JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS debate -
Tuesday, 9 Feb 2010

Role and Functions: Discussion with Fundamental Rights Agency.

Chairman

We have a very distinguished group of guests, all of whom are welcome to participate. Following our normal procedure, an introductory address will be given by Ms Anastasia Crickley, who is well known in the area of fundamental rights. Members have been given a briefing note on her history. Ms Crickley is a former chairperson of the Fundamental Rights Agency. It is a little like politics, where one is present one moment and gone the next. However, this does not necessarily mean that one disappears. Ms Crickley is now a member of the management board of the Fundamental Rights Agency.

I draw members' and delegates' attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but this does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are also reminded of the parliamentary practice that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person outside the House or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite Ms Anastasia Crickley to make her presentation.

Ms Anastasia Crickley

I thank you, Chairman, and the committee for facilitating this meeting. During my term as chair of the Fundamental Rights Agency I was anxious to have the opportunity to brief the committee on the work of the agency. However, this meeting comes after the end of my tenure. In any event, I am very glad to be here.

I will explain the context in which the FRA operates and I will talk about the beginnings and history of the agency. I will also talk briefly about its work and the issues and challenges faced by such an agency as part of the changing European architecture at present and I will close with some conclusions of my own.

These are challenging times for the Fundamental Rights Agency and for the European Union. We Europeans live in a much less western dominated world, whether we like it or not. We live in a Europe many of whose residents are not citizens while many who are citizens resent the colonial powers who controlled the European context for centuries. Some of the actions taken as a consequence of that resentment are not ones any of us would wish to support. However, there is a number of issues to be dealt with. We continue to talk about Muslims in Europe, as if they were not part of the architecture of Europe for the past 500 years. We have been very slow to come to terms with shifting power relations and a less dominant Europe, albeit a Europe which is informed by the values of cohesion and solidarity which are at the core of the European Union project and with which members of the committee are familiar. For too many people in Europe, as our EU survey on discrimination shows, realising rights remains a dream and discrimination is much more the everyday reality.

It was in the frame of supporting people in Europe to achieve and realise their fundamental rights that the Fundamental Rights Agency came into existence in the middle of February 2007. The agency builds on the work of the European Monitoring Centre for Racism and Xenophobia, which I had the honour to chair. That centre came about as a consequence of the rise in racism in Europe at the beginning of the 1990s. Some were surprised when it was proposed that the monitoring centre be transformed into a fundamental rights agency. However, the European project of developing a fundamental rights agency had been at the heart of EU thinking long before the monitoring centre for racism and xenophobia was developed. The project to develop the Fundamental Rights Agency was part of the longer-term concern.

The Fundamental Rights Agency built very significantly on the work of the monitoring centre against racism. A key concern of many of us who had been involved in addressing racism in Europe was to make sure that racism remained significantly on the agenda. That is very much the case. The founding regulation for the agency makes it clear that racism must always be one of the issues considered by it. However, it is not merely an agency which builds a few extra items on to an agenda which was already concerned with addressing racism. On the other hand, it is not merely an agency which brings together the work of the national human rights institutions. It attempts to do a rather challenging and more difficult task. On the one hand it seeks to create a climate in which rights can be achieved and realised, moving access to rights along a scale of 0 to 10. At the same time it attempts to address the situations where rights have been denied.

In that context, the agency has a very particular remit. First, it was brought about as the result of a negotiation which took place among the member states and is specifically concerned with supporting the member states and the EU institutions when implementing or considering community law in the area of fundamental rights. In a nutshell, our concern is to offer evidence-based and policy relevant advice, assistance and expertise relating to fundamental rights when implementing or considering community law in the European Union.

Our structure consists of a management board made up of an independent expert from each of the 27 member states. At this point, I commend the Government, which was responsible for my appointment, on the fact that I have always been able to operate independently in that capacity. While members of the board are nominated by member states our function is not to represent a member state on the management board, rather to act as an independent expert and to support the board in carrying out its function of co-ordinating and developing the work programme within a multi-annual framework. The work of the agency is guided by a multi-annual framework which was laid out by the Council of Ministers and agreed for a five year term. If members look at the briefing note which I produced for them they will see that the framework is, to some extent, as broad as it is long and facilitates the agency to do work on a variety of issues.

Each year a work programme is put together which reflects the type of tasks the agency has been given to undertake. Chief among those tasks is the collection of data. One of the difficulties identified by the EU monitoring centre was the lack of reliable comparable and objective data on which to build useful policies to address racism and discrimination. It is not only in the area of racism and discrimination that there is a lack of reliable comparable and objective data. Across the board, there is a lack of that sort of data on fundamental rights issues. That is one of the things the agency is working to develop. I am proud to say that, over the years, considerable progress has been made in this regard. We collect data, undertake research and work to raise awareness of the issues on which we are working. There is not much point in doing research and collecting data if there is very little awareness of this work among the EU institutions and the member states.

A particular concern of ours has been to work in co-operation with the Council of Europe. When the Fundamental Rights Agency was proposed, as some members will know, there was some nervousness in the Council of Europe with regard to why such an agency would be considered when the Council of Europe already had a remit in the area of human rights. There is, unfortunately, plenty of work for all of us who are concerned to address inequalities and promote fundamental and human rights in Europe. There is more than enough work for the Council of Europe and the European Union in this area. Besides, the remit of the Fundamental Rights Agency is very different from that of the Council of Europe. For example, there is no possibility of direct individual redress from the Fundamental Rights Agency. Most of our work is in the area of research, data collection and evidence based advice. Neither do we have a court such as that associated with the Council of Europe, the European Court on Human Rights.

Co-operation with the Council of Europe occurs at every level, operational and institutional. Once a year, the director and chair of the Fundamental Rights Agency visit the Council of Europe to meet the Committee of Ministers, report on the work that has been done and engage in high-level discussions. A good example of this type of co-operation is a joint project that has been undertaken by the Fundamental Rights Agency and the European Court of Human Rights. The goal of this project is to bring together case law and put it in a form which will make it accessible to judges and those concerned with jurisprudence across all the member states of the European Union.

In recent years, the agency has undertaken studies in a variety of areas. In the Irish context, Philip Watt, who is with us today, was directly involved in helping to collect and collate research information relating to Ireland. We undertook a major study on European minorities and discrimination. This was the first occasion on which such a study was undertaken in the European Union. For this study, 23,500 people from minorities were interviewed about their experiences of discrimination. The study was unique in the context of the numbers that were interviewed, on one hand, and the approach that was used, on the other. Instead of only seeking official statistics or asking questions of experts in the field, those who might be identified as experiencing discrimination were asked for their perceptions and understandings of their realities.

The report relating to this study has been widely used since it was published last year. More elements of it will be published later this year. In the report produced by this committee — in respect of which Senator Leyden was rapporteur — some of its findings are cited. Members will be aware that among those findings are very alarming concerns regarding the level of discrimination experienced by Roma, Sinti and Travellers throughout the European Union. A matter of considerable concern is the extent to which people from minorities are of the view that they experience discrimination. Over 50% of those interviewed indicated that they had experienced discrimination at least once in the past year. More than 50% of those interviewed stated that they did not know where to go in order to obtain redress in respect of discrimination or having their rights abused. Even if they did know where to go, they were not very confident that anything would be done about it. Statistics of this nature are of major concern to those of us with an interest in progressing the European project.

The European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, EUMC, undertook a major study on anti-Semitism in Europe, the first such study to be undertaken. Since then, the Fundamental Rights Agency has been involved in education programmes relating to the Holocaust and recently published a report on the role of historical sites and museums in Holocaust education and, more broadly, in human rights education throughout the EU.

Research is ongoing in a number of areas. These include a proposal that in 2011 the agency should undertake a major study somewhat similar to that relating to discrimination in the area of violence against women. The Fundamental Rights Agency will co-operate with the newly-established Gender Institute, which will be based in Vilnius, in respect of that study. The current proposal is that the study will be undertaken in the same way as the EU-MIDIS study was undertaken, namely, that it will attempt to reflect the experiences of women who have been the victims of violence.

Other work that is ongoing is that relating to protecting and promoting within the European Union the rights of those with mental illness or people who are mentally disabled. We are also compiling a study on the situation relating to irregular immigrants within the Union. I will be happy to answer questions in respect of any or all of these matters during the question and answer session.

I wish now to refer to issues and challenges. Before the Lisbon treaty finally came into force in December, a number of people would have inquired about its immediate implications for the work of the Fundamental Rights Agency. The first answer one must give is that there are not really any direct, immediate implications for its work. A multi-annual framework is already in place and it is anticipated that this will remain in place until 2012. There are, however, some general implications. For example, the new EU Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship, proposes to consider better co-operation among the various European court systems and to invite the Fundamental Rights Agency to advise her on that project.

The Fundamental Rights Agency does not have a direct remit to offer opinions, except on the basis of the work programme and research it has undertaken, or unless it has been invited to do so by the institutions of the European Union or by a member state. A member state which is interested in having the Fundamental Rights Agency undertake a project can make a request to it. The agency can then consider such a project and include it in the work it undertakes. However, such a project must relate to European Union law and its implementation.

Dealing with the expectations of EU citizens is a major challenge for the Fundamental Rights Agency, particularly in the context of the Lisbon treaty and its coming into force. Everyone aspires to those expectations being realised. One such expectation is that the coming into force of the Lisbon treaty will somehow facilitate a move towards a situation where fundamental rights will be realised for all who are part of Europe, whether citizens or people who live here. The challenge for the agency is to manage that expectation and support its realisation. However, the agency must also make clear the limitations its remit places on the work it can do in bringing about such a realisation.

I have always been slow to indicate the implications of the work of the agency for Ireland. However, the reports the agency has carried out and the research that has been undertaken quite clearly indicate that there is not too much room for complacency in this country in respect of the issues with which the agency has dealt. Almost 70% of those interviewed for the EU-MIDIS study stated that they believed they had experienced discrimination in Ireland. Overall, Ireland comes approximately mid-table in the context of the findings of these reports. We have a number of problems which need to be addressed. These are significantly labelled in all of the reports that have been undertaken. In the Irish context, one of the areas where more consideration is required is that which relates to data collection. Ireland is not alone nor does it possess the worst record in this regard. However, if disaggregated data which clearly indicates which minorities are experiencing discrimination is not collected, it is difficult for those who provide services or develop policies and legislation to do so in a way which is coherent and which allows them to respond to the needs of the people involved.

In the area of implementation, Ireland and a number of other countries risk not being in a position to implement a number of the recommendations that have been made. When reporting on Ireland during the past decade, it was clear that the Government had put in place the European Union legislation required in the area of discrimination and racism and also a number of instruments, namely, the Human Rights Commission and the Equality Authority, to promote the development of human rights. Cutbacks in respect of the latter and the abolition of the National Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism, which I used to chair, means that in the context of implementation, which the Fundamental Rights Agency identifies as a key area in all of its reports, Ireland and a number of other countries will be severely challenged.

Deputy Joe Costello

I thank Ms Crickley and her colleagues for coming before the joint committee. I compliment Ms Crickley on her track record in the field of human rights, racism and xenophobia. She chaired the National Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism, and I would like her to revert to its status when responding. She is the chairperson of the Fundamental Rights Agency in the European Union. That is a singular achievement.

I understand the function of the Fundamental Rights Agency is to give advice to the Community when implementing Community law. How does this operate in practice? Is it Ms Crickley's role to examine the proposals drawn up by the Commission and proof them in terms of fundamental rights? Does she have a retrospective function on how member states implement various directives? In this committee we are particularly concerned about the implementation of human rights and the resourcing of human rights' bodies in this country, in particular the degree to which the resources of the Equality Authority were sharply cut in the previous budget. Does Ms Crickley have a role in drawing attention to the Government of a member state that is not providing the necessary resources to carry out its statutory functions in ensuring the monitoring and implementation of human rights?

The situation in the Middle East comes up for discussion from time to time. We have been looking at the preferential trade agreement that operates with Israel. I note that Ms Crickley referred to having the opportunity to bring countries into the loop with which there is an association or agreement. We have expressed grave concern that a condition in virtually all the trade agreements that the European Union enters into is that international law and human rights are respected and the country with which that agreement is made, in particular a preferential agreement, is in compliance with fundamental human rights. We have a difficulty with this. I wonder if Ms Crickley has a role in monitoring trade and other agreements that have an in-built condition that the European Union requires that human rights be part and parcel of that agreement?

It would be well worthwhile if the Charter of Fundamental Rights for the European Union was extracted as a document and presented by the Fundamental Rights Agency with an introduction, explanation, glossary and with some indication as to its application and published as a handbook for citizens in general but certainly for those people operating in the area of human rights.

Senator Paschal Donohoe

I thank the delegation for coming before the committee. My first question is on the status of using rights based approaches when having policy or political discussions, particularly in the context of the worldwide recession and the economic depression in Ireland. I notice an increase in the expression of exhaustion when people raise the issue of human rights. Does the delegation notice something similar? At a time when one cannot get money to do anything, when somebody comes to talk to me about their rights, I find it is increasingly difficult to handle. Does the delegation notice a similar level of fatigue or is it the case that the time for a rights based approach is during a time of scarcity, because at such a time, one can take shortcuts and make U-turns that are the wrong thing in the long-term?

During the debate on the Lisbon treaty, there was phenomenal discussion on the charter for fundamental human rights, and it was asserted by some that it was a Trojan horse, in which European legislation would undermine the ability of national governments to make their own decisions and the courts to make their own decisions. To what degree, if any, has the operation of the Fundamental Rights Agency been altered by the passage of the Lisbon treaty and its associated documents?

Ms Crickley referred to the limits on her work, for example inequalities in access to health services, and her contribution was a comment on the HSE plan. In relation to discrimination, it was a comment on what nation states are doing. Is that the limit of the action that Ms Crickley is able to take or are other tools available if she feels something is being undermined?

Chairman

The points raised in the presentation are of significant importance at any time, particularly at a time of recession. When times are good, there is a tendency for everybody to get on with business and less emphasis is placed on who has rights etc. and the presumption is that there are greater rights. At times of recession, people look at each other. Public representatives have first-hand experience of the situations that Ms Crickley described in her annual report. We think it is worthwhile that Ms Crickley has documented these issues. It is important that public representatives know how to deal with situations as they arise, because it is very easy to run with the majority, but I am happy to say the tendency is not to do so. Senator Terry Leyden produced a report for the committee which showed a fair amount of discrimination against the Roma community.

Looking at the various charts in the annual report, some countries that claim to have a good reputation in this area do not have an entirely clean sheet. Deputy Costello asked a question about the Middle East and, as part of this committee's work programme, which tracks that of the European Commission, we visited that area last summer. There is a relationship between the EU and Israel but serious issues have arisen relating to imprisonment, long periods of detention without trial and kidnapping. Other serious issues involve the deportation of immigrants from this country, particularly women, some of whom have been treated horrendously. For example, children may be separated from their mother and returned to their homeland. We deal with these matters by tabling a question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and this exercise very quickly provides a picture of the general situation prevailing in the country to which these people are being deported. A particular problem in this regard is female genital mutilation, which is quite common. I am interested in the extent to which the FRA might be able to highlight such issues because they are important for the joint committee.

Of all the races on the face of the earth the Irish have been the most alert to breaches in human rights or discrimination of any kind because we have been a transient population and have emigrated all over the world. We have always objected to discrimination and are fair minded about it. I invite Ms Crickley and her colleagues to make her final remarks.

Ms Anastasia Crickley

A number of the questions remind me of the fact that the Fundamental Rights Agencies is not a civil society organisation nor part of the European Commission or the Civil Service. We have an explicit remit for the implementation or consideration of Community law. We walk on a tightrope and it is very important that we stay on it so that the advice we offer continues to be relevant. The regulation under which we work was drawn up by Ministers of member states. There was a huge debate about the role of the agency vis-à-vis states other than those which are member states of the European Union. In the end, and much to the concern of a number of human rights organisations, it was decided that our remit should be confined to the member states and, under very particular circumstances, candidate states and those others with which there was an association agreement. As chair, I felt that was a little bit unfortunate but that it was important to do the work as well as we could in that context.

In the five years of the multi-annual framework it will be important to encourage member states to propose how best the agency's powers and remit might be developed. My answer to Deputy Costello and Senator Donohoe falls into this category. The agency does not have the right to monitor legislation in advance, in the way the human rights commissions of some member states do. However, the Stockholm programme calls for consultation with, and involvement of, the agency so it is possible for it to be involved and I hope it will become part of the modus operandi.

The role of the agency is to comment on the implementation of community legislation rather than to monitor it. The Commission already has the infrastructure and various instruments to monitor the implementation of equality legislation and hold countries responsible for their obligations in this regard. The role of the agency is to collect comparable research data on how and to what extent the various instruments are being implemented in the member states.

Another question was on infrastructure. Our remit is over community law but subsidiarity clearly operates in this field so it is not our job to comment on how any member state goes about its business. Nor is it our job to complain unless something is brought to our attention. One such case was after the bombings in London and Madrid, when we undertook a emergency report to look at the implications of the bombs for minorities living in those and other countries. We do not have a direct remit over national infrastructure but where serious incidents happen we will comment on the implications for the most vulnerable people involved by preparing a rapid response report within a few months.

We have not been invited to comment on the question of preferential trade agreements with countries in the Middle East. Our remit is explicitly limited to the 27 member states. We bring in candidate countries, or those with which there is an association agreement, by involving them in the studies being undertaken by the Fundamental Rights Agency on the basis that any results we come up with will be helpful to their capacity to meet the acquis set by the European Union for membership. Human rights are included in the association agreements but the FRA does not have a remit in this area. Nevertheless, it was discussed very robustly at the time the agency was being developed and I have no doubt people will include the issue when there is a review of the agency at the end of this year and the beginning of next.

I welcome the proposal for a charter of fundamental rights, which is in line with the thinking of the agency. We are very anxious to ensure the charter is well known and made available in ways that are accessible to all of us. It is not just important that mature people can access it but that young people can also read it and understand how it can be used. To this end, in recent years the FRA has become involved in the school agenda, which engages young people in the European project and the charter of fundamental rights. I will be quite happy to bring the proposal back to the agency.

Senator Donohoe's question about the status of rights-based approaches is timely and interesting. The agency decided that, at this time of recession, it was essential to monitor what happened to fundamental rights within the European Union. In conjunction with the scientific committee, of which Dr. Connelly is an appointed member, we are undertaking an ongoing analysis known as RADAR. Initially, our work did not indicate a significant implication for human rights but the latest research leads us to the conclusion that there is less focus on fundamental rights across the European Union as a consequence of the recession. We are concerned about this and agreed this is the time when fundamental rights must be preserved because they are an important part of how we move forward. We have an opportunity in the EU to either move the deckchairs about on the Titanic or find a way to move forward that guarantees rights in a different way into the future. We are starting to see a change in the standards of protection.

On the rights of migrants, one of the projects the agency has undertaken in the past year and that will continue next year is a joint project with Frontex, the agency concerned with the borders of the European Union. We agree there are concerns about processes and the way in which immigrants across the European Union have experienced their conditions over the past number of years.

Our approach has been twofold. Immigrants were included in the EU-MIDIS survey and we also undertook a study of irregular immigrants and their rights because some of their rights have less to do with their status than with the fact they are human beings. As part of that we are undertaking the joint project with Frontex, the agency concerned with the policing of borders in the EU. It is like the work many of us have done with the Garda, the Army and others concerned with law enforcement. It is important people in those positions have the opportunities, which many of them welcome, to be trained in rights-based approaches to their work.

We do not have a direct remit to tell the State what to do but we come out in all of the studies that FRA has undertaken in a position that indicates we have no reason to be complacent but, on the other hand, there are things we have done. It is a work in progress.

Mr. Philip Watt

Much of the public policy focus of the last two years has been on the recession. As Ms Crickley stated, there is a concern about complacency about issues like racism and integration. While many migrants have returned home or moved to other countries, the CSO estimates there are at least 550,000 migrants in Ireland still. The need for continued proactive policies to address racism and integration and the data from the Fundamental Rights Agency are key in focusing on where to go.

As we begin to bottom out economically, it is the experience, as has been shown in the FRA data, that migrants and minorities tend to be victimised or blamed in times of recession. People are keeping their heads down because of the job situation and we must listen to them carefully while finding the mechanisms to communicate with migrants and minority communities.

I am worried about the recent cutbacks and the demise of the national consultative committee on racism, the Human Rights Commission and the Equality Authority. Their ability to address these issues has been diminished and their capacity was in the area of being proactive to address the issues in a forward-thinking way.

The data from the Fundamental Rights Agency point to where the problems lie. We must continue to be proactive, not reactive. The latter was the mistake made in other countries that waited for problems to boil up in certain areas. Ghettoisation is a simplistic idea but the clustering of communities in a particular area and the need to be proactive to encourage integration among minority and majority communities is vital.

We hope focus will fall on those issues and we can restate that Ireland is a multicultural society. We must be proactive on these issues.

Dr. Alpha Connelly

It is a great pleasure to address the committee. I am a member of the scientific committee of the Fundamental Rights Agency. It could be asked what that is but the word "scientific" is a continental term. Essentially we are the guarantors of the quality of the work of the agency. We guarantee the scientific quality and there are 11 of us for all 27 member states.

Much of our work looks at the research done in-house by the Fundamental Rights Agency and at the commissioned research, of which there is a great deal. It is early days for us, we only got up and going about 18 months ago. We came in late and there was a transitional period following the work done by the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. We are now getting into our stride. The volume of work is huge — a body of 11 people cannot read everything from A to Z.

To manage that workload, we have established a rapporteur system. Within the parameters set for us by governments, which decide on the multiannual framework, and by the management board that decides on the work programme, the research is commissioned and we look over it. There has been a division of work where a person volunteers to be a rapporteur on a particular subject. To date I have been rapporteur on two subjects, the housing conditions of the Roma and Travellers within the EU and the other, which is yet to be published, on the national human rights institutions and comparable bodies within the EU.

It is early days but our role is to ensure that what issues from the agency is of the highest quality. I have been impressed so far and there is some fantastic in-house expertise in the FRA.

Senator Donohoe asked how the advisory role of the Fundamental Rights Agency works, while Deputy Costello asked about the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Apart from the substantial body of research, which is like the powerhouse, the EU institutions can ask the advice of the Fundamental Rights Agency about the human rights dimensions of their work. Shortly after I became a member of the committee in September 2008, the Presidency of the EU referred something to FRA for its opinion from a human rights perspective. It related to PNR, passenger name records, and the transfer of information about passengers travelling from A to B, particularly outside the EU. The EU has high data protection standards that do not necessarily apply in other countries. A framework decision was drawn up by the Council of the EU and was passed over. How does this stand up from a fundamental rights perspective? The type of data which would have been transferred would be if, say, Deputy Costello was on a particular flight, how many bags he had checked in, whether he was a frequent traveller by air, whether he gets his points, the travel agency and types of information about him.

That was an in-house draft which was impressive. We would have looked at it as would the management board but we would have looked at it from a quality perspective and whether we had missed any fundamental rights issue. We looked at it from three particular human rights, one of which was the right to respect for private life. The legal basis for the right to respect for private life is a provision in the European Convention on Human Rights and a provision in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The second was the right to data protection, the legal basis for which is a particular article in the EU Charter for Fundamental Rights. That was what we used as our basis for the analysis. The third was the prohibition of discrimination and again we cited the EU Charter for Fundamental Rights. Clearly it is central to analysis. We would have given our opinion on that and pointed out some of the human rights weaknesses. For example, once the data goes abroad we do not have control of it any longer, as there are not the same standards of protection, particularly when it is channelled through third countries. Who will get their hands on that very sensitive information about individuals? Nowadays, this is done in terms of fighting terrorism. Fighting organised crime is the justification for it. I do not think anybody has any problem with that but the question is to balance that, which is a legitimate public interest, with making sure one does not overstretch and unnecessarily infringe upon human dignity and privacy.

An issue that has not been referred to us is body scanners at airports. I do not know if the Council of Ministers will tackle that issue at some stage. That is a concrete example of something very real in which the opinion of the Fundamental Rights Agency was highly regarded and it put a bit of a stopper on something that was being considered.

Ms Catherine Lynch

I was at the launch of the EU monitoring centre in 1999 when I was working with the National Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism, NCCRI. In the past 11 years I have engaged with the Fundamental Rights Agency and supported its work and sometimes availed of the outcomes of its work in different ways. For me, that mirrors the thinking today as well. The FRA exists and is a significant body and as a citizen of Europe it is a significant structure for us but how we engage with it might differ.

A word that has been used here today is the "limitations" of the Fundamental Rights Agency. I see the limitations as just dictating or specifying its role. That is exactly what it has — "a role" — and it is a useful one but it is only part of one big picture. There is a role for all of us here today in whatever capacity we are here. I note there are journalists in the room, members of the public and the committee members as public representatives. If I had a message for today it would be that the Fundamental Rights Agency needs to be accountable and produce quality work. The message is that the FRA needs the support of public representatives to enable it to do its work but also to support its work.

Two of the significant benefits for me from the FRA have been the emphasis on data collection. The European Monitoring Centre for Racism and Xenophobia, the predecessor to the FRA, was given quite a difficult job because it was asked to carry out comparable research across the EU and, necessity being the mother of invention, it realised it could not do this job because the data did not exist. There has been a real move and we have risen, in part at least, in Ireland to that challenge around collecting data. At the end of the day, this is always pertinent for me, we do not need just to collect data, we definitely need data but data has got to have a purpose. That is where the public representatives can play their part to ensure that data that are collected and the findings of the FRA are used and brought home.

The other issue for me is the focus that the FRA has managed to keep on racism. That is an important issue for the FRA at this time. It is clear from the findings from the various pieces of FRA research that reflect on Ireland, that this is a key issue.

Senator Donohoe asked if we talk about rights in a time of recession. The comments from this side of the table have certainly sent out the message that we need to talk about rights and that these are fundamental but I understand it is not such an easy task. We are faced with the dilemma now of what are we talking about, what do we want as a European Union society going forward and rights have to be at the core. Equality and rights are not a luxury but are very basic. Often people do not think about rights and, perhaps, this is what we need to be thinking about.

I take Deputy Costello's point about producing the charter in an accessible way for people to think about it. Having seen some of the material on YouTube, people ask what is meant by human rights. The response is actually silence for a while until people begin to think about it. It is interesting that the EU-MIDIS, European Union minorities and discrimination, survey which went to people who experienced discrimination, found that they were very clear about what was a violation of rights and sometimes were in that space. We need to be a little more proactive.

The work of the FRA is critically important but it cannot stand alone and we need the support of everybody present. Its results tell us the state of play and it is up to others to take on the findings. It is always useful to give some tangible examples. It is the data that are being collected, it is the warning signs that we have been given through NGOs as well as the Fundamental Rights Agency across Europe that show the need for the framework decision on racism and xenophobia that we have to act on by November 2010. There are very tangible outcomes although they take time.

Ms Anastasia Crickley

My apologies to Senator Donohoe who asked a very reasonable question about how the FRA works. It works on the basis of a remit that has been put forward by the Council of Ministers which limits its operation. In my time as chair of the FRA I always felt it was important to walk to the edge of that remit but not to fall over; to take that remit as far as possible and to look to a future with the help of the member states where that remit could be reconsidered. It works on the basis of an annual work programme which is put together by its management board, informed by the multi-annual framework, and where the quality is guaranteed by the scientific committee. It works with the support of teams of people who are subcontracted, as well as a core staff in each of the member states. We will provide the committee with a list of those teams, that is, a small group of people in each of the member states. We are very lucky in Ireland that one of the 11 people who has been appointed independently to the scientific committee is Dr. Alpha Connelly. It works on the basis of requests from the Commission or the Parliament. Dr. Connelly has given a clear example of that and how those requests are responded to.

It is also possible for national parliaments to make requests. In that context, it is also informed by civil society, by national human rights institutions and equality bodies, with which it continues to have ongoing relations. There is a civil society platform which allows civil society organisations to feed directly into the work of the agency. Most importantly, it is also informed by the work that the Fundamental Rights Agency undertakes. As already stated, some of that work is undertaken in the immediate aftermath of things that have happened on a day-to-day basis in Europe.

As an agency, we face challenges. However, these are not half as important as those faced by Europe in moving forward in the context of realising fundamental rights for all. As Ms Lynch and other colleagues stated, we look forward to the committee's support in that regard. The agency would be glad to send representatives to appear before the committee at any stage in order that they might engage in discussions with members or provide information or documentation which might support the important work it is undertaking. I take this opportunity to wish the committee every success with that work.

Chairman

I thank our guests and congratulate them on the work they are doing. I also thank them for the information provided in their presentation and for doing the job necessary in the context of focusing on this subject. I recently had occasion to examine a file relating to a deportation. In it I found references to CIA reports on the home country of the individuals about to be deported. Through the parliamentary system, I and my colleagues are in a position to obtain similar information from the Department of Foreign Affairs. It is interesting that the references in deportation files to which I refer and reports from the Department do not always tally with each other. It is extraordinarily difficult to understand why we should rely on the CIA as a reference in cases of this nature.

The committee has come across a number of frightening situations involving people who have come to this country who were seriously abused, detained for long periods and subjected to all manner of torture in their home countries. It is only when one reads the medical reports relating to such cases that one realises the fear in which these individuals must live and what the prospect of returning to their homelands must represent for them. I am sure that no one present would wish to be placed in their position.

I again congratulate our guests on their presentation and wish them the best of luck with their work and the report. The transcript of this meeting will be incorporated in the report the committee will eventually lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas. We must now go into private session in order to deal with an extremely important matter.

The joint committee went into private session at 3.15 p.m. and adjourned at 3.45 p.m. until noon on Wednesday, 17 February 2010.