We will now discuss COM (2003) 483 concerning the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. Mr. Niall McCutcheon has come in and I will just give him a moment to get himself organised. COM (2003) 483 proposes to recast Council regulation EC 1035/97 on the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. This proposes to amend the regulation that governs the centre which is based in Vienna. Essentially, the proposal widens the scope of the data-information collection work of the centre and proposes some changes to the management structure. I welcome Mr. Niall McCutcheon of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and invite him to make a presentation.
Scrutiny of EU Proposals.
Mr. Niall McCutcheon
I am principal officer in the equal status division of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I am also the national liaison officer for the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. I understand that the Irish member of the management board of the centre, Ms Anastasia Crickley, has already spoken to the committee and given a very clear background picture of the work of the centre.
Before discussing the principal features of the commission's proposals to amend and recast the regulation governing the centre, I emphasise just how small an operation the centre is. It has fewer than 30 staff and an annual budget of about €6 million. After the accession of ten new member states in May 2004, the management board will grow to 28 members, and unless the working methods of the board are to change the Commission is of the view that it will become unwieldy. It is in that context that the Commission has come forward with its proposals.
As the Chairman said, the EUMC was established by regulation in 1997 and its primary objective is to provide the European Union and member states with objective, reliable and comparable data at European level on the phenomena of racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism. The Commission submitted to Council its proposal to amend the regulation on 5 August 2003. The stated aim of the proposal is to sharpen the focus of the work and means of operation of the centre in the light of enlargement. The proposal was circulated by the Council secretariat on 1 September 2003.
The Government's position, in short, is to welcome the proposals in general. It particularly welcomes the aim of increasing the effectiveness of the centre and of emphasising its responsibility for data collection. The Government has some concern about the proposal to require member states to appoint to the management board of the centre the person in each country responsible for the running of the equal treatment bodies or of an equivalent independent public body. It is the view of a majority of member states that this proposal is over-prescriptive. However, the Commission has indicated a willingness to compromise on this issue.
Of the articles in the Commission's proposal, only six show any significant change. These concern the objectives of the centre, its tasks, working methods and areas of activity, the management, the executive board and the director. Article 2 emphasises that the primary recipients of the information collected by the centre should be relevant institutions and authorities of the community and the member states responsible for combating racism and xenophobia and that the scope of the phenomenon of racism-xenophobia should be interpreted broadly to encompass related intolerance.
The proposed changes in terminology recognise the increasing importance of phenomena such as Islamophobia or religious hatred, particularly since 11 September 2001, and in the context of the current political situation in the Middle East, and they mirror the responsibilities of the Council of Europe, notably the European Commission on Racism and Intolerance, thus promoting greater synergies. The purpose of the centre is to support the work of the member states and the general public regarding racism/xenophobia. The primacy of data collection and information gathering is because this is essential to measure any progress made in combating these phenomena.
Regarding the changes in tasks, there has been some concern that the work of the centre has been somewhat unfocused and that, like a lot of newly established organisations, it has taken some time to bed down and focus on its main activities. The main activities in terms of data collection are extremely difficult, which is recognised in the Commission document.
In Article 4, the Commission broadens the range of phenomena which can be covered by the centre, recognising the significant development in the role of the EU in combating racism since 1997. Prior to the Treaty of Amsterdam, the EU had no competence, legislative or otherwise, in combating racism/xenophobia. That was when the centre was established. Since then, the EU has had the power under Article 13 of the treaty to bring forward legislation outlawing discrimination, and it did so in 2000 in the race equality directive. Also, under the amendments to the European Union treaty under the Treaty of Amsterdam, areas such as asylum, immigration and combating crime have become EU competences.
It is important then that data collection be carried out by the centre to reinforce the work of the EU in these areas. The areas of competence of the centre have been widened in line with these legislative developments. The Commission proposes that the centre be able to look into data around racism in respect of immigration and asylum. Free movement of persons was already an EU responsibility but in areas around the supply of goods and services employment. These areas are significant and are covered by the race directive.
The main area of concern, as I already mentioned, regards the structure of the management board. The Commission proposes to require member states to nominate to the management board the person responsible for the running of the equal treatment bodies designated under the race directive. The Commission sees two useful factors in this. First, it will mean that all the people represented would have experience in the area of combating discrimination and, second, the same people would have experience in management.
The evaluation report which was carried out for the Commission found certain deficiencies in the management of the centre which, from the point of view of the Commission, were due to the nature of the experience of the board members. However, as I have already indicated, the Government and other member states feel that there is a downside to these proposals in that it would mean a certain uniformity among the membership and that the range of experience would be quite narrow and limited to anti-discrimination. Other areas of concern, such as racist crime, incitement to hatred, migration, integration and social exclusion are typically not the responsibility of specialised anti-discrimination bodies. Moreover, academic or non-governmental organisation experience, which can be extremely relevant, would be excluded from the board of the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. The Commission has indicated that it is prepared to compromise on the proposals in this regard.
As I said at the beginning, with enlargement, the size of the management board is likely to grow to 28 members. For an organisation which employs about that number of people, this is a severe imbalance. Thus, the Commission proposes that the day-to-day management would be delegated to an executive board of no more than ten persons. The question then is the relative responsibilities of the management board itself and the executive board. The detail of that has not yet been discussed by the member states, and views on the micro-issue of which powers would be reserved to the management board and which delegated to the executive board have yet to be discussed in full. The social Europe working group has already had one meeting to discuss the proposal. We hope that there will be a second meeting before Christmas and that proposal will be considered a priority for the Irish Presidency, which begins on 1 January. We hope, subject to the co-operation of the member states and the Commission, that it will be considered on the agenda for the meeting of the Social Affairs Council to be held in March.
Thank you very much, Mr. McCutcheon. As you are aware, the other day we had Ms Anastasia Crickley. She mentioned the body's data collection function. She felt that it should be widened to include more awareness raising of racism issues so that some form of policy analysis could be conducted and it could have an advisory role regarding racism. How does that tie in with the current proposal?
Mr. McCutcheon
There is a certain amount of room for manoeuvre when one focuses on data collection and information so that analysis can lead to policy proposals or to the consideration of policy issues. However, the Commission is anxious to get the centre to focus on its primary data collection purpose since there are huge gaps in our knowledge of racism in Europe. Data collection is very uneven between countries. There are serious problems over definitions and comparability. Those problems must be faced if we are to know whether we are making progress in combating discrimination and racism at European and national levels. It is very important that the centre not be distracted from its primary role.
Another issue that must be considered is that there are other international agencies with a policy advisory role in this area. There is the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, a Council of Europe body which carries out a country by country analysis of the member states of the Council of Europe on combating racism. There is also the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which carries out a country by country analysis on a global basis. It is built into the original regulation that there be complementarity between the role of the Council of Europe and that of the European Union monitoring centre in the area. Therefore, the policy review role, which is being carried out at Council of Europe level, is not duplicated by the European Union monitoring centre. That said, in analysis and information, policy issues are frequently raised. That has happened at the level of the European Union monitoring centre.
Perhaps I might give just one example of where it has carried out excellent work, namely, its timely response to Islamophobic tendencies which emerged in the aftermath of the attacks of 11 September 2001. It quickly carried out a survey of the situation in each member state and was able to put together a useful and timely report highlighting incidents in member states.
I thank Mr. McCutcheon. As the Chairman said, we had Anastasia Crickley from the National Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism here the other day. Another concern that mentioned was that we had still not incorporated into legislation the racism directive from the European Union nor had we done anything about the employment directive which is due to come into operation in December. I understand that the racism directive was due to be implemented by all member states by June 2003, but it is still outstanding. If we are to have a European Union monitoring committee, we should at least ensure that member states adhere to statutory requirements as early as possible, and certainly within the designated timescale. Article 2 says that the primary recipients of the information collected by the centre should be the relevant institutions and authorities of the Community and the member states responsible for combating racism and xenophobia. That is the first step towards ensuring that the relevant directives are incorporated into domestic legislation. Perhaps Mr. McCutcheon might comment on that and the timescale for it.
This is the first time that I have seen the word "Islamophobia".
The member saw it when Ms Crickley was here.
I meant in the context of these discussions. I presume it is a new piece of terminology but it certainly seems relevant in the present context, and I am glad to see it agreed there. It seems incredible that Mr. McCutcheon is saying that the comparability of data remains the most important factor for the added value of the centre. It has not proved possible so far to provide truly comparable data, and to do so seems simple. It will require strong co-operation between the centre and the authorities of the member states and, in particular, their national statistics offices. That is a purely logistical matter. With the centre in place for seven years, why should it not be possible to get the national statistics offices of the member states to connect with each other and provide the data? I cannot see the reason for any problem in that regard, especially since it is one of the most important aspects of added value.
This is the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia and its main function is to collect data. There is obviously a problem collecting that data in a comparable format. Until we have that, we do not know where we stand regarding the other member states. Is there any procedure for delegations to visit the member states and collect data at source rather than simply relying on whatever data are provided on racism and xenophobia by the various governments and state institutions to ensure that one is getting a proper selection of data? For example, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture goes around various European countries visiting prisons and compiling data. Afterwards, a report is written on the various countries. Might we not have a similar sub-committee from the European Union monitoring centre whose function would be to visit the countries in question and see the situation at first hand, meeting the relevant organisations and agencies?
I am happy with the extension to the field of employment and social inclusion. Article 8 deals with the size of the management board and the voting structure. If under article 9 one establishes a new structure with an executive board composed of ten persons, how will the individual countries participate in it if we take responsibility from the 28 states, each of which has a management board which will be hands-on, and we then pass authority to an executive board to make the day-to-day decisions? How advisable is that? The figure of 28 may be a little wieldy for a centre that will meet on a regular basis but how often does the board of management meet? Is it not desirable for small countries like Ireland to ensure - it is a little like the argument about the commissioners - it has somebody at the table all the time? It is important we have such a person there to deal with our concerns. I do not see 28 people as being too many around the table when making decisions. Is it desirable to do that?
If this is merely a statistical data collection, why is more than one person required to do the job? Many of the matters raised may be policy issues and we understand, Mr. McCutcheon, if you are not in a position to answer them.
Mr. McCutcheon
On implementation and transposition of the race directive, it is true that the deadline for transposition was July 2003. As I understand it, none of the member states has fully complied with that transposition date to the satisfaction of the Commission. Ireland is already substantially compliant because the Employment (Equality) Act 1998 outlaws discrimination on the ground of race in the area of employment and training and the Equal Status Act 2000 outlaws discrimination on the grounds of race in the supply of goods and services, housing and education and on eight other grounds.
The amendments required to give effect to the race directive in Ireland are of a relatively minor, technical nature and will deal with issues such as the definition of indirect discrimination which applies to this directive and which differs from that which exists in our current legislation. The reason it is taking time to transpose is that Ireland has a unified system of law on equality - we apply more or less the same rules in nine areas rather than having separate rules for different areas. To maintain that unity, we have to consider to what extent it was possible to apply the provisions of the race directive not just on the grounds of race but also on the grounds of gender, sexual orientation, age, disability and so on. Those issues are of concern to us and that has made our transposition more complex than would otherwise be the case.
Other countries have been able to transpose the directive by means of secondary legislation but we did not go down that route because, on legal advice, to do so would mean we could not apply the changes inherent in a race directive to any other grounds. We would have the anomalous situation whereby we would have one set of rules where somebody is discriminated against on grounds of race and another set on grounds of religion. The Government hopes to be in a position to publish in December 2003 the Bill implementing three directives dealing with race, employment and gender. It is also hoped the directive will be transposed early in 2004.
Deputy Costello referred to our problems regarding data. Serious legal problems subsist in certain countries. As a result of their experience of abuse of data on ethnicity during the Nazi area, Germany and others outlawed the collection of data on an ethnic basis, except in the area of criminal activity. While in England one can get good data on the number of children of ethnic minorities expelled from school as compared with white children, that kind of useful analysis is not available in countries where this type of collection is not permitted by law. There are different definitions of what constitutes a racist crime. In the Garda statistics collected here, we have followed the experience of Britain and the recommendations of the Lawrence Inquiry which stated that a crime is considered racist if it is seen as so by the victim, a garda or a witness. It is a somewhat subjective definition which many other countries do not have. Therefore, the countries which have a wider definition of what constitutes a racist crime would have a higher incidence of racism than those which have a narrower one. Countries tend to be rather sensitive if portrayed as being more racist than another. Those countries with good statistics in this area, in particular the Netherlands and the UK, apparently have a higher incidence of racism.
There are serious data comparability problems in trying to harmonise existing data sets. Other ways of dealing with this have proven successful. For example, the euro barometer survey, an ongoing survey of attitudes in the European Community, has been used to measure levels of intolerance. Such surveys are carried out in member states on a standardised basis by questionnaires and opinion poll systems. The same question is asked in various member states and a comparable set of data emerges.
The EUMC operates by appointing as contractors in each member state what is called a national vocal point. This is an independent agency, academic body or research institution depending on the skills and ability of each country to extract the data. In Ireland, the national vocal point comprises two agencies, the National Consultative Committee on Racism and Inter-culturalism, of which Anastasia Crickley is chairperson, and the Equality Authority. They have experience and knowledge of the situation here to extract such data. A similar analogous agency or institution in each country collects data locally.
On the matter of visiting countries, two issues arise. The original regulation placed a requirement on the centre to hold what are termed national round tables which would facilitate a meeting with non-governmental organisations and other activists in each member state to discuss the centre's functions and to provide an input into its activities. These have varied between countries. Some have been extremely successful. Certain member states are anxious to see the practice continue. The Commission proposes to remove the obligation on the centre to carry out such national round tables. The matter is currently under discussion at Council level.
Countries are already visited by two institutions to which I referred earlier. The European Commission on Racism and Intolerance carries out a country by country analysis of the situation by way of study visit. That organisation, which published a report some years ago on the situation here, has produced two reports on Ireland so far. The United Nations committee for the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination carries out a review of each country's report on its compliance with provisions of the United Nations convention on the elimination of racism and discrimination.
The involvement of the EUMC should be complementary to other agencies. It is essential there is some form of national link with the work of the centre. They should be given every encouragement to visit each member state and to liaise with the people on the ground both at governmental and non-governmental level.
The matter of the appropriate delegation from the management board to the executive board has not been discussed at Council level. I hear the point being made by the Deputy and the Chairman on this matter and it will require negotiation.
I thank Mr. McCutcheon for his attendance. The committee will report to the Sub-Committee on EU Scrutiny that it has completed its consideration of the proposal.