate of growth than benefits for emplo;rment injury and occupational d.isease" This pattern does not apply to certain countries : siclmess expendil;ure is projected to expand. much more rapid.ly than expenditure on invallidity or disability between L)lJ and,1!80 in Belgium' France, Ireland,, with less of a d.ifference in Italy (1) ana Luxembourg.
to increase between
(See
table III.3?a).
Five countries were able to provid,e data :for invad.istinct frorn disability. In Belgiun and the United Kingdom (e), aisalility benefits are projected to increase more rapid.ly than invalidity benefits. Fol Denmark, Italy and the Nethertrand"st the reverrse would occur. (See table III.]?b).
lidity
ers
the introd.uction of the health service reform by 1!80. At current but not at constant prices.
t'r \ Assuming (
z)
_53_
c) Benefits in 114.
cash and
in
kind
The importance of the d.istinction between incomenaintenance paJrments a^nd the cost of medical prevention and care has been enphasised earlier. There is a great d.ifference within the separate health functions on this basis. For the Comnunity as a whole, 79 /'ot sickness expend"iture would occur in 1!80 via beneflts in kind, but only 20 /o for invalidity arrd d.isability, with 2Q /o for employnent injury and industrial d-isease.
115.
At the national Ierrel, table IIf.3B indicates that
siclcness benefits in kind. would. range from around 90 % in France and Italy to 60 /o in tne Netherlands in 1980, largely ciue to higher fevels of cash benefits in the latter country. As regards invalidity and disability, benefits in kind would arnount in 1t8O to more than JO f, in three countries : France, Ireland and the United. Kingdom, again largely due to higher lavels of cash benefits in other countries" l,ess d.ifference between countries is apparent when the shares taken by benefits in cash and kind for employment injury and occupational disease are exannined.. The share of benefits in kind ranges from 45 /,
in
Denmark
to !
/o
in ltaLy.
a) 9leses !9!s-t-{9'::;-!9g9!1!:-tl-se:I-glg-:s-tirg 1I5. Benefits in kind expand.ed. much more rapidly than cash benefits from ltlO to 1)l), but this patterrr is not projected. to continue during the next five years. Only in the sickness function (and. only at current prices) are benefits in kind projected to expand more rapid.ly than those in cash, for the Community as a whole but not in Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom. (tatte rrr.39a). 117.
At the national 1evel, it'can be seen that changes in nominal terns (current prices) for benefits in cash and those in kind. are often of a d.ifferent pattern than changes in real terms (constant prices). It should however be noted that, in the projections, the Latter data had to be estimated for all countries except Denmark and.
the United.
by the Commissionrs services, and may not viev,rpoints as to future trend.s.
Kingd.om
reflect national
For those countries who separated. invalid.ity from d"isability benefits, the largest increase from ltll to 1!8O in cash benefits for invalid.ity is projected. to occur in the Netherland,s, with Denmark projecting a large increase for d.isability cash benefits. The Netherla"nds again projects the largest increase for invalidity benefits in kind., while for disability benefits in kind- the largest projected increase is in Belgium. (tatte III.Jgb).
-54-
e)
lenefi!:-pgr pe:sgl 118. In the absence of comparable statistics at Comnmni.ty 1evel on recipients of benefits (f) rrr attempt has been mader els for other fr:nctions, to present inforrnation on averaga benefits per person in a relevant and. available population group, rather than si,nply as an averag€ for the total population. The need for caution in interpreting such results and the importance of general relatiro levels rather than precise absolute nunbers has already been st;ressed. iu this chapter. The rezuIts are presented. as only the first otep toward.s a nore exact laaowled.ge but are nevertheless thought worthy of interest in revealing tlifferences between countries. i.
Ayeraee
Siclaress_benefitg
1. In 119.
cash
Table III.4Oa g:ives an id.ea of the averagg a^urounts cash per person in the acti.ve population. The analysis indicates a projected situation in which the trbderal Republic of Germany, Denmark, Luxembourg and the Netherla.nd.s (2) would in 1!BO be spend.ing mor6 than twice as mrch at least as other countries, with the latter country spending by far the most. France and. Italy wou1d. spend the lowest amounts, perhaps to some extent due to sone benefits being classified under the function employnent injury a,nd occupational disease, conpared to certain other countries.
of sickness benefits in
The effect of differences in what is officially defined" as rrsicloressrt in the various countries should. not be ignored. when co,nsid.ering these figures. "Comparative Tablest' (3) give a short sunnary of the more inportant features of each national general scheme. ft can be seen that the duration of cash benefits varies considerably between countries. Total benefit arnountg are also influenced by d.ifferent relationships to forner earnings, or the absence of such a relationship, according to the country.
(r) (
z)
(l)
to obtain such statistics has reoently begun at the Statistir:al Office of the European Corrununitieso Data for the Netherlande includes some expend.iture classified. in other countries under the fi:nction I'emplo;rment injury/occupational d.is€aserr, since the distinction as to which environment caused. the ill-health ig no longe:n rnade in the Netherlands. A prograrnne
See
footnote on page 26.
-o)-
2. In 120.
kincl
Since siclarosg benefits in kind may be provided to all or mogt rcgidents, the total population has been used as the basis for figures per head, rather than figures relating to people actually reoeiving treatrnent, where these exist. Againr this procedure may produce nisleading figures for partiqrlar years if sickness rates or thc typee of siolc1ress vary significantly between years (due to rflu epiclemics, for exanple) or countries. On this basis, five cor:ntries project for 1980 figurets eguivalent to over 500 ntA per person in the total populationt and two countries (Ireland and the United Kingd.our) project amounts less than 2O0 g(|A per person. As well as different costing nethodsr the comparisons are also affected. by d.ifferenceg in purchasing power parities. Unfortunately, no statietics at Community level are available
to indicate the ertent of differences in the cost of medical treatment. (ratte IIr.{oa, Appendix r.H).
ii . Invalisilrldlsgtlritg 1. In
cash
In the absence of comparable gtatistics, the only procedure possible was to compane benefit a"mounts in cash to the numbers of people in broad. population g:roupsr For the purposes of this a.nalysis, the relcvant group was taken to be persons aged. 2O and. over to therrnormaltrretirenent a€e (1) in each country, although it is realised. that certain benefits may apply to persons youngpr or older than this particular g?oup. (tn ttre case of Italy in particular, this group excludes those over the 'rnormal'r pension age who still receive invaliclity cash benefits, and therefore inflates the result). For 1!8O, most countries project arnounts over 2@ EUA I2Z. on per person average, per person in this population gfoupr except ior ireland a^nd. the Unitecl Kingdom. The Netherlands has a projected amount more than d.ouble that of the nert highest country, Dennark (2) (tatfe III.{Oa). Ttre }!l} flgures, when adjusted by estinates of purchasing power parities, ind.icate the importance of the function in Italyr-sut;ect-to the resenre nentioned. above. Aggin in L975 France and
121.
(r)
(a)
table III.I5, footnote (e) for details of the agesr t{ith reference to the Netherla.nd.s, see footnote 2t pagB 54. See
-66-
the Unii:ed Kingdom had average cash benefits lower than other countricls, and in the case of freland. much lower, on this adjusted. basis. Ii'or those countries who were able to distinguish invalid.ity benefits; fron those classified under disability, the Netherlands still project the hi.ghest average amount per person for both benefitst followeil by Italy for invalidity benefits and by Belgium for disability Denmark and ftaly would seem to project for 1t8O relatively low aver:age cash benefits for rlisability. (talte III.4Ob).
benefits.
123.
It is possible, as with sicloress benefits, that disparil;ies in what is officially recognised as invalidity or disabili-ty can affect the results, rather than the fact that one country has many mor.6 people in certain physical or rnental conditions. The rnininum level of incapacity for work al-so varies considerably, ranging frorn IJ f" or over in the Netherlands to 100 /, in lreJand and the United Kingdom, which perhaps goes some way to indicate the reason for the enormous difference ln the averag€ figures per head between these countriers, apart from the differences i-n benefit Tates. 2" In kind
I24.
Again, it was not possible to take account of d,ifferen.ces between countries in price 1eve1s when comparing average benefitsr. Ttre results wou1d, even so appear to indicate great disparities anong the various countries with Dennark, the Netherlands a^nd the United K.ingdom at the top end of the scale projecting benefits of over 60 EUA per head of total population. (Table III.{Oa). At the lower end of the scale, France appears to be projecting a very low average amount for benefits in kind. It is d.ifficult to account for such a discrepancy without recourse to a detailed study. One possible explanation may be a greater freedom of d.octors to use initi.ally more expensive nedical procedures than in certain other countries. IIhese procedures would be classified. statistically under trsicknessrr since their ob;ective would be to get people back to near-normal functioning - including work - as quickly as possible, rathar than allow the cost of treatment to be prolonged into 'rinvalidity" or rrdisability" in the form of longer
peri-od.s of hospitalisation or out-patient treatment (including a necessarily longer period of therapy). Another possible explanation could be a hieher level of social service care in certain other countries.
For those countries able to separate the invalidity function from disability, it would. seem that Belgium and Italy project much smaller average benefits in kinds for invalid.ity than the other countries. This d.ifference does not seem to be the case with disability benefits. (Table rII.4ob).
L25.
_57-
iii
.
&rgloyrnent_in jurg/occugat i onal_d.i sgage
1' In cash I25.
Benefits classified in this function have been related to the active population, in the absence of more exact d.ata. A great difference is shown between one g?oup of countries uhich proiects for 1t80 a relatively low averag€ level of benefits and another group projectins a much higher leve1 ineludes Denmark, rrerand and the unitecl Kingdom while *ff"rlii3i"aflo"n cludes Belgium, France and Luxembourg.(Table {o a). It is difficult to 8:ive a brief a^vrd. satisfactory explanation for such differences, particularly since short-term benefits are not distinguished. from those paid. over a longer term. Table IfI.41 presents certain indicators relevent to this firnction. National d.efinitions on accident rates are too diverse for reliable comparisons except in the iron and steel ind"ustry.
L27.
In this industry, there wou1d seem to have been consid.erably lower non-fatal accident rates in Ireland arrd. the United Kingdom in L)lJ than in certain other countries.(No d.ata is available for the latter country on the averag€ number of days not worked. because of such accidents).Another possible factot is that the group of countries providing higher averag€ benefits include benefits arising out of injuries while travelling between home and the place of work und.er this function, while the other group include them under sickness or invalidity. A further factor is und.oubtedly the lower level of the relationship to previous earrrings, in general, in Ireland and. the United Kingd,om, but this does not seen to apply to anlr great extent in Denmark. (See "Comparative fables") (1). 2. In
I28.
kind,
The pattern seen for cash benefits is not repeated, for benefits in kind. llhe Fed.era1 Republic of Gerurany projects the highest average amounts for 1t8o in this respect, about two and a half tines as much as in France, with Luxembourg also projecting a relatively higtl average arnount, It is not known to what extent such d.ivergencies reflect d.ifferences in the amount of treatment received" as opposed to the cost of such treatnent.
. {vgr!ff9, gnsqgt : gogpared._t g e cangmr. c_rgsgulcgs L29. To reduee the length of this part, comments wiII only be made where the comparison of average arnounts with economic resources produces major differences from the picture outlined" in the preced.ing section. As for others firnctions, the measure of economic resources i i ii
(f)
See
footnote cn page 25.
-68-
of G.D,P. per person in the active populaagain, the resufts are of al exploratory nature and should therellore be treated" with caution.
used i.s the average anount
tion.
Once
a)
Sickness beneflts
1. In-cash 1]0.
The rnain differences in this analysis compared picture when looking at absolute average amounts is the seen to the relative improvernent in the position of freland in particular and to a lesser extent the United, Kingd.om, with higher percentages than Selgiunt and tvirice as high as those in France and lta1y. (Table III.Q2a, Appendix I.H).
2. fn-klne 131.
Whereas
in absolute
arrerage amounts France
is
projecting a similar and only slightly lower anount tha.n the Federal Republic of GermanXr in this analysis France would clearly be at the top of the scale in 1!8O for costs of medical care conpared" to the measure of national resources used. Ireland, and the United Kingd-om would be at a similar 1ow level, not too much below the Netherl-and"s. (ralre {2a, Appendix I.H).
b) Invalid.flgllfgettlfE 1. 132.
The comparison does not rmrch change the pattern indicated. for average arnounts per person in the particular population group chosen, except to emphasise the importance of such benefits in Italy. For those countries providing separate data for invalid.ity as d.istinct from d.isability, Italyrs percentage produced by this comparison for invalidity benefits is even closer to the Netherlandsr. As regards disability benefits, there is little d,ifference to the ranking produced by a compariscn of absolute a:nounts. (Table {2b, Appendix 1.H) .
2. 133.
In_cash
].n_k1n4
The comparj-son ind.icates the higher relationship of ben,efits to this measure of economic resources in the United Kingd.om, followed. by Denmark, although their percentages for 19BO are Lowerthan in I97r. A seemingly sharp fall in the percentage prod.uced. by this comparison is ind.icated for freland between ltll and the projectio:ns for 1!BO. (tatte {2a, Appendix I.iI).
-69-
") nlel9ry9"t-t$g:g&g:glc11g:g1 f. 1J4.
d.i sease
In_cash
Perhaps because of the great di-fferences between certain countries seen in the comparison of absolute average amounts, the analysis has 1ittle to add, except to ind.icate that Denmark, Ireland and the United. Kingd.om project even more similar leve1s of benefits when compared to this measure of economic resources. fhe Belgian and French projections result in similar percentages, with Luxembourg at the top of the scale.
2.
In_kind"
Luxembourg as well as the Federal Republic of a high percentage when average benefits in kind are compared to the average amount of G.D.P., both amounts per person in the active population.
Germany has
SUMiU,ARY
I35.
o.c Sickness is by far the most important of the separate functiSns which form part of total health benefits. Considerable variation exists from country to country as to the relative importance of benefits for invalid.ity and disability compared to benefits for employment injury or occupational disease. b.
For the Community as a whole, four-fifths of
sicicness benefiTs in 1!80 would be spent on benefits in kind., compared. to between one fifth and a quarter for the other health functions. The growbh rate of sickness benefits in kind is projected to be much lower from 1!JJ to 1t8O than between 1!lO and L)lJ, depending on the country.
-?0-
cr Setween I)lJ and 1980, benefits for invalidi.ty d.isability lre expected. to increase at a faster rate than other fi:nctions within the total of health benefits.
and.
d. In a,n attempt to compars averag€ amor:nts of siciqess benefiTs in cash pex person, four countries appear to pro;ect at least twice the amounts projected for other countries, with particularly low amounts in France and rtaly. For benefits in kind., five countries oroject average amounts more than twice as high as in rrela,nd s,nd. the united. Kingdom, although no statistics are available on relat:lve levels of medical costs. e. Average arnounts of benefits for invali.dity and dj.sabilil;X proi6cted. for 1!8O would seem to be more than twice as high in the Netherland,s as in the next highest country. rreland is shown as projecting parti.cularly 1ow average arnounts. f. For emplo;rment injury and occupati.onal disease, a comparison of amounts ind.icates hlgh benefils in Bergium, "Terage but low benefits in Denmark, rrelald. and. the France a.nd. Luxembourg United" Ki.ngd.om. It is not clear why there should be such a difference. g. of
When averag€ amounts in absolute terms are compaeach countryf s economic resources, certain new results emerge. Belgium would. join France a^nd. rtaly in 1!80 at the lower end of the scale for siciq:ess benefits in cash while France is seen to have a relatively higher level of sickness benefits in kind than other countries. Results for the other health functions are less
red to a
measure-
clear-cut.
o
OO
-?r-
CHAPI'}N
IV
SOCIAI, PROTECTION AIfD TI{E ECO}IOMIC n{VIRONMENT
136.
A conparison of the social protection systercin the llember States - whose main characteristics were d.elineated" in Chapter II revealed contrasting aspects as regard.s both the d.istribuiion of benefits and the financing structurer The simil.arities and d.ifferences refl-ect the influence a^nd. weight, varying from one cor:ntry to another, of the political, philosophical, sociological, econonic and demographic factors which d.eternined- and stiLl deterrrine - the creation, tra^nsformation and d"evelopment of the systems.
Menber States social protection policies are chosen arrd where necessary ad.apted in the i.ight of the social needs of the popu}ation as a whoIe, or of particular categoriesland of economic factors which in turn d.epend on the Level- of economic development attained.
137.
The d.ifferences and sinilarities in structure and economic developnent between the Member States go hand in hand with differences and simiLarj.ties in their concerns and choices in resoect of social protectiol. To make a significant comparison of the effort expended in this area by the Member States, both as regards expenditure and its covera€e, leguires relating it to the economic environnent.
Accord.inglyl this chapter has been d.ivid.ed. into three sections :
f.
ECONOliflC BfVTRONMU,IT
II.
SOCIAI, D(PMIDITURE AISD GROSS DOM$STIC
III.
RECEIPTS AND GRO6S DOMESTIC PRODUCT.
PRODUCT
-72-
r. E0oNoMrc_ryvlRgNuryr I:rfonration on certain structural factors (f) fraving a substa,ninflLuence on the deveLoprnent of social protection systems and their financiry; is given bel-ow for L970-L975 z
138. tial
- population,
gross d.onestic prod.uctr taxation.
significarit factors are pricesr wa€es and salaries,
Ol;her
3
unenployment
informati,on on trends in these factors subsequent in Chapter f .
to
rates. 1975 has aLready
been givern
A. Potgf"tigg
139.
The uorking population is d.istributed. a^nong three agriculturre, industry and services.
nain sectors i
ALthough in France, Ireland and ftaly a large proportion of the Labourr force ls stiLL employed in agriculture, in all the other coqntries two sectorrs are in the forefront, with services in the lead. except in
Italy
a,nd.
Lurenborrgo
The
(t)
situation in
19?5
is
given below :
nrawn from '',rarious Comrnu::ity d.ocuments which following synbo3.s :
will
be referred. to by the
i Basic statistios LlJl = ! i Tax statistics l)'16 - c: When no indication of origin is given, the d.ata has been taken from nationaL reports for the European Social Bud.get. -
l$ationaL Accounts
1-977
=Z
-73Percentages
g
prc
P
g
IRt
I
!
{
uK
EUBq
Agri-
cuL- 3.6 9.8 7.3 1"1.3 24.3 15.8 6.? 6.6 2.7
ture
8.?
Indus-
{O,0 31.5 46.0 38.5 30.3 M,I
47,? 34.8 4O.9
4I,7
serwi-
56.5 58.? 46.7 50.0 45,4 4O,1 46.6 58,6 56,4
48.7
try ceg
Total 100 100 100
100
100
1OO lOO 1O0 10O
10O
Source_: b.
140.
A second mea:rrs wage and. saLary earners
table.
Year
q
nK
I
of comparison is given by the proportion of in the La,bour force, as shown in the following
g
IRt
I
!,
U
IJK
EURo
tg55 77.5 78,2 8O.8 75,r 65,7 64.9 76.7 81.5 g3.3 7g,4 rg7o 8o"g 80.t 83.4 78,6 58.8 68.2 81.5 83.7 92.3 81.4 rg75 83.1 81.7 U$ 81.5 71.1 71.6 85.3 U.g 92,3 83.1
Source_: a.
Fron this it appears that the proportion of wage and salary in the working population has been increasing in all Merrber States. Although in some countries the figure has reached a level it wou1d. be difficult to exceed.rin others self-employed..workers (particularly farners) account for a substantial proportion (e.g. Ireland and Italy). earners
1.41. Lastl-y, the reLative size of each Member Staters population is another factor to be taken into consid.eration. The situation was as follows in 1975 t
-74-
g as
{"
801
T
r.9 24.r
3.9
1000s 9
p
DK
20.2
5 060 61 829 52 748
rRr!!
g
I.2
21.1 0.13 3 r27 55 B3o 358
5,2 13
TK
22.L
gUR 9 100
660 56 q2 258 455
8., Gross d.onestic product To neasure the economic f'weighttr of a country, refe?ence is usually utade to the gross donestic prod.uct, which gives information on
L42.
1.
the resul.ts of national productive activity. Thi s was
Commwrity.
in 1tl0
and
the posi.tion of Menber States i.n relation to the 19?5 (at 1!lO prices and excha^nge rates) 3
Percentaae E
r970
4.r
t97 5
4.3
Source 143.
DK!E 2.5 30,0 2.5 29,2
22.8 24.O
rRLl! 0.5 r5.0 o.5 14.8
finres
o.2
u uK 5.r r9.7
O.2
5.3 r9.2
EUR9 1oo 10O
: &r
Interesting results are obtainecl, by weighting these data to take a,ccount of Meurber Staters relative populations, as shown in the foLlowing table :
g
pK
g rRL M uK EirRq 1970 106.5 128.5 124.4 rr2.g 53.8 ?O.3 t27.3 98.8 Bg.Z. 10O 1975 112.0 t24.5 121.1 rtg.6 53.4 68.5 trg.z 100.7 gl .5 1O0 Source
!
: a.
To complernent this table and tbrow further light on the rnatter., figures (expressed in EUA) per inhabitant and. per person in enpLoyment'in 1!'/0 and 1!ll are given belowtaken frorn the national reports. A comparj.son of both tables brings out certain differences, which may be explained by the fact l;hat they come from two different sources.
-75-
Per inhabita.nt
ggKlgrRL
T
19?o 2597 3084 2976 2727 1310 I Zgo
r97r 5r24 5663 5476 5t28 Per person
in
2o93
5L5 12 ?80 12 406
2.
526 5
oJ.4
!!,
IRt
19?o 65qq 63'12 677o 6Sgl 3
Lt
r
{ z iao 376
r.
EIIR 2
8t5 2 4rr
4868 3 101 4 331
emploJnnent
E.DK!g t975 12 542
z
uK
I,
5
411
4
498
7
I
rrK
EUR 9
5gr 7 7o5 5 518 4 293 5 676 ol5 il. 9j9 13 ?31 5 69t 10 o?2
Qrgsg $ogegtlc-P3o{ugt
Data for lnO-LyTi show that the gross domestic product LM. ' in volurne terms increased to a d.ifferent extent in each Member State. phases in this movenent 3 one of growth a'nd one of There were two d.ecLine.
gLoss domestij proaluct bv volune
DKI 2.9
e
gIRLI!{ 5.1 3.6 4.1 4.1
U3o t974
5.2
lq?0
3.4 1.9 1.9 4.O 3'I
tn5
3.5
-?"0 -1.1 -2.5 0.r Si'ir:i''-l(: i
ill
r
- d ctrange,
o.4
4.7
uK 2.5
EUR 9
4.0
2.3
1.8 3.4 1.8
2"6
-3.5
-8.4 -J.1 -L.?
-1.8
-76-
C. Tarcation
I45.
The problen of fixing the level of fj.scal or para-fiscal pressure is always an eninently political one in all Menber Statesr particularly when the econonic situation is deteriorating. This ie bound' to be so since the conpuleory levy on the econouy (enterprises and housert"ra"ll-lJite 1975 as u,r, "*rroile, is equivallnt to between 30 f" ard 50 /" oi grosE domestic product depending on the Member State.
Howeverl these figures rel-ate to very d.ifferent national situations, both as regards the overall cotryulsory lew and" its structura. We will now exa.nine each of these aspects'
- lygrall
gognglgogY-lgv{ This neans all taxes and social security contributions (1)
1'46.
Levied by the public authorities.
/Z-in real terms in From 19?0 to 1!'f ! this Ierry rose by 'g (""t-"nno"l of 3.? avlrage /:) y:t\ the figures the Cornmunity as a'whole I'o fron .L 47 .In/' (annual aveJ /o for the respective countries rangir:g shoulcl be borne context rages | !.4 /" A a /o). Her.e aLso the econornic
in-mind, in particuiar the negative G.D.P. growth rate States in 19?5.
75ho {ortotalr
E
NK
40.1
25.6
'lcO
4.7
6/olaveTa4e
Source
D
Ernl,!!,u
in alL Menber
UK
EI'R
2Q.7 2312 23.1 1Br2 N ,r J6-8 7.1 2o.o B.o 6.4 L.4 3.? 4.2 3.4 3.8 4.3
! c.
the to imputed social security contributt?Tur Ty"l,:"present (that ist unconequivitent of solia1 security benefits provided directly nected with contributions) ty emplof€Teo
(f) ls
opposed.
A
-77 -
In I97!, the overal-l conpulsory levtr decl-ined in real terrns o/) tor the-Connrrnity as a whole. However, !h9"? w_ere significant 0.5 differences in the results by coimtry ( from + 5.5 /o in Ltxembourg to tottr irr general and for each type of le*r reflec- e ,Z /o in Der.nark), ting the choices rnad.e by Mernber Statesf Governments between easing taxation ancl providing aclequate coverage for the public authoritiest greater financial reguirernents.
L47, (-
148.
press d.omestic prod.uct 9yet"11 goErglgogr-J' gv1 gl-1"-o!
Ilg?g-lel,5} Figures
ranged from 31. B /" to for inclividual conntries ol) (rgf o 3 ranser 30.0 ' 4o.5 f"i
47.7 % in 1975 (Community. avera€:et 37.5 Conmunity average t 35.1 %).
In
L)lJ
the gross domesti.co.5 % to 18.8 o/o.
I taxation represented between 1?.? ed product I social security contributions
6/"
ot fron
ra.r:ged
Social securitv contributions
Taxation
Total l-ew
42
lo/"
of
G.D.P.)
10?o
ra?5
Lq?o
r97r.
1070
lq?5
B
35.9
42,4
25.O
29.O
10.9
l_3.4
DK
37.5
42.5
35.9
42.O
0.5
D
34.2
37.6
23.4
24.2
1.5 10.8
L3.4
F
5).o
36.9
22.7
22,L
12.g
L4.7
IRL
31.6
34.1
28.7
29.O
I t
30.
O
31.8
18.4
t7.7
2.9 11.5
31.9
46.2
22.3
32.
r
9.6
5.1 14.1 14.1
N
40.,
47.7
25.9
28.9
].4.6
1.8.8
UK
37.9
36.8
32.4
30.1
5.5
6.7
mn g 35.1
37.5
24.8
24.8
10.3
L2.5
Source 3 c.
tv
By way of connparison, actual in the socj-aI security bud.get ranged. :
tn in
: 1!80 : 1975
(pro jecte,d.)
fron 3.7 fron 3.4
a^nd
imputed contributions inclutled.
ob (Denmart coc o!-E 6og! _o oao LC g\o a'? 3t -0 -g OO
g 6
C
^o L' do to
BT
J
E
d
s'g
gstB
oco -'-- o? ryoc
6v':)o
IiI c
E
t{c coe cq
o
3'e>6 o
O ofJ
3H = :oL=t'E
u:
@Op
O@N
FFO
-+o
+-+
-'diut
-'q'rl
O+F
N€N
OFN
,+FN
@eF
a
OOF
a
die-
oo*91 J 66 6 ooo G-b lE o cg
e O
=-O 4
ro oou O-
@NF
ddd
9f9:
-NF
F'€O
+'e'r.,iGi-'
THg E8B 88ts ETE --
OFF
Fe-
TEE
-
a L
o
-
-b13Sitd
a
o>oga EP> O O6Fc Et:r @ -:o6le
ETB
-FP
6
d,9 =
o5'a
d
!
O-rF
o > O --B L O e
o oE >ooFrsdo€ @-=; .E o 6 o L
o9,s f G:
I
E=e 4aa
:l g
a
@eq u -q
e
=_t3 ==H rld'Na=-fr 7^-A
: -.q= r=i =E:; fff aEA :id; ==_y
===
e
,EEE .rtF= Hiai5
oq
3
2J" -EVe E=a
g !oco oo+ 6D 6 CO GO C. oqo 6 oo G Ot oGo ooo
Io
O-
;-o63 o 5€ s q @3EI
3 o=
HE=
o
e
g a x otLEO 5 L O
O a, i
F
I S 9 o 9
O L 5 O
6 a-r L6 oN:eq n4 O
;10080o:
o
F
l. 5.9 '5 A CE !
C-
E U o
d . > .E €+g -.-e!!FOOF o.-D5tcQ -D-i-!gq C e C. c>;c-->6 ->oaDo-F rF s c ! eoGICQ c ># -
F
oE
F !
L o
+ eo o-l 6 + O L oF *.-O-_Oo4FO o a I -6€ o! r e o c @6oo@sl o t L 6 ats
I -O O O lr (\tt 6tt ? o c 6E0 o t L
E3s e=3 lO-LCLOCO CCEoLOe.-9
t
c
90i
o -
€-rB f-ES f-aB =-O
=-aJ NO
=_O
!t coNGt
Fo(D
aidd sd€
_(!,o
,astJ
;
d:; )x-
3n SS s= s= c2
OQ qq q) n= z6
iEev, nYtg -oo a=[
=
1
=
t6a
i5= E'BA K,--4 etXe FI'-F4UU ur)q) -tTzbxx O(JO
--6 liJU* @50 o I
.!E:
:l
CD
a
i*--.i..--l .-...6 :. i
a a
€ EA E O
a .. .. ..
I
t
:? da = =u nza)
.
a
*Ba =w U6(5 6V
a
a
I
g:
0
I
a
a o
Ocr
a
I I
cn|J)@ 4F@ -4{
oct-
......
.
t
o =-
EEs
1+1 6@V) o.a
ot
!'!.x 3? e e? E
€$g ::
'6
r.e E?
fs€ sEI ?rt 493 t
1{
=
5
C-e
L O U(r(J
O
.
L
OE
..E
ci 59? .':;
j.g =E.ko+ -qr oE Tii
-!T c: -:€;3 3-+. ;E; (t L{
;. B* L-
qEE iEqE 8Is, !6..13e
EEE
-
jo
= F'E6 AH g E; :t EeH
i{-H,t sE€ sa ':5e .6J a 8ig'8 g-e gef .EB --q:g iieE iD! 66 5' !t5: :sE!-Ei;gE hAg FE; e=E iF? EiilEgr €:: & . n ! E€*
=5E {
:d a
I
.i
ci
6>s
t$" \
I
orZ r\< Ji'
|:)C)
?; 8|!{; ed (f (a
s7
6-.tG,;
F@ @6
QO
t'FiFi:
o lft +N
dr@o @@o
CD-
>
otd
I
qtN
FO
on
+o) r+
6JO
o-+o @ u) u+++
a*s
@hro
+ocl @rF
o o
P
c)o
o o
F(',
r'.f
qr@
b{8o G>
Or sf o'c c oo .- C^ .;- o}l s6c rJ > o
-&-
J]OC ov FOO +c\t +C
e
ogt r6
.6
o+ co a a6
F@ o
t3
6XC
'=9o
c 'll :C ac.L o# OG @s#
()) @oc
L.ic p+ =oG gY ..o5 9G
N+ €a
fto
gL _c
:r
N
E
I
e6
a t4a
a
i
@6o j uisi
I
o
!arcgo | +'rr'r' a+u')d I a
(ttr1@t
FrN
gE"
aEn
a
:t_.
-
o z
i)q?
itn 60
afr
Ej-@ qt Cii J)l < a-J@
a;r-< r.r a
Oi L (: d
.?
e :
E[it ---
a o
L q E o L to c o L
o 'o o
-,...'q
€
-^9
LO @o oo '-g> at9g
EEE
cij oG5
€-o+ qoc
€ 5 :;+j -:9 c
9E; E.e [F3 {*
EES
iEE €;
{jEEo ;s
6;;
fi== E€€
79 b +
3 I
frTI a''=-
=€ -d4
o
J
.JTC L
EEE EEE EEE
EEE
r6 +
@
ot
€o @6 OL c: f,a
Lr-(!
;; € grE e 5e i6- (t :o
L.'"= is]i --=
;Jh1
oc
L+ Q cJ6 € QF lt 5F
a o o L o + G 6 c o I a4
o
S
tRs
@
rg CL oo e6 oc €c oo LC so :,!
F
oa
AN
+r (3+
re
r+
Fg) NO
It.? r+
a
I
oo NO
on a@
I
Q-
r-
a
o.Fo>q
:trp * oC =-e cc {oo
f
I
a
I
oo
(oF GI+
D{
@.o fi@
a
O
r
I t I
@6n
a
r€ -r
slr or
Otqo@
eaE foG .o+
.. cx o f 9S -o
6N NO
GJM
G'N
OO
no
na
---._-?-G'@
rF
q*< =63
6@
aE-H2
auo go-
a a
=
=-< 6 J6 UUG J-A
, !
c60\ qt
cti
OF
I
o6
II
=JJ
UE:P
o L
r:
ltl
ct ct 55S
TTB
aF,
orttc, 56A
E8E
Fea
F-A
tSoo c)oo BBA 55A --A
-Sv' oG60 9
egf
oocSgG
:l g
Eg.
€?r
b 6
E#56-0O0 c C o 6Ee @@9FooocdD o o+ s FOLGgLGCLOOO a*o6-4q-LOFF
e 5:
E= E o*,c @ry
s 6 6 s 13;
5hE I g 5 g e-#OOroEL
3E
8F
FE+
? " E €= 3
"E; AE: 5Ea c-F
a-
.
3
qa-@-o o .-,4(4SUO+ 9)Ooccd
i.2& Lqcoooo
t
a
c
s
.
=
@ c
q oq + o ,4
ql o C
ge-
'a;3.9 3:5
O ccc:()c--\t !!ooa4cvo! -1-a@E4eE-r_4p qO:-Q@EXo!.OG J9LLOoO64l -
s=a- q
6
AS&
o
C
oc
.5 =l
ac e3
-9?
Ln5
;-8;
oE -'-e
+
c:
!o.ii#-J c@c t.L 5LL
o. tq _
?--€ ES€
OL @> q '5 C€ Ou LE JgG t c9L O* :: c9 -(eO
a o
I 6 o! O+
rj€
--j
"?
coc: q< 5L Foar qq>
."
+e
f, I
e
u
{
(5t ltt Itt
,A.f d
C =' o_
t5
-t
iJ)
O@o utof f"tt'
(\aa\a
Gr(ct
rn
GoN
jFroi f -Fa\
o o o o o€
gg. 0 0
5 -E_ -O F ? 6.o a6e -
qe O O L 99 E L a O\O
? ao
C6 5g c o g
tR
c ao 5
d @ G' o6 oo
oo
5tC:g
qog
+o
a> c 6-
g-; q
c o+ .-5 t50 N66
t
ol
€i G co
=P 60 .za
o L
oc !L
o R .!l -l
goc
t
5 6
t
g
c q
OE
.!eoo r
, ] @ { . I g a {
E!
er
C .O
O f
. I
-
8
Q>
..C
st or:{r E Ji
Ac 15F Jtt ci
s5 s= l
o
r@6 F-@
6F N
FN
a
al ,l
@6s
RAS
@N
+@F
NA A.
m
sgg
I
=FiF
3 o
PSA
+
s€s
aa Q6EO l:g L>Q) o+$o {c oga :too 60c o0€ s@ctc oqo o6Qo H o o o 0 6 LO OJ:JI-a EPN.ost-o SooF o ooo @o9€ xo! qnqo gFooc €c>o o!>o >oogo
o C
?AF:
-c .q uo g-a cv iac f :)
N€F ooF o
[i 8s _)z
iqi; (rr ti
d(1r
crl rf FIXCq lla.. el-o
!!l3o qll Q Alr-\ Ll o cla
t^^_t-__ l--ml++
o 0
.-l s oto l.u'lcl€ Lll+
>.-e6 -46
cl (lc
c c
:|-
o o
_
+
'|1--w
Ah^^
{l-f
v|!,*v
c
n
ryr\
Ctl I
a
g
lrlaocD
rt ^t c.:
!{
E H
L, Fl rr't
a
vt
{.
I I a I I I I I I I I
rJ
:J
,Ot (\J G?
.
rpNN
a
Ct,.a F
I I
a
d€
a
a
rN--
I
r* i si
I
r
I a
.+cto.t
J..: rl
a a a
-
a
ejcro
g;
a
(oNF
dF
.-: ct ct
AB
9re C UU u>P anmflI
gHs
.-@Ct ate+
H6t3
-{o
I a I
YF-
s
aa v {H CaCr-
@@@
-: c.' c.l
I
o_ =--
NA.&) @u LE
o0)6
-'J ct
co _.Co
EO LS o) +E- oF+ -96 6 Ld NOL
- rJ
O.(>-r:
eaE
Ceu
iE: ue
C + .I'- E O a q)--la . -l F o 6 o
I J'o;
-l€ lc :rl@ >F -(Olo C -al 6.O oFlo l:ltF 6 L -
€el=€
c F to(r a o o oFlcLl o (rI- -sc L a1 >lut -' I ^-A^^ NNlerm I
2S-
-
I I
C'
It uJ
{ =
a
a
li
a
lc.ccm
g
a
l. INoF r+-4
, I
J
(t+F
ctctj oroo
-'d
d
oo
rts tHB tgt
cco o cOJ: L
FeF
F--
?e-
EEE EEE
EEE
EEE
!o
5 o
L F CG oo oi &F
-F
dF
> o C O
6i' 4 o
C at
s88 0e
C O
rtt
Ct O B5A L O l:
GOG L:'
o -!l .-lL
6dL d+
ov .9-C> le-C> 6 C LOgOOtO ococ6L +C)|*r!gq|O, + 6 -O F D C O ES oF! FoC€-^6LG F.O€F 6(t9r(16956A >LLF>LOO G o o-:rqU.-+ s:
L= aa >,
o :r
6 !o:t co@
L .:r
:I
c o
I .C o o
I
Lz l6
f
@ ls o
$l c)r
I
-q
Fpa ao6
aof
6t cn co o_ +6 CL >) 3g
€
r@ ti. o I-
:Gc
$l
co (i6 Et. co oq
\Jo OG o c+
tt TFQ
=.@G
oo) $
oo
88 53 oo q!5 :9 -L
6+OOaO GF cl OgOg\:rd tJlJFE c (4 L
.3555ba a1 t >5r I
Z*!.1 := _,-9) g) c) Gaa F-o:o
(-F
I o
.-50+oa o 6 € Oo-TD ! @+ o >F
6?o= A. ..4
:)
{, O)
o
33 - g ee
G_) ul-(J >-d e-"!
bi
@L cFw o 6@ .-r-r {C1)r OF.I a4J t-.J:Fq '!q. i)F ee
o
o
tr 3
L
-6 I cl o #€ al o o cl g6 .tF o--6 qT > ode !c.g qJo5 56 6L6 coc >*occ ir) O G (r f o 3-(t jd.f.
IONN
-
-N@ F ici NNN
||
REfB
=
I
o Y o
O
.D
o>
-: a J
a
ta
}{b co
@
N ec (5a
-'ct +.
d o'd
o6F
grF@ o'-: -:
z ct
G =at XO
J
A
}{
rg
3A
ooe) doid
,A:3
ft rrt F
co
(5 oj (-1
@.+
dcid
Jcj.d
@F@
crrF
6 U cq o
6
s
::
P
q:t
t&
4
d
tsi
-oo
Fit{a
dcid
H5
.EE5 GO
a 9l z
!l ti
H
n
!rH
U
e)6
F
p9 =f,
6
g
irl !
N6-
!
FldGi
Irtl arl
d
6 6 J J U
:-
f:
EEE
! r!
--* F.:^!o; Nmm
|
33
ry+,9 L OO
' EHB F--
!
i
too @oo
-*ddcl
I
rsFl FFF
I
I I I I I I
6= t(: tJ=
I I
-'
q
I
e
I I
I
I ,8
=l e
go Q6 OC CIO o+ Fc6 OL @ac
e o t
I
a' .l
El @l EGI
ci
gol
Cal 3= 3 @ G ...
EIt 7 cZ
rivt.L
?l
P
>C 90 c o€ ot !Eo€ g+F .- 6+ X'u ts"p Qeo .-rst
I
I
-aa JO
J-F FG O'O
I
6
= c).-
H
e(
! ! --ddd :!l _r..-_---r
lt;st
H
rr.9--
.o-utotot
r!l arl
6 a
l_o +q ae
cq at9o G.-a a+ -oO 3C -C= bu@ ooo !
,il
(E G
UH €
O
a(ra o g6 c.:) -4U iC o bo 16
e
e lt' ciL
:J
=
F
()
t-q,O
F-
C)NN
a
-.aa
S68
o6F rNc
CDFF NFO
ol cocD oF-
oo(f F@o
or@o)
rfl-o
rtt@O
O(f
@FO NN' oo6
C'
ctr6o ei ..t .f
-Ntft cd qd d rr __._a
tdE
I II
Nprf! OOtf) .-.aO N{-rdluro
aoo
I I
crq
E*T E*T FA-
F--
I i
EEB F--
B8T E8E E8B
|
e--
---
I
---
I I
n o? G.iAa oo oFqr6 6r;(t+
S e 9dEFooF
a
a-
S.F
2-,o
o ;o c co goFco+ a-O+ ory9t F rF >- 6
q! q,oc 5A o > F-
11+ae6-EO ;+oCsF
CD
I -rs
E \b -6t-6--+o>Q
r
6
1--Etrg4: d G i-s
Ce 9 -
c
_*o Gd
o L s +oo+oo
.lOO-OG
e.e.=
!D
g'E';L
o s t4+
C O @ OFir oc6cG6 CF.->.-.3-€ +fr-6,.6E t-odooo o+9-++ LS O docooc !cooco GO.-CO.-
.30;
OJ
P.3
G'
.S.Sc
gEo50 .68 ;
3.Oe
.10t
O
A:J,
..._LC@6e-_Cc6-OFOd-a:FO
2-.2
E e a 'dio.!
H-;
2-*h'; cCC4CO)Oe-L
P.3
@do6;to-L aa a 66Satsa ccxo-oo o J O -L o g# F €d
+ e'1 oc'-9l '-Fo (EgogL L6arQi: ooLOOL r- {o
@ _o
6@
@o
!
l.
H o 4
ta
FT
€F
.{
6
r6
i.= fQ 3:? t jF o ! a-
5ta -tA o or c J;FC-;-5-*a
63
rO @@
a
=
::'
'.-
..i
4",
u,._:r:_ -u.>Q$ (J cr + r'Lc?-
6 v) OO(*O\xd rnaidJo=--9
I
qe.
e.Fd
N
C e
a
a
l:t - :i
-? 4
ci\"i cr-sO +gt 9c Fr +o-o@ o 6Ftott l-L.-,! '!l!++L --os)d
a
*-
ej -c |- r., C
::!
F
.
uc.q
o
a
a
I
U.!Lnt.-I a4@\rac.-*O ct).Ie.-=eE-; .-.oo#LIE$rLg A.-.lit
\, OF ! u
;:8\E
L ,: e -) o lrF o > :i > qOc.-gg F.-,-d -utr-J:'c l9
c P o.:l ,-:ro..rit'-
r, ID.L6 L ..: ovta'o Far.! *J I " |o l!f'.: tF cla'otJ€ '! otNo-J{ .-lcolo@ Ctl.F o
bl"t'rl
+'E
6
a ^! G
o +q @ao 5o
gita (t
--
rc
a
a o q
.r:
+
(r.
i1.e r
(.r', qrr
!r
!
:: r
rslL -"
xl.-
>
o !
'.q
.t
gri.-
!t a ' r:
( Ei E - oi;6 -e c: A O +l J >+
a > l€ o irl! o _:J (- C,tl i: > f! C o ol: L oi ^ J LJgrP =)oFi ca L!i.-: , a a ..1:.:o:tl:EGr!Jx +F()14+-"i C'' OJ C N ,!IL
:1 a a *.1; i-' 'irj .. \_:) ti 1 1..) ("i
L L ) utr o { -'lo.iu .,: i:r uJ ul.. g ..C o rlr 3 3 t tr, o * 4 -c (c)l li, c a (. 1 .. .. ..1 1l LL < 1 l.-.i 6 i\{lu a oi(o o < le ul-< L JLI_LLlo o .-l o 5 -;l o (i ro ot I o otq- 6 >la 4 6 @it:, tl I^ N lI.f,
r.10
o
taN4
e4dd
,@o@
j
, cidci
!
-oo i.ic"i
n@o rai"j j
o@o
NN N{
@o
+@
+o
w N N
x o
a
oFO .i.J-'
I I
H aa
a
@o
-@ O-
€p
Jci
ooo
FNN
a
ONTI
eao,
-c)o
I
s:
{
I
:)
oo
C
8-
i
@l Nl
oo
V o-F -2
I
o@
I
+@,o6,F€ . ..
Om
OO
. NN
a
ii i
NN
;OO I
I
ar,a
:nO6 i N-6
i
t
_a >- .( z+ ci.-oo;+ o.i L L d o r6 ooLo (-Lc,GCL U o, l" cryf-\ tc I o
o .3 L E o
I o o o o
c
c o
d
L
G
c6 c
c
-
bl C
o C
:
lt
OG CO t 6 E6 c
eE
L
3-
>o oa GO
5t cc EC CC g: oo o 50 o>
f; EeEo
st5 :Ee
6E: € EB^
>r
:gg8* €=E 1.9. 3E' €=S
ec 6 '
zfr
€E: .€:
€bl
I=i
-!G6 -!C6
B b b o - b
.- c .-
Fcu 6dw
8b. ** ?
.Ee't xE-o -
ooq t t = 66q
-: AEF
!; €58 T;i B€ 8.6--.iO.od
i;', E€:
EF;
5-'.3 €:i :".€ Egt -.:i FEE FET g:F EE Ti; sET t 9., bh a e ho' oFF
,
?Ei
i j.l:
glj
o.5 "
gs=
'*5
E3*
€ll
;:j'
;E;. ;B[.
3;;
ae:
4?,
\
l
I
+.+ {n l n.+ o +- .rf .n' iI ,ri e' qo'
NNN -@6
I
d< ix
32 J|i SS a1 o
I I I I I a
at+o r!o)€
4+m
eoct I -jo->r Nc{Ga ir
AFm
OOF
@oo
t*l
(noF
!o@ OFN
-r6@
Nqfi
l\o)F (oo)F
@r+ar
no@ s)r(f
@o-
as@O
FFN FNN
O@o
(DA-
A@o
@+F
6@@
r-oa -.-a orf) FNN
ooo
@rn@ 6@@
-@o 6@r
ooF NNN'
od 6.r-- Q
rrt:(lD €
m++
oc>@
bt t{. cu
e-OO C!NN
-@6 FOA
I
I I
e@@ FOO
___t >2
" "ct
c!
..
Hi+ju OA4Catre
OF LO €a aF oo EA
2t:* =>< @ JO
g+
EgH
Lg c 6 o€
:l g
.?-
t e.::.|' -?E_
g=*F i$E: E z 3i
=63
o
h t eE -.CP--O-dC
:"
aa
6v
9t
-9: gi.
e 5
fE. r:e!t fi"€ @so
E!3-EF€ ii€
t3o A.EE CaOeO-
E;-cccJlll
.1953 66
6E: -te s=: . @
g 6E
.2 gct Z tEg L G O O->e6
E o-
rs\ot
i!. .:?3c 6$: i g OO
8S= @ue ??t
o 5
C ij
-..38
O O O
G.-
-gE GO Eo€
4r -
I
ctt
g
a
g
a
a
!t u
-
6: = -
-
NCtlGa
e.l qd F:
@-O
g
cf Gi at acDo
=J
F.@6 aaaaaa
O(\tN
c'oo
aag
a
+o!'F C > OF pEcoo FLx6Og OOO-C.+EFF
c
OF E-
> O O 6
L
'6>r S; ! J nor.Fod LCsuoo c
e
J
= :;O
3.€E .Er.r beaeS >oc
o o
6'6 oo
3 9;1 LLOO 6 toodo
E
o -!
c oD€ i-. gc 6 c €G @ = o o5l a 6d:lo o E o .2 cco !6C o gl EI 4l ts L lo o ol ol ory l6 6l lo a+ 0 g tc la =F
NN
c 0< ?a
E
R
o o e L o c L. oE L
-
EC oo GO oGq t OF o-o^o ov avt eoo coc ooeoct goolq ooLod P 6E 6fr :s!+++ o(rqro
Sttip < x
(Jl o O | _ ol Olsl+ B .i to
E-*
E
L LAO @ DqP o@o o
k
o
Ll 5i
8l'l= l5lE :
..
gl.llE =P8tl alil+ s
o55 500 da@a
ls
^hts^? Nl.tl+ 'vF,F,
i,
€ vs
+q
-t
CT a
5
H
aF3 oo-
t
I
F oroctt ol Fd)Ct
FI
.a
a:too
a @
FO@ O)NJ
,l
:= CtEt) ctco '-) (n .. n F- an a_ cn4(, GU.{
ort.-oo(.oc 1t+ L o -d 'tF.!r6a^OO1 C oF-lj Frc, F+oFlT9rlle5.t cdOlC -!
-
'
g
aE oE
a
o c
C &# 5 ot F c-.C o.FfF
o O
c O c
O + .L
-'l .ij 3 c-l-3€l'ilEg aeFplotNoEtLtLeg A: ilE - ol.'i
u O 5-l C O >F*lU ooOlu-.-|.-leOL L > Cl E$oloqolcls+o0o> -O - oLSF(al€Fdlolc$36o -l-F r! De @l 5 L-lLry-lOl(r5 SG5EtOOIIs5ChgO o4gl€LLlolcE-rtgoE ollt
l-lo xl+lo LIFIi-lclc olxla.
.-
ol-lo
€t?-l-E
-l:l;3 >lolO
b.
o t O
6
o o ogJ E
e -6 O O O Lry c L I o
O9lf
e 5 H-g @ C lO Pl.a i* b S ;. Cl.rr b'5131.. E ,tl:,-lE .E G u 6 o O > :l-l C o
O
CIC
gF-1."i5:l=' j r r . il€ 5 *l.J3llrt u' 6 fil* -- ! lctc o .l9e- b c 5 +l::l
A 6€A ooa (g'Fts
G
o -L rFF.n O Or -e e
0@ o 5 C C I L L F O)S
!
oa odrrt 6a lF 8g ocoa
e roJ-t E o I 11|-lc o @ atl'l @ O a ol.-l+ o
S
ol >t. lrs Cl c:- .
SltlE -'l-r-
o . o . f
-
.
d F arlG o o;ld u ulclo C c l>l cl d T x L Fls Ct4 L O I I I-'+ '.. ..l.lo 1.. c.-lC c.' C llaloC-l-
$
3 &i: 5 El o
E:'B
'!:" e'G.
.:312
q. i tr gl
.Fa
-'oa -l
ol O o +'r J > cl o'Q s' . L ol U F cl o '9>l I +F + Ul ul o O Pr E o 4aa € 6rs.-rEr 6 Ea O € o > e > o .o.-r . L o e ! iI t'b:'s.!i
a t I o
E = = q vl o
E
.j| Fi a I
go s
G o
. ,:) 4 (.
liS ic; i.9'jl?-i 8' -o > l-3,3 L- .-5 !, .o r9;i L .!l(-.'- 3 ! r :' 'v ? l ! @ 6 6 | = '.- + @ '.) . = L 'F:F ;ll; i.l r) i| bdaJLrsc-{'+€-a a . raal
Llil+?.' |
'
Ctl+
t_
3
5l I I
j Juj
q *x Y; HF Jri
oror
OF=
r+-f
G
t
P+OC)
CI l) L
o t L og LO
6OC) Nq)+
O-O cJ@{
d
-E. o O-F
--ao (l) O 'l.{'ecsc .-CO
o ooo 6+N
ti
6 c
(: < :t
OL
c \o
t "!9 !.o:
YF
6QrO g q) ef gF=oFqr() LOO-'?-gOO.@a>-cal. DSDJ:O o o g e o !c o S t -cFoF o I g --
eEE ddFEE
EEB
--Q
-'= L > 5 E
=C of e c CE
€fE -o Glc oD c > >t ! I I -CglrCO I 4 --l.-c to c al L'!E C I -lO T o i Cbtlc5F clo 6laf o o lsF e!@1 90 E 5 5tC C o+-1,--
l'r gO ' ET 6 -o aO O OE 6
{
Z-o
FC
o6
E8tl..
OF €6 a
FJ--l--A^^l^^-
---!NNN
I
c, L > G
(! Q L O L
t't .:
..
t-L--
j
l.,i r, i !l ,g Ii)
,:1
r-
o,i
e
#-= l.lr'Ji l-. I
SS .aS
s*
od
ci
NF FN
OO NF -1
NF
{,
oF ,Jd
:
oo
€{)
Gt3
L
ii ?"
N
| |
oo otd
ll4! It' l
r,d
r@ OF
OO +@
F+ @f)
: ! I
-,3 qjqi
|
l.dl
il .- i
rt :,
c,r
a.
-+ 6+
t9s
s)o FN
Fo F@
-< (d
C)u)
NF
I
--
rob s= i
tt)
NO F-
@
r(> NN
NN N
}( q; a)
i:l @l (l c ,:!
lI
li.,
i
ttoc Tr00 (: (t t-(co6C
i;rf
g
.-OO (: > c)C
:
I
I
t.co fCrF E@+
I I
-.t N@
60
t
jd
z FC;-!-.- O dEF.-LrbOlO *+-laJtrOF.lCTO *+-la)troFrlCTO C c o o C +
d
- ,r'
P i'
f.il-9r .1 iial0, L
+! oEEF!
cc |II r:oE 9L I J I G O:t Q I CJ
30, q !-
.
I
^1f, rr O
|
EE
I
o
Q:.= lbst I t.9-; =.:9 .g-31564 5s: lE,:K €i.'31g:i < o ! | + I o l-?ss .,li.J9.9 f
€
FFF
l^----
@
f
5
tr @N
"rJ
c)o
't- *
r:c':
n9J
NF
cid
@o
@+
4@
; J'>
+i *=
*7,
{.n
@@
.;*,
ci cl
-1 lat
*3 SZ
o@
di
b.l
od L go
td
L: ?CO @ s.o oco
@a .d oi
J
oo -: a- cl
jj
-:od N:
IL
l3 I ld lr
I a I
2O
!dts (t
r
. r
e@
Fo
F
r
a
tf=t'
a
-
a6-E5 -> ?ee a>=
TE
I
@@=
-O cl co'
J
B=
: I
l"l,
oo
r@o
|
o6
O@ uJ d N I
T}
i'd
f-
IB t-
90
lo tc
a-.?,
e
E8T
d-
H ., b3
sd ItB=
EHE
-s
EEE
8o
-r.E * au
\-e
EEE
'ui
cz a-
c
o,r
i5;5 t'
$3 €;c;
{dd
---
g s
=
aaa
3EE
ii F
E=,3 !EESepBi =,8 .": EA Feo ef 3k. oo d.!:l? 3.9 c5'a
€-. .!58
3
EEE EEE
Ffrq
EEg
f" io
--8o .g€b
h
t
t6
iE
3
8.:
! ?
8!o' Ei---3.? a=ct
{.9,9€c. I 5 _ A E= -t i-.=.$ f,_ a z, E = Eee \'-e
o Fo!pEE6-io.=\, =-
hSE
K-A s5?
ss Isa B'A;"$; FEi .f:s
9--
EED
Q--
d;E-1 i L
;-
Earit
q--
!Et
! l-. @
lto l6 tc
lfi tc
f; t; AE:r t; ll 3,
O-+ 6-.=
IL
a
is'i S:'1 f:Eg: ".,, E,i +.r., €,€ Ei 5Ei!.,€'€-"'i'€ jgJ>p r9FP .aE--P .lip ::: rlp E; T '?i.e o ?A e 35 E === ?i6: ;€: G?? -- a === = === :.. EEE F*! !-E! Fg= ::E $3= E-EE e3= 6l-,F
i:! tc
l3 iL
l.r lh EJ l.i
!o, E' 15
,t-
(rl
!
l^Rg
aR5a
N'N
I
-Fg
L o a o q ao o
Y
6R6
4
o =
x,
!
NO6
t
I
a .Fl0c 6 >.+ o La soo 9!Dt. c sJ ocl c L
, v ..;
6i.,-h*"j ii FY@:-t
N
lc FO. :(f.-o >ryo
e
O F (?zdo 0 o > t:an.r+ 6bc. coo o-C. ooo o!o66 c6!go LAOC oxco €foL oaooo >coc @+s:t-J-
A OF
Lr+ oQ o o.-
or: ooL
O
ao
oc
€'-ci
.- L€ c5
oLc
oXiS-
OL J)$
A
O
OF-aE+ 4* ! .-5 L OS'-FaO \6+Lo S-cOcg GA-
.- O O 6# @-d
ro
L# x61
L
.-E+ oc(
d
oG' dcL @-a
{?
a):
b- il =+3i 5 -.*--f c-[].'--F O?>C'D!, O#:
L GO
og> ].-5
x
cE+3-
.B o-
o
s
A;E g€s3
-d6 E5 600
^cS N O*t€
-.ara iiL.-\ Ee:-^
6' Eii * To o' B 3.€ g @ fA
-CO
E @e "€
i:€€I
o ( ! aN F< -= f, (-,-t ol d LOol E OE
ee c€
-g!*#
*E+ oc6 EA6 q-
o co -e LO o_re
godo o5F -c+ltd O 9000
.BB oso
6 a
EEE
t
I
- E d l-9,3o sLLOl.-L.?CO -o6ot6e!( F
,-
a
EOIU -olN olo +elO.-.lo9
:9
3 8-j O-
5 gg q.
!
-@i
5-
g
,U
6-"E,[i. >.Ln-U
@
i
-tt
Y O
'+--
d.-
FgA iI 3 ooo o
-ad
a
C I L.- '-CO.-5$
€
%--
>::
3
@c(t o o4l
I
li
drd
+ q{o(aqoan*
q
(rl L qs
(a C
@+
*c
bic L Llo 5tL $!L
o t,t
tl
(t
4-
d
8.8
o
o
"dlls tc 6l o olE
-l
=13
i€r l-,
ol b
I o) , | -l | t't'
xl xl3 -t6l
=l xl 5l$ idl a l.J el
ol o
6l 6l
0
cc
| ,al +i1-i
l.: =18 !ulc E EIc
al L €15 q -tc
,t
:>a
l.:l
E EF
ol 31.3 $l
O
L o U'
-!c
ilir. t;i
I
L
i
o oi.bK
..!3
t3
8.: ao
C
a Pr.8 o
,
Q
O
G
L.,! (I ( crii(r
'ls
(a c
o
o
o^oo cc6> O s
6
LO
E
.BsS
(.
arl
ca OL {!c
P3A ooo
8gs rgE o>
-lo @:::
t 6
.-G
O,C O,_:
o .Fio)
o
.l
@
oLc
EdE
t!
c
o
4
-
@!
[|;-
q
NoOOO ooo
ag3 ooo
-r---
f: a=
5lr
6 c
8
z ,a
,"1
C
!
tl 'rl
:l
:l
c
c.t rr c
ii ct.-i
I a)l L
l-i
J'
I Lt
:!
:r
.-i {i I 01r ri -[]: or I i
I
Et":
| :tt qL ! a:
6$u
I
E*E -a
€4ts
u :,t =)c)u :)
t-I
I
lc
ooo
I
(ts-a_l
!-i d a-F- t4
ld
*( aa
llio.{ a:1
ti
c)@o 6FCr OFO
I
ld
OF@
O-e -p
?-.: 6 uJ \:l () l) t- -{ (a -< 4 , O._a,F+ g q+ cto6€og
€-o Ocoxc
il =l g
eCI(LOc(,@ N >S +€+5\,a)#vO aaE6E'.--!+ GO(0-OO3-J(, CcCOCL(!CL
t.-oL.-o LoUL E.t1r U a a. QO@LOO gLO(aLs oq:qJ qccog gocJo a!(:rL (. O C
.-- q) @*
b-3 a
d
g :l o+
5 O a'-
.-osoCd o o+, @-
o o C' T'
b-L
C
OE COJ f'-L L60 q^+ lco *O+.O iO '>+ . Dn E (r an a\4
c0603 $ o to+Jae I I QsoooO.L &l.0rqr(5 oqa-+ oi:qc: (r o 4 \rr -!r {:F+J@
o x O s ot
o ql_G
.D crQ o+ 6
o
ca c+
o(v
@ (Lq
(rl
fJF.-9rc+
o.-ti .-Jt L O(a.,.FOqc :^(t$LOO E-C6CL6 o-r)--
a g
L
o
!i, g6
O# 6
c! o -o.
I I
bI or
s
cdi
dFSdl
-
gt
cOf!-
L.1AG,
OOO
NG.N
I
H
z-
a I=
&
=
^! J
,A
.oo+.F..st'\o LOF-FlCC-CO-G€ o f .-q, t'E E E q ,U.!LGsOoEg
o
Ll
J =-
O
f g
t+-
o oE
S
hqu CO *o-
3
g S L o
C
(t c o+
9P s, A€ 3
ouo
t:
..s
cfo Sq CO oc4 ooo cor f, o6G ooe
6fr
CD
I
N..l
g
or'o'
/
rt)d) Jr4
-
R=
qt|Gt
Fp
O@
.td
de'
F(,I OG'
=A rN
ON
@F rcl
-lrt
ctF o+
o-
@CO
rtm
cn@ €N
ttt act ON
dci
'-F
u-l
e-. =
H
=
Glr d)O
FGI .ar
FaF aa
NF
L'
Cr@
-
6 oF 5LlOO. L 5 C O O6 O OvPOOfXO C-(JCUtEe(DI .- s I + = -o.-oo-cF 0 @ c E6 O @ F O
I
-Nl H
-l
=to
1 900@ooP490 -6-qC€* I =OF.OF->FdeO C€ L CJ O (' OF O JE L;6
-6-
6F
;F*
'O
FF E E O G
rrcL
.O G O O 9 L
o =t 5
t
g o o
?o
z a9
Io
i
g
a) Jqa -o-F jlurJ -Ggcou
d
-F-
O
P
= O I o-^ > O
gEl
E v-
O e O g
Ov
6* O A O € L
O
E U q Elr E 5 ID€ C-
,
c o -6 c o
-O\9 .-->T'O
o#L FrFOC
.e': € E FoL
* +
O
o €o=o>=o L s sa .F -.- F-Fdl Oo 6+ Cd 6 Cp (4A
d
m@+ ooo
FOF
ul nl n'
@c)(3
60F
NNN
oFF NNN
ooo
FOOFCI
ocro
u, t{
-2 o=(>
L
a o
N-rD FC,n
9
>
*
|')6+
roro
6F()
OFF
ooN
ONN
oao
mo
F@CD
oFo oNc)
oo
o
=
d
5-
SicT
->vcSG
:ti= 3y:* PH; ? ,.8 FOC:
@a'C
a ?*v
.t rt
od
!9!oe 5tN Nod)
ts+ c AEB c5 ut oi
=889 FNo
A68 -N
Fm-
63* -:.i
NFJ
=!-)< -tso 4
';A8-JO
e
F*g Gt ut ot
1@F -N+
t8s
ct ttl Gt 5RA
OFOO o-o#OL s+oaL gFCo a oE L)-@aa o n 6 -€ ..soo@)co6 yt 6fooooa c o N c c E
+, c
: e. .:: E 5i;
GO#FblO+6O tl-E€4OOotOSOo L.-Oo.-O4le.-t++ +L+L6C-O.-.oq@GcoJro,o66 -+6FlAOgC>oo oE 4 €L llE I @ O O ) 6 Q) g D:ac
a(: .j3
-€: .9c-;
O {
O! Oa
THB 89 o*os o L o !=P
c+:
r#
5 F. ! 6
g o
@
.3E- 3€= E E o
EEE
o
e o .. X; o€ @ c 6 o o G c ='-Egg .ECg .=9. -8E; q s G d o L o l-t C o )A
a
I t
a a
g o aE -€ d
t O o
L
o! or c Go O-1 6E > 6! -
a
c3 G 16
a
t
o€
g o
g oE
6 #
-C so
q C O o x
eaSooaJ
A &:J? g c
I ,-6-O-FO5F o O
O Cd
O
6 o x
aa 60 o@ o ceo Go6
g Ps
go6 c#? EOQ
a
a
a
a a
to
C
€ g q!-
o>E
s€r E' oe €-@ ot
oc 'n3 3 1!8
a
I
C ooJ=L oo O(r C go
oo
a
I QC 288 o90
oo !c GO L00 D+ G DdF
I o - AB Eg. .-4tEE E'"d, A-F aa A,3 A A-e b 45to- 5 A q o o.L.o
coq4t-L6a-6? leoocosco€oJooo g€ 4 C G C .'J.:oLO,^o(a5cOQ oco ,oo
d
--(
,\ Q: 'rt lsr rl
= o -F
N =
o G o
?
o d h
a
o o o
s
c
o
t
o
s
E
o
o
&
o E o
o B 0)
c
3
o
o
@o oo dd tro )P
h
o
o
ts
ok do E' o-o h+ vl .d..C dtdt@H 6 d.il
E
0
o
Fc
o ko o
.o
A
o
t EI
d (t
cr>o E t-1 HO6
h
o
o 6
q
E
g .n
o o
d
o
s
D q. ok
o.'o h€ .ld
d i
dq{
a
oo
5"
h d
E
o
D
to o+d c o ox
o
o
-6 x
a @
!d
ot
t{
I
f 6
o
a I
H
3 E
e.
o d
A o !4
o
bo o
o
o
E
E
v2
E.d dh .t@ ()Fi
o
d! o Cr o odd t dqr + olH
_ctto
-
d
o
U o
E
do Rd g.d ato o rlo+
xtrO
d.c -P tr F: tp o P>l 6i t od !o E{e
I N I
H
s
qr
tr
o
F.
o
oo Otr 'dd +{ ${ oo
o E
dd od
x
-
od do o Fio 60 o trf oc +o OE
E
o
CL .e EA do
dl
c aO.d mdE Ea6
xrlb
t
5g ;g
E E
t{
t q@
36< o dq
o
E E
FI C)
ell
* &
ttti-
+O DO do gF EO t|d rO
rt
13 d
OE: oD4 oot,
^d
o c OO tld 60 h4 C, O t{ co do , ko
H" od
FB Pr
?F el ;'td-oi
ok le{ +< o '3A r! dd oo do d.n b D dt{
OQ
o o
60
EE € a
d8 t,s8
I
a
'E Eitl o6
:to f9io .l 9+
o>
, cro
tc
66E o €d o a td
o
II dA do
Hs
doti o rld ,c > -6 4 C69
oi
o
F,
ol;
F. F" l! h{,
S
f, E !o +() h dE vh dPE ooo tri frAe o t{.d o odri trl6 oo ocO .rl l:
o o
o
Fi>
.9
.qf o UO a o4 E
H
ol. oo
te
Eod
E3 o @@
I
Eh @ +d k60 + dirE q${ d o oo E d-€o sO + t Cr{ Fi o O.€ rd a do El o do - rJ CLo
qoqa
hl
F
\s
7,
dl
5
I
flt
glt I o
!t o 016
ifli q d >,d rtl +.d
I
o n
Ei,o o c.d @ o s.il ui E ooo
E
s
Cl
Hl
o o
cl .3? g I H 3t dH o . o o bo o
".;'-f8fS"
o -O o! O6+ .q6 P-{tp h kN al-J @ E td
. EaP todroft gg.do o9 o odd + al @+ oF! hC d I @ g o d L4 -,O d d k +lo dla d o
5td *o Qo '/ i Frfqr E! O C 'il eq{o!'dok.dq-t ts U d O od Od 6co o +dooo
[email protected] o .dd
o
>ok rd.d^O o o, g kJ +dr h c5 o ad E o o d'n occh0 d k cdpd o x.d o od kHOd O tr A @ N du i o'd o o h o O t{ d o tr! H.d d + +v!i otl oI I io .tb g d od + .darq OPO o t> r:i,(o +@!Aokb t P s Motd#& dd d o o EI.d+ A o t{ E
[email protected] d d o qd o tr
5 o
E
k O
+o 9.1 :x
l9ol.:.:Xd:d
3 E.r3 bE
o
co OD
om utE El;gEffg o.a
':{ s FE EiF Sr e\ I Eb i i.iro .i i.:&cEi j.{.rsc slfr!fl
>r@ Oq o.i o dAra d00 op. X Eq* E +d F| ko 'd ROOdO o,o&oo Eqo i50d6 d I'd o c d! d od o+ .dPtQ'd 60t > .ib o dcc64 A0 F.i & F g 'dd k o o o.d o o ii c .i>oo+ko o o t dN + td .o oo o o.H O O.( t{ OF d o+r @6 HJ C O
tr Of
d.o
o
i i
a: l:q;t
'i5.:8d'
o
o
seEeieE o a Hq HFfE#E: @+o od tq 8s F+ HD ilg tli ?: iltElF"*5u po @i @rd .dF flE; E KF o.i EK
i;:88 fiEr:f {g:i l!$iE [irffr iFYr
ptl oo I -Jar+dk C o 96d +k d @.do d t{+ o 0+ o+ o ,dcqp .i5 odh
aa
dl al! o. +o ndk oqd +H
;:ie sb$.t: E td ;ls!: 55.j8! Esif s E.d: ldH;n iX.:E
taoP t{ d h. uoh-t.d.d .d+ o t 6 h do>..C5J o o k, o o I o -q0t!:d o odoko @+ k + d c d oi dd Oot{bdod @.i d { o.i .d tr OvO O .o d! ei O d o >E *. o 60 c o o . o .d oh @d +! O dP a Cd+ @ ,r d d o d\R. C o t o +do o.d clR.ddN.d > 6-d d + .d@h o, ,3 g o +.!.P Ef P o a oi 6 e d h o.dd o.d d F{ d } O O d+ o J E d ce oq o o oH bo o a o o.-!.d
O gd.d d.d+ (F @ oF h.d @.o 9 ! x o+ 9.9,E 3 e .dE A o I L ki
L::to!rE
o,PQ. O+dAoib
D{
o
I
odl d ho o tri ot bd 6 o dFsS
I a r 6 I
F
tr
gl r:l Ei q OA ud
Fr
'd o
o
I
FI
Hh Flo
R @
F o
OOli tdd AEI t{Eo o@ -E
{a
p
j f'l
+
E
E
oo o+d oo E +o ,p
!t{ akA ooo P!t{ 5v p@ F 'd.d k llo CAif
o 6
E E.
,84 +C co to
=.l
dql
Efr ti dl oo{ >t? od a od ( dl O
t
d .dorr E{ O+
?16
AE
F
o
t6
tt A c
t o
@E
...oa Ol.d
tltrr ilt
ts !+ c do OE oc gk 60 Fitr do Flc,
I
o
Af s 3 tn " .d ,E
46
z
f p>)
ca oo oo 7 +E
O f{O f o+ o d+ C +'doH (|:IT{ O O
E
Tc
HO
@
F
o
0
8q.
8 .dd c5?
o
E o E E
t
EgB (}\OO
El
* cl . fo
h
h
I.
E E
E
o
D
4
o
h .P
o H
a + pFJ E
o o
a F
F.
d d E A
c o
dg
e E
r| o
(,
ioo
o h
D!
.dO lIF h,A
ox
I
H H
o ;J F{
dd -- 'd @@
o+ od.r1 El ,to ()E .do AA
fl
o
E
o@ .P+ 6d -q. \o oq oo op
h
f
4
'l d dll qlo dd t{,|, +o OA cc €o
o
HO
a
o
.E .c
d
.dd ID C'
H
oa
I
ts
c
*
e4
E
@o od do tro t4 .od
r|o
@
o o t:
o F,
o
A A 5
c
It
o
A Fl d
N h
o o
Fr d
5
a.
d
?r +o
d I O
(Hd I
H H
;I
o
nrO o )^-A E d+ pO . EO. .Pd _h od Dt u@ .+, o+o cC OF Yl O C 5 -fq 'd& go 6 vo+h a!+ oI{ od o doo.d.do
r9fiFg
>s
rc
=
I
o
'd5 .PQ< do
.!H @.d
d 9 9rl !
F lld.d Ef.i @ q od .ioo dd p. oPddtn PI{do .d o f oi & ,{ O.d -d O t) -d h €.n a ho o o O O+ [0O.d t{.d C EP O d Fd .d.d
O h
p
B 6 F .A
'd+ co q{ .do Elo. X^O '6 .d o D+ rir v6 t€ d o o.d@ \QA O iH 3 3'E
acL o d d tro oo o oz o * +ttd .d 6 c.d3 o 0 c{ E d @Fr+
o
o
ohE o d+ do r&d .hoF 6ida
ffit"3x Ho4 iq{&gqt
'i P [. @
E
A
F o, d o o .lq oE4aO
'* ttt coo
ft 3\s RO
m .dq{ i F O P.. o o.d E o
[email protected]
a 3 8.'Efi
o
I'i E5 .E €tl E6 bo t
5E AN
d 6O g{ot od @ Ap +EE ooo o ao
*oddFt nDr! r{ -\t
a PD g o+ht{o
Bdf ooo
dT
BES 5d o dF EOd do d@
prl >q .:o!-to.4 b5
FiF
f,
d.4 ,tE:o hoo
rJ
h:.i
P ts.E O o !lp.d+
.f
€'
F >i.d+ € a O t{ @dq tr
H
oE$noF'd Od
EM
q
Hd
g
o
E f; E
o+
!0
H
EE.E.5
F.
F1J Cd
d 6il
€6
o
r? 3 a.:€
FI
F.
El Sl+ FI
$
f'l
2
d
EI
t
c
oc bd
I
.A
E
o
6
rdo o+ oql c+ do Bv h{o o od OP t.d dt $o
,0
o
o
fr E
o la
HI
o
e) .d
o o
qr
b
n
a
3
g
O
.d
d
d
tr
o
id o or+ gtri B'" t d of
a d
o
o..r
B
6 E+ OA F ho ard
p
u I
d.-
d\R .dm oF^
6
dE ptO
@
qr oA
o o
xD "5
3 \R'.! v'd +r r€ Nf: d.. o.dp gd C .. oO odd cX .d>t{ oo +Cto.d Fl t.d + ,.d 6O@ 50 tbl a!& o d @ hE t{ fc6o q *i+ o oIt o o-X o(!d a o oEo .i oo .d oH d+d q{oct d@rd .ddti troo .d ooo o o o tt df d o.i 5 0 0.o mrdq< tr toE
= o J o
@ @
o .d d o
P
g
o .d
h
T{
o
$
+o6 d
a g
c
A xo 0t
\CF 'i6
E fr o
E8
I
€b o
lr
o9{
d o
F
I
E
tiqt
d
u
> o
q
o c)
og JS q{o od k ilt PK 60 Oqrd E '.1
7
rto
b
3.
@t b- in t'A d & dqr b 60 !t>r o E+ d a.A
g"E
o ao E+ .Ctr0 ETd E
o o
.d d a
p9g dFg
a
B
p
E*
E
d
@
o
EI
o
o
d
id
h
It)
E I
d E
F
F
d
b
,
Efi I
d
E
t€"? od* oq{ C h++ .Ak +Cdo $. Oq{ C d ti O k o o k+ o oqr O bD ! +.d+ ds .t'd Cn-C E I e !t d+.d O f/loo+h6dEi
o
o
€o g
+o oo +Cdo dl o o oH h
I
tsdd .ooo q0o o + O>!. drd !.a po Os:O. ld.d O-'d q, td h Oo PTdE o od'dCd € .d+ o o |!.d o C }i€ >+P o Hdolidd.d tlDodc!P+ ,oq at!
tt
dd Ed 6It HO dI
I
iO dqi do
d
k
6o _o
p>l 6
o o
fl
ll
d
a35Tt rtr
fl
!n
o
o A p
lr
€
6d
o
o o
o
e-
a
A
t{
A d d d F
F
o
o
+|
r|
,
F
p
rr
I
o
()
s
H
o o
E
U'
@
o
A
A A
o
x
5E 60 OE oo od KA
E@
FD o 'dP Pg
o
o
ot
cb ot,
E> oo ()C'
o
o
o t
o
g> oo
fo
C)
a
fF 50 PE
'dE
qi
tf tto 'E OE oo od tiA AA a F:N
to lcE
fE PE o
o
rt, [4*
h+ 5C €o OE oo od fuA gq
'iE +o
'iE
E @
d
E
.io
I
o
gl
o q
iil J, Ftd alo Et Ltd 'd
i{*
J td
o D
o
AP oo OE oo Ai a* d9 flt{ 50 du t{o f!
€A to P7 .dd ko +E EO
3d
d tsr
o
fi 7P dt oo OE oo hd Aq A E' o@
h 4 o
o o
k
A
I
o
p fr
+F o
3d
I ,r
t t: v x
o
b >,
a d
b
&
lo ,rt C€o a@o d@d i60+FJd ,d crdo. t00d dxo l.d odgl, toa O..O E o>rEo hqou cd o+at dcdo oo>. FiBO. doo odod at< AO 5>6 !A v>v '.t A
6
F o
b o
h o (t
b a t
6g +o oo F-
d 4+' od
XA
.d6 xo
rt
8,o
o H 9 P
sl
a
I
H H
g
d t0
H
o
s o
o6 rd rlO tro ,,4 'at F
-t dIl
do r1 .A
k{ -t! EA
nt do to HO
-Tt*i#:83
n
.+ I
H
E
td
D
o o
@ho ddto.d
,F f,
s; E t
;gE;l sl*t
.;
*tHHg.:f,s;
*6AE-i 5 " gt b*tg8 bd
Bi:* ll;E! f.9'H'd -*r
F
o
U
xf; 3et:
!f,f
H
TT
I
Ih
ddgdd
ocloot, oddDt ooop
ifiE*: Etiet
IHeFl *3F;E tSrl
8p€EB
3i€pE .AaJtrTl+ o'-F iirCld.dh OO
