I welcome Ms Anastasia Crickley, chairperson of the National Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism. MsCrickley has requested a meeting to discuss her concerns on a proposed Council regulation on the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. We are delighted to facilitate her. Will Ms Crickley inform us of her position on the formulation of the regulation on the European monitoring centre?
European Monitory Centre on Racism and Xenophobia: Presentation.
Ms Anastasia Crickley
I thank the Chairman. I am grateful for the opportunity to address the committee on the monitoring centre on racism and I thank it for its interest in the centre. I am the Irish alternate to the monitoring centre. Each member state of the Union appoints one board member and one alternate and, for the period 2001 to 2003, Ireland appointed SeamusCullimore as delegate and me as alternate. Approximately a year and a half ago, Mr. Cullimore had to withdraw for domestic reasons and I have been acting as the delegate from Ireland since then.
With the permission of the committee, I will give some background to the monitoring centre against racism, elaborate on the current position and the regulation, as it has been proposed by the Commission, and offer some of my personal observations on it. If members of the committee would like further material, in addition to the literature from the centre which I have circulated, I would be more than happy to provide it.
As a result of increasing concerns about the rise of racism in Europe in the early 1990s the Corfu European Council proposed in 1994 the establishment of a Consultative Commission on Racism and Xenophobia. The following year, the commission, which was chaired by Jean Kahn, head of the human rights commission in France, was asked to consider the feasibility of a European monitoring centre on racism and xenophobia. The use of the term "monitoring centre" rather than "observatory" was particularly supported by civil society and European anti-racism organisations throughout Europe. We felt the idea of monitoring was more proactive than that of an observatory, which would merely look at and take account of things rather than attempt to intervene and change them. The regulation setting up the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia was adopted by the European Council in Luxembourg in 1997. The centre is an EU agency, one of many throughout the Union. Ireland is the location for two: the Centre for Living and Working Conditions, located in Loughlinstown, and the new veterinary centre, located at Grange in County Meath.
The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia was set up with a mandate to provide the Community with objective, reliable and comparable data on racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism so as to help member states to formulate courses of action to deal with the problems. It was also charged with studying the causes, consequences and effects of racism and mandated to build co-operation between and within civil society, member states and international organisations.
The centre's work has been carried out through national focal points in each of the member states, which collect and analyse data on racism at national level. It then produces comparative data on racism across Europe and aims to advise the European Union and its institutions in this regard. It also publishes annual reports and organises conferences.
There were considerable delays in staffing, budgetary and establishment arrangements. The review which should have taken place after three years did not take place because sufficient time had not elapsed to allow it to happen in terms of the setting-up arrangements. It informs the proposed new regulation along with the European Commission's own considerations. It is not just the review and the evaluation that was carried out that informs the regulation; it is also the views of the Commission.
I will briefly inform the committee about how the centre is structured. It is managed by a board of experts in the field of racism who are appointed by the member states. As I said, there is one delegate and one alternate. The board elects its own chair and executive committee from among its members and also works through time-limited task groups. The first staff appointment, that of the director, was not made until mid-1998 and over time a complement of staff has been developed, details of which are also provided. The annual budget in 2003 was approximately€6.75 million. Some 40% of this is spent on data collection through the national focal points.
The policy within the European Union is to distribute EU agencies throughout the Union and the centre against racism was assigned to Vienna. Austria became a member of the EU in 1998 and no agency was located there.
In spite of delays it is now producing good work and has helped to reinforce liaison with member states. Difficulties include the fact that no common definition or classification with regard to racism exists throughout member states which makes comparability a problem. Trends are analysed and co-operation with organisations such as the Council of Europe, the OSCE and EU institutions are beginning to add value to the work against racism across Europe.
The European Commission's proposal to recast the 1997 regulation contains a number of useful clarifications, reinforcements and modifications of the EUMCs role for the coming three years. For example, its remit to address racism, xenophobia and related intolerance, rather than a wide variety of forms of discrimination, is clearly stated. This is helpful as there is only so much any one agency can do. It is important that its remit is clear and understood by all concerned.
The ongoing need to relate with and support member states is also promoted. Co-operation with international organisations is encouraged. More streamlined accounting arrangements have been put in place and are widely welcomed.
It was recognised that the work and role of the EUMC needs to be in line with developments in EU competences since 1997, particularly with regard to the race directive, with which some members might be familiar, and on which we hope legislation will be introduced to transpose this into Irish law this term in the Houses of the Oireachtas.
A number of issues and omissions have been noted, not just by member states but also by civil society and anti-racist organisations. As is the case in the existing regulation, the new regulation places particular emphasis on data collection and comparison. While this is crucial, it is felt that it needs to be matched with policy analysis and an advisory role. Some of us feel that data collection on its own does not solve problems and that the data needs to be used and analysed in order to inform policy.
In the proposed new regulation, little emphasis has been placed on the ongoing importance of awareness raising, which in fact could help create the conditions for policy analysis and for pro-active data collection.
Original proposals to limit the board membership to head of equal treatment agencies are now being modified in light of opposition from a number of member states and virtually all of civil society organisations in favour of a more open process, which is to be welcomed. Proposals to maximise and better inform the structure and workings of an enlarged board are also welcome.
Modifications on the stipulations or limitations on how the centre should relate to civil society are a good idea but, unfortunately, that type of modification needs to be reinforced with an active mandate to engage with civil society and, in particular, to encourage the involvement of anti-racist organisations. Some of us feel that there is not much point in loosening up the arrangements for relating with civil society if the mandate to engage with civil society and the citizens and residents of Europe is not also directly included in the regulation.
In the area of awareness-raising, the centre's role in creating the conditions where respect for diversity can be encouraged needs to be enhanced. The Commission's proposals are now being discussed by the various committees, including the Committee of the Regions, the Economic and Social Committee, the European Parliament, the European Council and the various member states, including this committee.
The general expectation is that the process will not be completed during the Italian Presidency and that, in fact, it will be part of the remit of the Irish Presidency to complete the discussions around the regulation and to oversee the adoption of the proposal for the new regulation, possibly during the Council meeting in March.
With expert and careful management complemented by good staff expertise, the EUMC can make an increasingly significant contribution to the EU in line with the Lisbon strategy. I welcome many of the changes proposed to the regulation but share the reservations listed above and believe that they deserve consideration. The EUMCs task is complex, ambitious and requires time, sensitivity and capacity to respond appropriately to unfolding circumstances. Racism is deep-rooted and requires long-term responses similar to those which can be facilitated over time through the work of the EUMC. Ireland has already made an important contribution to the establishment, management and work of the centre through Government experts and civil society inputs. We will be in a central role when the regulation comes up for appraisal and recommitment during the Presidency.
I thank Ms Crickley who effectively welcomes the regulation, in general. The interaction with anti-racist organisations is her major concern.
Ms Crickley
There are three major concerns. First, I welcome the regulation in as far as it clarifies the role and makes it clear that the remit is to address racism, xenophobia and related intolerance. I consider it important, however, that the remit of the agency is seen to go beyond mere data collection. It also needs to analyse data and undertake research on the causes and consequences of racism and this needs to be stated.
It is important that engagement with civil society continues. In effect, civil society and anti-racist organisations played an important role in supporting the development of the centre in the first instance and can continue to play an important role in encouraging member states and European institutions to address racism.
It is also important that the management board of the centre is - indeed this is something that is supported by a variety of member states, including the Irish Government - seen to be independent and not pre-designated as to what its membership constitution should be.
On the body collecting and analysing data, how much further does Ms Crickley think it should go?
Ms Crickley
The key problem on collecting data on racism throughout Europe is the issue of comparability. This is a question that arises in a number of areas where statistics are being collected across Europe. We need to streamline the collection of data. Good work is being done at present but we need to streamline it and, perhaps in some areas, we need to acknowledge that what we can provide is information on trends, rather than quantitative comparisons. We can move towards quantitative comparisons over time. In the interim the EUMC and the European Union needs to look to being able to comment appropriately on trends as they develop.
I welcome Ms Crickley. It was interesting to hear what she had to say, particularly when we read the document that we will shortly be discussing with the Minister, which states that there are no specific implications for Ireland. The proposal to recast the Council regulation on the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia would, at a cursory glance, seem to suggest that there is nothing that we need to look into. I accept Ms Crickley's point that the race directive was due for implementation in July 2003. It has not been implemented because we have not put together the legislation that would enable this to happen. Similarly, an employment directive which is due for implementation by the end of the year also requires the enabling legislation to implement it. We must put our own house in order. These two directives affect race and we need to ensure they are operable. I do not know when it is intended to bring the equality legislation before the Oireachtas. Perhaps the Minister will inform us of that.
How has the monitoring centre worked to date? It has been in operation in one form or another since 1997. Does it produce an annual report? Is the data that has been collected available and what level of comparison has taken place between member states? Is there any attempt being made to show a comparative table of states in terms of their response to dealing with issues of racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and so on? If one is to monitor the position, one needs to know what level of comparison exists in member states.
I agree that we need to be more proactive. There is no sense in simply monitoring, unless something is done with the information. The collected data can be used for policy analysis and to provide advice to a Government in where it is failing, and what steps need to be taken. We are, evidently, not paying too much attention to it seeing that we do not have equality legislation in place.
Will Ms Crickley elaborate on how she would envisage more engagement taking place with civil society? Part of the function of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture is to visit prisons and Garda stations and then produce a report on this. To what extent does the EUMC have delegations, or has it even considered sending a delegation to a country to speak to the various agencies that deal with issues of racism to find out what is happening there, and to use that mechanism to compile data at first hand? I do not know where the data is coming from and to what extent the centre is reliant on official data.
In the past ten years the level of immigration, particularly in the context of asylum seekers, has dramatically increased. It would be useful to have comparative studies on the changing nature of issues relating to racism and xenophobia in individual countries. The EUMC is an extremely important centre which has a great deal of work to do, particularly in the context of a country like Ireland which is experiencing for the first time a level of confrontation in this area and where many public issues have been raised in recent times.
We recently discussed the absence of an immigration policy here. Ms Crickley mentioned that it is likely that some of the issues on the new regulation will remain outstanding into the Irish Presidency. Major issues remain to be dealt with on integration, awareness, and education. It would be worthwhile if this issue could be placed more centrally on the agenda during the Irish Presidency?
I welcome Ms Crickley and commend and thank the National Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturism, which is a valuable committee. Its work is important both in terms of Members of the Oireachtas and the general public.
I have concerns when I hear of the centre reacting to the rise of racism in Europe because it is often a hidden issue in Ireland. How does the centre deal with the question of the hidden abuse that takes place in many communities, especially in Ireland, that goes unreported? I do not hear about this in the broader civil society.
I am glad Ms Crickley supported the use of the word "monitoring" rather than "observing" because if a group is observing it is not sufficiently powerful. One needs to monitor, plan and put forward proposals to deal with action for change on racism and also to bring the public with one.
Ms Crickley referred to examples of good practice; does she have any direct contact with the many excellent primary schools in disadvantaged areas that have examples of good practice on racism? There are also many clubs, music and arts groups which are often very much a neglected resource in this regard. The centre's mandate to build co-operation between and within civil society is crucial. To what groups within civil society does Ms Crickley refer?
Ms Crickley referred to delays in staffing and budgetary arrangements. Such delays are in breach of Article 16. What caused the delays? Ms Crickley stated that the annual budget was between €6 million and €7 million. Is this amount sufficient to do the job?
I agree that racism, like sectarianism, is deep-rooted. We have to analyse the causes so that we can respond adequately to it. Does Ms Crickley have concerns about the position of parents of Irish-born children who face deportation orders? This is a disgrace; it is particularly unacceptable coming from an emigrant nation. On the question of civil liberties, I am concerned at the absence of adequate and free legal aid for immigrant parents of Irish-born children facing deportation orders in the wake of last January's Supreme Court decision.
Ms Crickley will be aware that we are planning to welcome back emigrant Irish-born sons and daughters who may wish to return to Ireland, yet we seem to be doing the opposite in regard to certain Irish citizens because they come from a different background. If we are to do something about racism, there must be an outcry on the horrendous circumstances where Irish citizens are, or are about to be, deported. This is a breach of Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. I hope the national consultative committee will deal with these issues head-on. I know it will not necessarily be popular politically, as I learned when I took up the race issue in my constituency during the last election and got hammered by many people. If one is involved in public life, one has to show leadership. I thank Ms Crickley and commend her for her work.
I welcome Ms Crickley for her very informative presentation. I understand she is particularly concerned that the Council regulation, as proposed, is likely to restrict the activity of the centre in the future. She wants the centre to be proactive and to engage in campaigns. Is this view shared by the other representatives of the member states that sit on the management board?
Ms Crickley stated that the European Union operates other monitoring agencies throughout the Community. Is it the norm that these would be involved, on an ongoing basis, in the analysis of policy and in particular areas of the campaign?
I, too, welcome Ms Crickley. The annual report before us refers specifically to racism in rural areas. Obviously, the findings of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia refer to a special form of racism, observed throughout Europe, which manifests itself in more aggressive and violent forms. Will Ms Crickley elaborate on the differences between racism in urban and rural areas? Was there a common trend throughout Europe with regard to the rural and urban experiences?
That is a very interesting question.
Ms Crickley
There were some questions on the regulation. That is not the original regulation but a modification or review thereof. To be fair, the Minister is correct in saying that there are no major implications for the Government as a result of it. The position taken by the Government on the regulation is by and large shared with many of the actors concerned with it, including the member states, the institutions of the European Union, the EU embassy and various civil society organisations.
I was careful not to say I expect the EU embassy to become a lobbying organisation. This would not be its role under the regulation. I am trying to discriminate between the effective and strategic use of data collected - this is so they do not remain on a shelf - and the lobbying and campaigning roles that rightly belong to civil society organisations. The monitoring centre is set up under the aegis of the European Union. It has a capacity to relate with all sectors in the Union, but as an agency of the Union its role is defined accordingly.
There is a need for some modifications and developments of the proposed Council regulation. I do not believe what I am suggesting represents any major change. This is probably the position the Minister has already taken. There are considerations which could enhance the capacity of the reformed regulation to support the work of the monitoring centre. Having been involved with the centre in recent times, I feel there are ways the regulation could create the conditions to maximise the effectiveness of the work it undertakes.
On the race and employment directive, the monitoring centre will, I hope, have a role in monitoring its implementation, when effect has been given to it. Those of us involved in the struggle against racism are looking forward to the announcement of the Irish legislation to transpose the directive. Deputy Costello was correct in saying that the date for transposition was 19 July. I am sad to have to state that only a very small number of member states transposed it by that date. I understand that the Taoiseach has made a commitment in the House to transposing the directive before the Irish Presidency of the European Union. However, many of us feel it is more important that the proposed legislation to transpose it be as good as possible. I understand that the Government will also be proposing legislation to transpose the gender equal treatment directive at the same time. Many feel it is important that that legislation will successfully improve our capacity to address racism.
A member of the committee asked how the monitoring committee has done its work to date. National focal points were established in each member state and the Irish national focal point is a combination of the Equality Authority and the National Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism. The focal points have been collecting data annually for some years. One of the first jobs they did was a mapping exercise of the variety of institutions and organisations that address racism in member states. They then proceeded, over some years, to collect data in a limited number of areas. If they did not do so they would be collecting data on a variety of subjects without going into any great depth. Over the past year data have been collected where possible on racial violence, education and discrimination in the workplace, particularly discrimination of migrant workers.
Another tool of the Union has been the eurobarometer. Deputy Costello asked about the comparability of member states. The eurobarometer, which has been produced twice and is now being researched again, does produce some comparative data.
In engaging with civil society the monitoring centre has organised round-table discussions every year which have been inclusive of civil society organisations, governmental organisations and state agencies in each of the member states. Last year, the Irish discussion took place in the European Parliament in March 2002. Such discussions give all people concerned with racism in member states an opportunity to meet and raise questions and concerns. There is an annual European round-table talk, and this year's meeting took place in recent days in Berlin.
The centre does not engage in sending delegations to member states to investigate incidents of racism, as is the practice of some of the committees of the Council. However, in response to specific events like the events of 11 September 2001, a rapid response process has been put in place whereby the national focal points are asked to produce documentation in a very limited period on how events unfolded or what sort of discrimination was experienced by particular communities at the time. As a result, a report was produced on the implications of the events of 11 September 2001 in terms of Islamophobia throughout Europe.
On immigration policy and migrants, the monitoring centre's remit is not to develop immigration policy for the European Union. However, the focus of the centre on immigration issues could inform the development of European migration policy. As the committee knows, this will probably be discussed again during the Irish Presidency.
Education is one of the issues on which the focal points have been asked to collect information in the past two years, and the centre is examining the relevant issues with regard to schools. At a national level, the National Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism is very much in contact with schools which have put in place particular initiatives to address racism.
Obviously, the monitoring centre feels its budget is not sufficient to do the task it has been given. In particular, concern is being expressed because the centre, along with some other EU institutions and agencies, is not getting sufficient extra finance to cope adequately with enlargement.
Members also asked about legal aid for parents of Irish-born children who may be facing deportation. The National Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism, to which this issue is more relevant, has commissioned a study of the process involved and will be organising a conference on family diversity in Ireland on 17 December. Members of the committee are welcome to attend. I am conscious of members' remarks about welcoming Irish people returning from abroad. A task force on emigration has been established, the recommendations of which have yet to be implemented.
I hope I have already answered Deputy Ó Fearghaíl's question on campaigning and Deputy Hoctor's question on racism in rural areas. The study relevant to the latter question was initiated by MEPs and I regard it as a preliminary study. It raised some serious questions, including some on the aggressiveness and hidden nature of racism in rural areas. The Deputy was right to state that comparisons can be made very easily between patterns of racist violence on streets in urban areas. Another member of the committee asked also asked about racist violence. The monitoring centre has been collecting data on it. This is difficult to do because the legal framework necessary for its collection does not exist in all member states, including Ireland, although particular developments are taking place to facilitate it.
The National Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism does collect data on incidents of racist violence. I understand this was a subject of a question in the House relatively recently. However, the data do not comprise a formal collection of data on every incident, but a collection on the basis of people's choosing to report incidents to the committee. It is on this basis that we produce biannual reports.
I thank Ms Crickley for informing us of the activities of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia and for outlining her concerns on the forthcoming regulation. If the committee agrees we will send a copy of the record of this meeting to the Minister asking him to take into account both the substance of Ms Crickley's address and the matters raised by the members of the committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.
On the European directives we are obliged to transpose, would it not be appropriate that they would be referred to in the annual report? I think Ms Crickley was present during our earlier discussion on the deportation issue, to which the Chairman referred. We have agreed to invite the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to meet committee to obtain from him a formal statement of policy on all the cases arising from the Supreme Court decision. I would have thought it appropriate to refer to the directives in an annual report because of the very substantial racist undertones.
Ms Crickley has already dealt with the deportation of parents of Irish-born children and stated it is a matter for the National Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism. Will Ms Crickley address the question on the regulations?
Ms Crickley
Deputy Costello is correct. The annual report for 2004 will certainly comment on the race equality directive and the employment directive in so far as it refers to racism. It certainly does so in terms of religion. It is the plan of the monitoring centre to play an active role in monitoring and commenting on the implementation of the directive. It was not possible to refer to it in the 2002 report because the transposition date was 19 July 2003. The Deputy was correct in contending that it would be part of the remit of the monitoring centre to examine the directives, their implementation and their effects on addressing racism in the EU member states.
The National Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism is concerned to raise humanitarian issues on the deportation of parents of Irish-born children. As I stated, we are conducting research on this matter and will be having a conference on diverse families in a diverse Ireland on 17 December. There are very serious issues involved and they need to be discussed.
The monitoring centre has a remit to address racism and it is only in so far as issues of immigration and asylum can be connected to racism that they fall within this remit.
As I stated, we will convey the report of this meeting to the Minister. We look forward to meeting Ms Crickley in the not too distant future, irrespective of what cap she has on.