No C 56/44 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 7. 3.77 
potential  users  receive  information  which  takes  all 
relevant  data  into  account. 
2.9. Having  regard  to the  fact  that  the  political 
responsibility  for  the  various  programmes  for 
cooperation  with  the  developing  countries  remains 
within  the  EEC  institutional  framework,  the  Com-
mittee  expects  that  the  European  agency  will 
facilitate  the  practical  implementation  of  these 
cooperation  programmes.  It appreciates  the  detailed 
description  of the  various  tasks  to be taken  up by 
the agency  and  welcomes  the  stressing  of group 
cooperation  and  flexibility  in the  administrative 
organization  and  management,  made  in the proposal. 
This  will  indeed  be a realistic  basis  for coping  with 
the often  complicated  situations  in arranging  visits 
of delegations,  exhibitions,  etc.,  which  have  to find 
a solution  within  a limited  time.  It also  welcomes 
the fact  that  the Agency  will  be staffed  with  people 
who have  a practical  knowledge  of the  import  and 
export  trade. 2.10.  The  Committee  would  like  to receive  the 
report  which  the European  agency  is required,  under 
its rules,  to submit  to the  Commission  each  year. 
The report  should  give  a concrete  idea  of the extent 
to which  the  Community  and  the  developing 
countries  are  putting  into  practice  the  cooperation 
and the economic  inter-dependence  to which  they  are 
committed. 
2.11.  Subject  to above  considerations,  the  Com-
mittee  urges  the Council  to decide  as soon  as possible 
on this  Commission  proposal  so as to enable  the 
European  agency  for  trade  cooperation  with  the 
developing  countries  to  be  operative  by  the 
beginning  of 1977  at the latest. 
Done  at Brussels,  25 November  1976. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Basil  de FERRANTI 
Opinion  on the recommendation  of the Commission  concerning  the progressive 
extension  of social  protection  to categories  of persons  not  covered  by existing  schemes 
or inadequately  protected 
The text  referred  to the Committee  has  not  been  published  in the Official  Journal  of 
the European  Communities. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 17 September  1976,  the Commission  referred  the abovementioned  recommendation 
to the Economic  and  Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Article  198  of the  Treaty 
establishing  the European  Economic  Community. 
B. OPINION  OF THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  prepared  its opinion  on the above  matter  at its 
143rd  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 24 and  25 November  1976. 
The full  text  of the opinion  is as follows: 
7. 3. 77 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 56/45 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community,  and  in particular 
Article  198  thereof, 
Having  regard  to the request  for an opinion  made  by 
the Commission  of the  European  Communities  on 
17 September  1976, 
Having  regard  to the decision  taken  by its Bureau  on 
29 June  1976,  in anticipation  of the  request  for an 
opinion,  instructing  the Section  for Social  Questions 
to draw  up an opinion  and  a report  on the matter, 
Having  regard  to the opinion  issued  by the Section 
for Social  Questions  on 11 November  1976, 
Having  regard  to the oral  report  made  by the rap-
porteur,  Mr Marvier, 
Having  regard  to the discussions  at its 143rd  plenary 
session  held  on 24 and  25 November  1976  (meeting 
of 25 November  1976), 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION 
by 74 votes  to 4, with  6 abstentions: 
1. General  comments 
The Committee  would  point  out  that  extension  of 
social  protection  — the subject  of the Commission's 
recommendation  — may  be achieved  with  a social 
security  scheme  or with  any  other  existing  system  of 
social  insurance. 
1.1. Previous  opinions  of the Committee 
1.1.1.  The  Committee  applauds  the  Commission's 
action  in seeking  to (fill the'gaps  present  in varying 
degrees  in all the  Member  States'  social  protection 
in respect  of particular  groups  of persons. 
1.1.2.  The  Committee  has  drawn  attention  to this 
problem  on several  occasions  in the  past.  In its 
opinion  on the social  situation  in the Community  in 
1972  it urged  better  social  protection  for  the  self-
employed.  Everybody  nowadays  had  the  right  to a 
certain  standard  of provision,  and  it was  time  the 
self-employed  were  assured  of this  standard,  by intro-
duction  of equivalent  (though  not  necessarily  the 
same)  arrangements  to those  for employees. 1.1.3.  The  same  call  for improvement  in social  pro-
tection  for  the  self-employed  and  equivalent  bene-
fits to those  received  by other  workers  was  made  in 
the Committee's  opinion  on  the  1973  social 
situation  (J). 
1.1.4.  In its opinion  on  the  social  situation  in 
1975  (2), the Commission  made  a more  general  state-
ment  deploring  the  fact  that  certain  particularly 
vulnerable  groups  were  having  to bear  most  of the 
hardship  caused  by the  recession  and  that  in some 
Member  States  the  inequalities  between  different 
social  groups  had  worsened  because  of the  different 
levels  of social  protection  they  enjoyed. 
1.1.5.  Finally,  this  problem  is also  touched  upon  in 
the Committee's  opinions  on the  Commission  com-
munication  to the Council  concerning  the ''European 
Social  Budget'  (3) and  the  proposal  for  a Council 
Decision  on  a programme  of pilot  schemes  and 
studies  to combat  poverty  (4). 
1.2. Content  of the  recommendation  with  reference 
to the aims  of the social  action  programme 
1.2.1.  The  recommendation  is the  first  step  in a 
programme  to provide  better  social  protection  for 
some  non-employed  persons,  the  self-employed  and 
certain  marginal  groups  of employed  persons.  The 
Member  States  would  have  a certain  amount  of free-
dom in implementing  the recommendation  to allow 
for any  economic  and  financial  constraints  they 
might  be facing. 
1.2.2.  During  the first  phase,  the Member  States  are 
to be asked  to: 
— extend  provision  for sickness,  'invalidity  and  old 
age, as well  as entitlement  to family  benefits  to 
all persons  carrying  on a gainful  occupation  (i.e., 
employed  or self-employed), 
— progressively  extend  provision  for  sickness  and 
old age,  as well  as entitlement  to family  benefits 
to persons  not  carrying  on a gainful  occupation 
(the non-employed),  with  priority  being  given  to 
certain  groups  within  this  category, 
(1) OJ No C 116,  30. 9. 1974,  p. 43. 
(2) OJ  No C 197,  23. 8. 1976. 
(3) OJ  No C 131,  12. 6. 1976. 
(4) OJ  No C 263,  17. 11. 1975. 
No C 56/46 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities 7. 3.77 
— guarantee  an income  and  services  similar  to those 
provided  by social  security  in the  event  of inval-
idity  or unemployment,  to persons  unable  to carry 
on a gainful  occupation. 
1.2.3.  The  instrument  the  Commission  proposes  to 
use (for  this  measure  is a recommendation,  which  is 
not binding  on the  Member  States.  Without  wishing 
to get involved  in a legal  argument  about  the form  to 
be used,  the Committee  would  point  out  that  Article 
2 of the  EEC  Treaty  lists  as one  of its fundamental 
objectives  'an accelerated  raising  of the  standard  of 
living'.  Since  the  persistence  of poverty  prevents 
attainment  of this  objective,  consideration  should  be 
given  to invoking  Article  235,  under  which  more 
binding  instruments,  such  as the  Directive,  can  be 
used. 
1.2.4.  We  should  be quite  clear  about  the  limited 
scope  of the  proposal.  It is not  asking  for alignment 
of the different  national  systems,  nor  does  it lay down 
new EEC  standards  or recommend  improved  levels 
of benefits.  It is merely  concerned  with  widening  the 
scope  of the different  national  schemes,  where  necess-
ary, so as to take  in all groups  not  yet  covered  or 
insufficiently  covered. 
1.2.5.  In view  of the  limitations,  both  as to legal 
form  and  content,  of the proposal,  the Committee  is 
anxious  that  the Community  authorities  should  press 
ahead  vigorously  with  the  other  measures  needed  to 
extend  social  protection  to the  entire  population, 
using  the most  appropriate  legal  means  available. 
1.2.6.  The  proposal  has  been  presented  under 
Section  II 9 (extension  of social  protection)  of the 
social  action  programme.  It ought  to be made  clear 
how work  under  this  part  of the  programme  fits  in 
with  the  work  that  has  been  started  or is planned 
under  other  sections,  in particular  Section  II 10 
('dynamization'  of  social  security  benefits)  and 
Section  II 11 (action  against  poverty). 
1.3. Financial  aspects different  national  systems,  but  merely  to widen  the 
scope  of the different  national  systems,  where  necess-
ary. 
1.3.2.  Also,  as the extension  will  cover  groups  whose 
situations  and  in particular  financial  capacity  can  be 
expected  to be very  different,  the principle  of relating 
contributions  to income,  and  benefits  to needs,  will 
have  to be applied.  It will  also  be necessary,  for the 
same  reason,  to set  priorities  and  deal  with  some 
groups  before  others,  although  all the measures  need 
to be tackled  with  urgency. 
1.3.3.  The  financing  of the  proposed  extension  of 
social  protection  is bound  to pose  problems  to mem-
ber igovernments  because  their  resources  may  already 
be stretched.  Needless  to say,  any  move  to extend 
social  protection  must  not  compromise  existing  en-
titlements. 
1.3.4.  The  problems  of financing  should  be tackled 
in the light  of what  the Committee  said  in its opinion 
on the  Commission  communication  to the  Council 
on the  European  social  budget  (1).  In item  4 of this 
opinion,  the  Committee  stated  that  the  European 
social  budget  should  make  it easier  to compare  the 
different  Member  States'  social  expenditure  in terms 
olf the scope,  level  of benefits  and  financing,  and  also 
afford  a useful  insight  into  other  aspects  of their 
socio-economic  policies,  e. g., concerning  income 
distribution.  With  comparable  social  indicators,  it 
would  be possible  to analyse  in detail  how  big  a 
proportion  of the  Member  States'  GNPs  was  taken 
up by the various  types  of expenditure  and  in particu-
lar the  purposes  of the  expenditure  and  the  propor-
tion going  to the  satisfaction  of the various  collective 
needs. 
1.3.5.  The  Committee  went  on to say  in item  5 (*) 
that the information  contained  in the European  social 
budget  should  also  be increasingly  useful  in analysis 
and decision-making  in other  areas  df socio-economic 
policy  at Community  and  national  level,  in questions 
like: 
— the  share  olf social  expenditure  in national  and 
EEC  budgets, 
— the  link-up  with  general  economic  policy  ('macro-
economic  level),  the  impact  at micro-economic 
1.3.1.  Extension  of social  security  will  require  a 
thorough  study  of the  existing  situations  because  the 
Commission's  proposal  does  not  seek  to align  the O OJ  No C 131,  12. 6. 1976. 
7. 3. 77 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 56/47 
level,  the  relationship  with  fiscal  policy,  popula-
tion policy  and  population  changes, 
— the  role  of the principle  of solidarity  in financing 
social  expenditure,  having  regard  to factors  like 
financial  capacity,  justice  and  efficiency  (1). 
1.3.6.  In connection  with  the  question  of demo-
graphic  trends  dealt  with  in the  abovementioned 
opinion,  the  Committee  considers  that  a careful 
watch  needs  to be kept  on the  effects  of population 
variations  on social  protection  schemes. 
1.4. Knowledge  of national  situations 
1.4.1.  Full  and  comparable  information  is needed 
about  the current  organization  and  financing  of social 
protection  schemes  in each  Member  State,  and  the 
trends  for the future. 
1.4.2.  The  Committee  would  like  to be kept  in-
formed  about  the  reports  the  Commission  will  pre-
pare  on this  subject. 
1.4.3.  It is essential  that  the  Community  authorities 
have  such  information  about  the  trends  in social 
protection  in the  Member  States  if 'further  stages  of 
the extension  programme  are to be implemented. 
2. Specific  comments 
2.1. Section  1, first  paragraph 
2.1.1.  More  examples  of the groups  not  covered  (no 
risks  insured  against)  or only  partially  covered  (some 
risks  insured  against)  by social  protection  schemes 
should  be given,  particularly  in the  self-employed 
category. 
2.1.2.  Also,  right  at the  beginning,  the limits  of the 
proposed  recommendation  should  be  made  clear, 
i. e., that  it does  not  concern  the  level  of provision 
O OJ  No C 131,  12. 6. 1976. but only  the  progressive  extension  oif the  scope  of 
social  protection  schemes. 
2.1.3.  For  the  sake  of clarity,  the  phrase  used  on 
page  4, Section  3 (c),  second  indent,  should  be used 
throughout  when  referring  to the  type  df young 
people  meant,  namely: 
'Young  people  in search  oif employment  and  not 
eligible  for unemployment  benefits.' 
2.2. Section  1, third  paragraph 
2.2.1.  It is understandable  that  the  Commission 
wants  to proceed  with  the reform  'in stages',  accord-
ing to what  is feasible  at a given  moment  (factors 
being  the  Member  States'  political  will  and  their 
financial  position),  and  what  developments  there  are 
in this  area.  Nevertheless,  the Commission  should  be 
more  explicit  about  the  final  goal  and  about  the 
timescale  and  means  it has in mind  for achieving  it. 
2.3. Section  3, second  paragraph 
2.3.1.  This  paragraph  calls  for  at least  'analogous' 
benefits  to those  enjoyed  by persons  carrying  on a 
gainful  occupation  to be  provided  for  the  non-
employed.  In doing  this,  the  principle  of relating 
benefits  to the  financial  capacity  of the  beneficiaries 
must  be followed. 
2.4. Section  3, fourth  paragraph 
2.4.1.  In its general  comments,  the Committee  called 
for more  precise  definitions  of some  groups  of bene-
ficiaries  to make  sure  that  the groups  most  in need  of 
provision  really  get  priority.  Persons  'engaged  in 
unpaid  household  duties'  are  a case  in point.  The 
wording  here  is too  general  and  is liable  to lead  to 
discrimination  against  those  in greater  need.  The 
recommendation  should  therefore  specify  the  con-
ditions  governing  extension  of social  protection  to 
this group. 
2.5. Section  5, first  paragraph 
2.5.1.  This  paragraph  says  that  the  new  groups 
should  be brought  into  the social  security  net mainly 
by affiliation  to the  normal  schemes,  with  provision 
through  'social  assistance'  schemes  remaining  as a 
secondary  possiblity.  But  the  relative  importance  off 
the two  types  of schemes  varies  from  one  Member 
State  to another  (e.g.,  the  UK's  supplementary  ben-
efits  scheme). 
No C 56/48 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 7. 3. 77 
2.6. Sub-sections  (a),  (b) and  (c) 
2.6.1.  As  regard  the  categories  and  groups  to be 
provided  for  and  the  risks  to be insured  against,  the 
Commission  representative  stated  that  sub-sections 
(a) and  (b) taken  together  would  extend  provision  of 
sickness  insurance,  retirement  pensions  and  family 
benefits  to the  entire  population  (and  also  invalidity 
insurance  in the case  of persons  carrying  on a gainful 
occupation). 
2.6.2.  Consideration  should  also  be given  to pro-
viding  invalidity  insurance  for  persons  mainly 
engaged  in unpaid  household  duties. 
2.7. Sub-section  (a),  subparagraph  1 2.9. Paragraph  beginning  'Finally' 
2.9.1.  For  greater  clarity,  and  so that  a sharp  distinc-
tion is made  between  the  notion  of 'category'  and 
'group',  the end  of the paragraph  should  read: 
'. ...  categories  of persons  listed  in point  (a) and 
the priority  groups  listed  in points  (b) and  (c).' 
2.9.2.  This  would  also  clarify  the distinction  between 
the part  of the  programme  which  is to be completed 
by 31 December  1980  (the  categories  listed  in point 
(a) and  the priority  groups  listed  in points  (b) and  (c)) 
and the  part  which  may  be implemented  over  a longer 
period  (categories  (b) and  (c) excluding  the  priority 
groups). 
2.10.  Last  paragraph 
2.7.1.  Although  Member  States'  laws  specify  which 
members  of an insured  person's  family  are  entitled 
to benefits,  it would  be better  to ibe specific  here  too: 
'1. To extend  to all such  categories  of persons,  as 
well as to dependent  members  oif their  family, 
in the event  of . . . (rest  unchanged). 
2.8. Sub-section  (b)  subparagraph  2 2.10.1.  In line  with  the remarks  made  in the 'general 
comments',  the  Committee  hopes  that  the  Member 
States  will  send  the  Commission  information  a:bout 
the action  they  are  taking  on the  recommendation 
as often  as possible,  and  at least  every  two  years. 
The information  ought  to be made  available  to the 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  so that  it can  follow 
the development  of social  protection  in the  Com-
munity  and  be in a position  to comment  on its con-
tent and  rate  of progress  and  advise  on the  sub-
sequent  steps  in the Community's  programme. 
2.8.1.  In view  of the  need  to differentiate  in the 
benefits  and  conditions  of entitlement  according  to 
the needs  and  resources  of 'beneficiaries  (see  'general 
comments'  above),  it would  be better  not  to lump 
together  people  who  cannot  carry  on a gainful  occu-
pation  (the  handicapped)  and  people  who  choose  not 
to do so (persons  mainly  engaged  in unpaid  house-
hold  duties). Done  at Brussels,  25 November  1976. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Basil  de FERRANTI 
7. 3. 77 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 56/49 
ANNEX 
to the  opinion  of the  Economic  and  Social  Committee 
The following  amendment  was  rejected: 
Paragraph  1.3.3. 
After  paragraph  1.3.3  insert  a new  1.3.4  reading  as follows: 
'1.3.4.  The  Committee  is aware  of the  difficulties  which  would  be posed  — at the present 
stage  of the extension  process,  and  in the context  of the recommendation  under  review  — by 
the adoption  of provisions  providing  for a Community  financial  contribution  for the measures 
proposed  by the Commission.  The  Committee  nevertheless  considers  that  such  a contribution 
should  not be ruled  out for the subsequent  stages  of extension.' 
Reasons 
It must  be possible  to consider  making  provision  for  Community  part-financing  — as an 
expression  of Community  solidarity  — when  preparing  subsequent  stages  of extension  of social 
protection. 
Voting 
For : 16, against:  39, abstentions  : 14. 
Opinion  on the first  annual  report  on the European  Regional  Development  Fund  1975 
and the  summary  analysis  of annual  information  1976 
The opinion  of the Committee  is not based  on any  published  text. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
At its 141st  plenary  session  held  on 29 and  30 September  1976  the Committee,  acting 
on a proposal  from  the Bureau,  decided  to deliver  an opinion  on the  abovementioned 
subject  on its own  initiative. 
B. OPINION  OF THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  prepared  its opinion  on the  above  matter  at its 
143rd  plenary  session,  hdld  in Brussels  on 24 and  25 November  1976. 
The full  text  of the opinion  is as follows: