28 May 1993

Doc. 6850

1403-25/5/93-1-E

Report

on European cultural co-operation

(Rapporteur: Mrs HAWLICEK,

Austria, SPÖ)


Summary

      The political changes in central and eastern Europe have had several consequences for European cultural co-operation as carried out in the Council of Europe.

      The nature of co-operation has changed, with assistance introduced alongside co-operation to help enable the new democratic states to catch up. New priorities have emerged, in particular in relation to cultural minorities and fundamental values. New working methods have to be introduced because of the extra countries involved.

      The role of the state is also changing as non-governmental forces play an increasingly important role in cultural activity. Governments should not however be allowed to abdicate their responsibilities. Their support is also needed for European cultural co-operation.

      The report analyses but prefers not to take up a dogmatic position on the controversial issues of European cultural identity and subsidiarity. It argues for the separation of cultural co-operation carried out on the basis of the European Cultural Convention (which should be broadened) and the normative or instrumental use of culture and education to promote democracy.

      Several priority areas are suggested for future activity. In general however the cultural vocation of the Council of Europe should be reaffirmed.

I. Draft recommendation

1.       Cultural co-operation along with the promotion of human rights and pluralist democracy are the basic areas of Council of Europe activity. Moreover cultural co-operation can itself help strengthen human rights and democracy.

2.       By "culture" is meant the quality of life and preparation for it. The field includes education, youth, sport, the media, leisure activities as well as the arts, literature, architecture and the cultural heritage.

3.       For the most part co-operation in this field is conducted on a multilateral basis under the European Cultural Convention, which by being open to non-member states now enables virtually the whole of the European continent to co-operate on equal terms. Canada has become a regular observer.

4.       The Assembly is closely involved in this activity through its representation on the various intergovernmental committees and on the Governing Board of the European Youth Centre and Foundation. This involvement, alongside that of the Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe, constitutes the interactive nature of cultural co-operation that is unique to the Council of Europe.

5.       The Council of Europe is not however the only institution involved in cultural co-operation in Europe. In addition to regional bodies such as the Nordic Council, the most significant are Unesco, OECD and, following ratification of the Maastricht Treaty, the European Community. There is a constant need to manage the co-ordination of this activity.

6.       The Committee on Culture and Education has regularly reported to the Assembly on European cultural co-operation, the last occasion being in 1988 and before the political changes in central and eastern Europe (see Doc. 5871 and Recommendation 1075).

7.       These changes have had several consequences. The first and most significant is that Europe has regained its historical dimension and has lost the artificial division between east and west.

8.       In terms of effectiveness however, increased numbers have reduced ease of communication and placed severe pressure on existing structures.

9.       Working methods have had to be modified. Assistance for central and eastern Europe has been introduced alongside cultural co-operation. While resisting direct funding of cultural or educational activities, the Council of Europe should nevertheless continue to adopt this more operational role. The extension of the initial Demosthenes programme through new activities such as Socrates (for the democratisation of education, culture and sport) can be welcomed.

10.       The crisis in the former Yugoslavia has revealed serious shortcomings in European capability to react decisively. Although the Council of Europe is not a humanitarian organisation, it has a technical capability and a moral obligation to make this available in many of the sectors affected (youth, education, media and cultural heritage).

11.       There is a problem of funding the participation of representatives of the new countries and of ensuring their contribution. This should be met at Council of Europe level and not left to the hospitality of individual member states. Although extenuating circumstances can be admitted, it is not acceptable that new countries should not pay their agreed contributions.

12.       Partly as a result of the changes in central and eastern Europe, partly in response to growing xenophobia and unemployment, a greater emphasis is now being placed on the situation of cultural minorities, on standards and on values. Alongside the traditional education system, greater emphasis is being placed on the roles of the family (whether one-parent or not), of religion (or non-religion) and of the community. The impact of the mass media is often singled out for criticism in this context.

13.       At a time of recession and when there is a general drift towards privatisation, governments should not abdicate their responsibilities for providing for educational opportunities and ensuring the right conditions for the full spectrum of cultural activity. This also applies to the funding of European cultural co-operation.

14.       The Council of Europe has now the occasion to assert its cultural vocation more forcibly. The Assembly can view with interest proposals for the normative use of culture and education to promote democracy that are under consideration as long as these are separate from activities conducted on the basis of the European Cultural Convention.

15.       Europe also has global cultural responsibilities. Development education is currently promoted by the North-South Centre in Lisbon. Cultural co-operation should be strengthened with neighbouring countries, for example around the Mediterranean and in eastern Europe.

16.       The Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers:

With regard to cultural co-operation in general

i.       reaffirm, for example at the coming meeting of Heads of State and Government in Vienna, the cultural vocation of the Council of Europe and the importance of multilateral co-operation on the basis of the existing European Cultural Convention and maintain resources appropriate to perceived needs;

ii.       invite the European Community to adhere to the European Cultural Convention;

iii.       consider ways of associating other interested non-European countries in co-operation under the convention;

iv.       continue to reinforce co-ordination with other organisations and in particular with Unesco, OECD and the CSCE;

With regard to specific sectors of cultural co-operation

v.       place special emphasis on activities relating to young people and on integrating them into intergovernmental activities in general;

vi.       implement its decision to set up a second European youth centre in central or eastern Europe and to develop a network of national and regional youth centres;

vii.       continue to seek ways of promoting the diversity of cultural creativity and of reinforcing this, for example through support for literary translation or for the distribution of cinematographic works;

viii.       reassert the role of the state and the public authorities at all levels in the provision of educational opportunities and of conditions for cultural activity, while also extending co-operation with the other partners in cultural life: the teachers and creative artists, the journalists, the sponsors and the commercial sector in general;

ix.       insist on a greater responsibility of the media, in particular for the quality and ethical standard of their products;

x.       develop new ways and incentives for funding cultural activities in Europe;

xi.       show greater interest in and support for the European Museum of the Year Award scheme;

With regard to central and eastern Europe

xii.       continue its programmes of technical assistance and co-operation with central and eastern Europe and initiate confidence building measures in areas of tension and notably in the former Yugoslavia;

xiii.       encourage a closer co-ordination of intergovernmental and Assembly activities along the lines of the joint consultative meetings on sports legislation (Order No. 479);

With regard to the introduction of normative activity

xiv.       consider favourably proposals for the introduction of forms of cultural and educational activity for the promotion of democracy and human rights, while maintaining a distinction between this activity and that carried out on the basis of the European Cultural Convention and while avoiding the questionable notion of European cultural identity;

With regard to the dissemination of results

xv.       pay greater attention to the dissemination of the results of Council of Europe activity, through the co-ordination of subject mailing lists, the development of national information centres and the wider translation of key documents;

xvi.       provide assistance for the better reporting on Council of Europe activities in national parliaments.

II. Explanatory memorandum

by Mrs HAWLICEK

Introduction

1.       The reconciliation of Europe and the endeavour to establish democracy in its former communist countries have brought an uncertainty and instability to the field of European cultural co-operation. The last Assembly report on this subject was in 1988, before the political changes began in central and eastern Europe (see Doc. 5871 and Recommendation 1075). The problems addressed by that report remain. To them have been added those of including the rest of Europe — countries with no prior notion of democracy and countries at war.

2.       This dilemma prompted the Committee of Ministers to call (in March 1992) for a "study of the future orientations of cultural co-operation in Europe". It has led to a thorough review of the Council for Cultural Co-operation (CDCC) including a general policy debate (January 1993) on the future orientations of cultural co-operation in Europe in which the President of the Assembly, the Secretary General, the Chairman of the Ministers' Deputies and the Chairman of their Rapporteur Group on Education, Culture and Sport took part.

3.       For structural reasons this exercise has not however so far covered such sectors as youth, sport and the media — sectors which the Assembly at least would wish to see included in any consideration of European cultural co-operation. Nor has it extended to the Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe (CLRAE) or until the present debate to the Assembly. The voices of local authorities and of parliaments have still to be expressed.

4.       The importance of this discussion is underscored by the planned meeting of Heads of State and Government in Vienna in October. This first Council of Europe summit should be an occasion to reaffirm the central place of cultural co-operation in the organisation's activity.

5.       Without contesting this position, there are however certain basic problems in cultural co-operation that the present report will attempt to identify and reconcile. In many cases these problems are shared with other areas of Council of Europe activity.

Issues

The implications of the political changes in Europe

6.       The political changes in central and eastern Europe have led to an immediate rise in the numbers of states participating in European cultural co-operation on the basis of the European Cultural Convention. The rise has been dramatic — to around forty states by this summer.

7.       The first consequence has been to regain a truly pan-European dimension without the artificial ideological east-west divide. This has a particular significance in cultural terms.

8.       With regard to working methods, co-operation has however become more unwieldy. Participants in a ministerial conference have difficulty in sitting round a single table and still less opportunity to express themselves. Expenses go up and impact is more thinly spread. Communication becomes more difficult. The result is an understandable tendency to prefer partial agreements (such as the Eurimages fund for the co-production and distribution of cinematographic works) or variable-geometry programmes. The generalisation of this process should however be resisted as the essence should be multilateral co-operation and not the subdivision of Europe.

9.       The nature of co-operation has changed. In order to help enable the new participating states to catch up, assistance has had to be introduced alongside co-operation. The Council of Europe has been adopting an increasingly operational role in running training programmes for democratic government in central and eastern Europe, for training youth leaders and cultural administrators, or for legislation (a good example is that of the field of higher education) and this is now being extended to the democratisation of education, culture and sport (Socrates).

10.       In one case, that of education in Albania, the Council of Europe has gone further in co-ordinating an educational programme; but this remains exceptional. The Council of Europe is not a humanitarian organisation and lacks the structures for such activity. On the other hand it does have a technical capability, it does have close contacts with experts in member states, and has therefore a moral obligation to make this available where it is needed and to initiate confidence-building measures in areas of tension. We have heard proposals for the Council of Europe to provide "blue helmet" in the areas of cultural heritage and media.

11.       One problem that arises is that of funding the participation of the new countries from central and eastern Europe. This should be met at Council of Europe level and not left to the hospitality of individual host countries which has lead to criticism of bought votes at ministerial conferences.

12.       Another difficulty is the financial contribution these countries should make to the funds from which European cultural co-operation is financed. Extenuating circumstances can be admitted, but only to a certain point. The scale of contributions is relatively minimal in comparison with the gains from participating on what is supposed to be an equal basis with other European countries. It would appear that Russia, by far the largest of the new countries, has not made any contribution since adhering to the European Cultural Convention. This is not acceptable.

13.       Emphasis on the situation in the new participating countries of central and eastern Europe should not obscure the fact that Europe also has global responsibilities. Development education is currently promoted by the North-South Centre in Lisbon. Cultural co-operation should be strengthened with neighbouring countries, for example around the Mediterranean and in eastern Europe.

14.       The new membership has brought new priorities to European cultural co-operation and in particular the problems of national minorities, which was not so significant in the west. With growing xenophobia and unemployment a new emphasis is being placed on standards and fundamental values rather than on the more technical aspects of education and culture.

The changed role of the state

15.       Cultural behaviour and practices have changed. The protagonists of cultural life are no longer the same: in addition to national governments there are now towns, regions, NGOs networks, sponsors and the mass media that have emerged as active players in cultural affairs.

16.       The state is therefore confronted with the need to redefine its role as regards protection of the cultural heritage, preservation of cultural values, stimulation of cultural life, cultural creativity and cultural exchange.

17.       At a time of recession and when there is a general drift towards privatisation, governments should not however be allowed to abdicate their responsibilities for providing for educational opportunities and ensuring the right conditions for the full spectrum of cultural activity. It is particularly important to stress the continuing responsibility of the public authorities in the former totalitarian countries of central and eastern Europe. Too often the tendency has been to switch from the one extreme of total state control to the other extreme of a totally free market economy. This has occurred in the mass media sector and it has proved especially damaging for the arts; it applies to all sectors however (sport, libraries etc.). Public funding of culture (at central and local levels) remains necessary both in the transition to democracy and subsequently.

18.       These considerations also apply to the funding of European cultural co-operation.

European cultural identity

19.       This term is the subject of a resolution of the Committee of Ministers (Resolution (85) 6) that was largely concerned with the extension of cultural co-operation into central and eastern Europe. It is however far from clear what the term might mean. In a historical sense it would include much of what has been exported from Europe to the African, American and Australian continents, and in present-day terms it is a total mixture of cultures from all over the world. One tangible definition of the term "European" is the geographical (and even that is not yet clear), but is that satisfactory for cultural co-operation?

20.       One obvious solution to this conundrum is to define Europe as one would like it. This is what the "European" Community has done and with the result of dividing Europe into two. Another, wiser approach is to leave the question open and avoid defining Europe. To a certain extent this is already the approach of the European Cultural Convention on which the Council of Europe's activities in this field are based. It has been open to European non-member states and has proved (and is still proving) to be a means whereby states can approach and adjust to full membership. Canada has become a regular participating observer. Other non-European countries, such as Israel, might be similarly interested. A protocol might be added to the convention enabling association on a formal basis of interested non-European countries.

European cultural co-operation, promotion of Europe or promotion of democracy

21.       This is a related issue and one on which Assembly opinion, to judge from discussion in the Committee on Culture and Education, is very much divided.

22.       On the one hand there is the traditional view that cultural co-operation is an end in itself and should not be used as a means to other ends, whether economic (education is more than vocational training) or political (culture should be divorced from promotion of an organisation or political principle). This view is linked to belief in certain values such as freedom of expression and human rights but should be carefully separated from the promotion of these values.

23.       The Council of Europe, still according to this view, should provide a framework for co-operation in line with its statutory objective of "greater unity" but on the basis of the European Cultural Convention, which is not limited to member states. Cultural co-operation is a means of people living together peacefully and understanding their differences. It is a means of preserving the diversity of the cultural heritage. Projects should be devised to meet real problems.

24.       Others argue that the moment has come to relaunch the idea of Europe and that cultural identity has a vital place in "closer European union". They insist on elements common to European culture as a whole. They call for a new inspiration and a new enthusiasm for Europe to counter xenophobia and narrow nationalism. Projects should be aimed at promoting awareness of a common destiny in a spirit of solidarity.

25.       A more political approach emerged from statements made at the outset of the CDCC general policy debate in January this year. The Secretary General believed that the role of cultural co-operation is to contribute to "democratic security" and unveiled a proposal for a European Foundation for the support of culture in the service of democracy, and the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers' Rapporteur Group wished to concentrate on the instrumental character of culture "for our other aims". Both the Director and the Chairman of the CDCC reacted that culture should not become a tool of democracy and human rights.

26.       These issues should be kept separate. While there is no denying the new circumstances of Europe and the need to adjust European cultural co-operation to meet the new needs, it would seem unrealistic to suppose that the moment has now come to opt categorically for a united Europe approach. Cultural diversity is too important a characteristic of Europe. There are differences moreover between the cultural and political agendas, just as there are differences between the framework of the Cultural Convention and that of the member states of the Council of Europe. This does not however rule out the possibility of a common European approach in certain areas, nor does it mean that cultural co-operation cannot also (and importantly) strengthen human rights and democracy. It is more difficult however for the Council of Europe to give much credence to the notion of promoting European cultural identity.

The European Community and subsidiarity

27.       The European Community is very active in the cultural field in Europe. Its competence has so far been formally based on economic and social grounds, but this has not prevented it from control, for example, of the media (as a consumer service) or sport (either to promote the European Community or to safeguard the professional mobility of footballers), nor from intervening in central and eastern Europe (TEMPUS) and the Third World (Lomé). The Community has considerable funds available for the direct promotion of cultural activities. Finally, the European Community runs meetings of specialised ministers (education, culture, youth and sport) and its own programme of intergovernmental co-operation. With the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty on European Union it will also have a mandate for this activity.

28.       This mandate should include concertation with the Council of Europe (Articles 126.3 and 128.3 of Maastricht).

29.       Much could be said on the duplication of effort in the European Community and the Council of Europe in the cultural field. The point to be made here is the considerable extent to which this duplication could be reduced by the European Community joining other member states under the umbrella of the European Cultural Convention. The question of subsidiarity (or competence between Brussels and the European Community member states) would then be no longer a bone of contention between the Council of Europe and the European Community.

30.       The problem with "subsidiarity" is also who should determine it. In a recent recommendation of 13 March 1993, the Interparliamentary Council of Benelux called for a detailed report on the application of subsidiarity to culture. It insisted on guarantees for cultural diversity while rejecting any harmonisation of cultural policies.

Other international organisations active in the field

31.       A clearer working relationship has also to be established with Unesco (does the Council of Europe now constitute its European Region?) and with OECD (which gives only low priority to education and culture in the annual Assembly debates on its activities). Co-operation with the newly established CSCE has begun well, with the organisation of a seminar on education in the coming autumn entrusted to the Council of Europe.

32.       The relationship with the non-governmental organisations (NGOs) has also to be constantly pursued. These are the eyes, ears and spokespeople of the Council of Europe. Their importance should never be underestimated. Personnel changes are constantly occurring at both ends of the age spectrum and contacts have to be renewed (for example CENYC or Europa Nostra).

33.       The Council of Europe does not have a satisfactory means of relating to with NGOs. It lacks staff to deal with enquiries and maintain contacts. This is very much also the case of the secretariat of the Committee on Culture and Education.

Information and publicity

34.       A chronic problem for the Council of Europe is the dissemination of the results of its work. Meetings occur and a report is produced, but unless this report is "mediatised" the result is no more than a memory in the minds of the privileged few who participated. Even resolutions of the Committee of Ministers are only very rarely given general distribution.

35.       This comment applies of course to all sectors of Council of Europe activity. In the cultural sector, as in other sectors, the Council of Europe serves no purpose unless it is enabled to communicate.

36.       Communication should begin within the organisation itself. The Assembly in principle participates in all intergovernmental activities in the cultural sector. It has access to the steering committees, follows the conferences of specialised ministers and is frequently represented in technical meetings. Not only is such representation difficult to arrange; its effectiveness is largely limited to the few involved. In this context we can very much welcome President Martinez' suggestion that contacts be made in national capitals between Assembly members and intergovernmental representatives on the CDCC and its component committees. Other measures should be envisaged: for example requiring representatives to submit brief written reports on meetings they have attended (a practice that has seen some success in the CLRAE but which has yet to be implemented in the Assembly).

37.       One idea was to include in the present report a succinct summary of the Council of Europe's contribution to European cultural co-operation and draw up comparative lists with other organisations. The field is however extremely extensive and the problems of selection make summarising haphazard and misleading. Reference can moreover be made to the addendum to the preliminary study on future orientations of cultural co-operation in Europe (Chapter 7 contains a comparative table) and to the Intergovernmental Programme of Activities for 1993 (MEP (93) 2).

38.       The Committee of Ministers should also pay greater attention to the dissemination to the wider public of the results of Council of Europe activity, through the co-ordination of subject mailing lists, the development of national information centres and the wider translation of key documents.

Survey of specific areas

39.       This general report is not an appropriate vehicle for introducing new recommendations in specific areas. There are however certain Assembly concerns that it would be reasonable to mention.

40.       Youth: The Assembly has frequently stressed the importance of encouraging young people to participate in democratic life. The Council of Europe contribute directly to this process by integrating them more fully into intergovernmental activities in general. The danger of isolation as a result of setting up a separate youth sector has been pointed out. Structures for contacting young people and helping the development of representative bodies in central or eastern Europe have to be reinforced; the Committee of Ministers has still to implement its decision (that was supported by the Assembly) to set up a second European youth centre in central and eastern Europe and to develop a network of national and regional youth centres. For its part the Assembly is continuing the series of round tables with youth representatives and will be holding debates on youth questions every two years (Order No. 480).

41.       Mass media: The Assembly's main concerns regarding the mass media continue to relate to standards, content and ethics. In a world where more people watch television than read, the power of the visual image is enormous. There is a need for a new visual literacy, and for a greater responsibility of the media, in particular for the quality of their products. Very similar concerns are to be found in the activities of the Steering Committee on the Mass Media (CDMM).

42.       Cinema: The Assembly has shown considerable interest in European cinema (Recommendations 862, 1098, 1138). We can therefore welcome the reinforcing of this sector in the CDCC's programme and hope to be associated with the Council of Europe's contribution to the centenary of the cinema in 1995.

43.       Sport: The Assembly has recently given its support to the new European Sports Charter and Code of Ethics. It is pressing alongside the Committee for the Development of Sport (CDDS) for a new deal in responsibilities for sport in central and eastern Europe following the collapse of the centralised national structures. A first joint consultative meeting on sports legislation was held in Prague (31 March-1 April).

44.       Funding of culture: The funding of cultural activities in Europe is a chronic problem. It is especially difficult for activities of a European nature (involving several countries). At present this is met on an ad hoc basis (for example — fund based on a partial agreement; European Community or European Cultural Foundation grants; network of national bases; or as most often the headache of constant fund-raising). The European Community's ill-fated European Foundation offered no greater security. The Assembly would hope to see more attention given to its proposal for a European convention to encourage sponsorship by offering fiscal incentives for support given to approved European ventures (Recommendation 1059 of 1987 para 16.v).

45.       Cultural heritage: The Assembly has begun a series of studies of the situation in central and eastern Europe. More recently its attention has been focused on the destruction of the cultural heritage by the war in the former Yugoslavia. The responsible intergovernmental committee (CC-PAT) has not yet made a significant response. As reactions to the Assembly's initiatives in former Yugoslavia and earlier in Cyprus have shown, heritage and war propaganda is a difficult area and the ethical issues need to be further explored. The Assembly should also give consideration to the extent of its operational involvement and the role of the General Rapporteur.

46.       Museums: The Assembly continues its close association with the European Museum of the Year Award. Although this scheme is under the official auspices of the Committee of Ministers, it is to be regretted that so little attention and support is given to it by the CDCC. In concentrating on innovations and on the smaller museums of Europe, the scheme in fact nicely complements the series of major European art exhibitions.

47.       Literary translation: Concerned in particular with the problem of access to literature written in lesser used world languages, the Assembly has advocated Council of Europe support for literary translation (Recommendation 1135); it has also urged the more general promotion of literature (Recommendation 1043). The CDCC activity that combines the promotion of books, reading and translation can therefore be welcomed.

48.       Education: The main priorities in the field of educational co-operation include modern language learning, preparation for life (and not just vocational training), attention to the arts and to manual skills, preparation above all for life in a democratic society. The Assembly is currently concerned with sex equality in education and with the European dimension, in particular in the teaching of history; a general review of the situation of university education is in preparation.

49.       Society: More generally the Assembly has been focusing its attention on the nature of society, on the problems of minorities and on the relationship between the state and religion, on violence and xenophobia, on tolerance. This debate parallels the major intergovernmental interdisciplinary project on human rights and genuine democracy.

The role of the Assembly

50.       The Assembly is a privileged partner in European cultural co-operation and it should continue to play an active role.

51.       It is represented in all the fields involved and can interact directly as well as formally through the Committee of Ministers. This means that Assembly interests can be effectively followed up. Despite the bureaucratic obstacles to programming on such a broad scale, a remarkable degree of Assembly recommendations are in fact implemented. The extent to which the Assembly is in practice able to follow the intergovernmental activities involved is however limited by the obligations on members in their national parliaments and the secretariat available.

52.       A question arises as to how far the Assembly should itself take on operational activities. Examples already mentioned in the cultural field are the General Rapporteur on the Architectural and Artistic Heritage and co-ordination of action for the cultural heritage in the former Yugoslavia. There should also be a possibility of closer co-ordination of intergovernmental and Assembly activity with regard to central and eastern Europe without either side being limited.

53.       The Assembly Committee on Culture and Education should increase its contacts with the sister committee of the European Parliament.

54.       As the Assembly is composed of members of national parliaments it also has the obligation of informing parliaments on the Council of Europe's activities. Unfortunately this is far from being the case. Again it is largely a matter of resources.

      Reporting committee: Committee on Culture and Education.

      Budgetary implications for the Assembly: none.

      Reference to the committee: Recommendation 1075 (1988).

      Draft recommendation unanimously adopted by the committee on 12 May 1993.

      Members of the Committee: Mrs Fischer (Chairman), Mr de Puig (Alternate: Nuñez), Sir Russell Johnston (Vice-Chairmen), MM. Alegre, Arnalds, Bauer (Alternate: F. Probst), Bell (Alternate: Kitt), Berg, Berti, Bonnici, Bratinka, Cem, Deniau, Decagny, Mrs Err, Mr Ferrari (Alternate: Caldoro), Mrs Fleeetwood, MM. Galanos (Alternate: Hadjidemetriou), Gül, Mrs Guourova, Mrs Hawlicek, Baroness Hooper, Kalos, Baroness Lockwood, MM. Lopez Henares (Alternate: Roman), Malachowski, Mesoraca, Monfils, Muehlemann, Müller, Pahtas, Mrs Persson, Mr Pilarski, Mrs Robert, Mr Roseta, Mrs Ryynänen, MM. Schädler, Schmidt, Schreiner, Seeuws, Soell (Alternate: Mrs Terborg), Ms Szelenyi, MM. Tatarella (Alternate: P. Caccia), Tummers, Verbeek.

      N.B.       The names of those who took part in the vote are printed in italics.

      Secretaries to the committee: MM. Grayson and Ary.