Bid to resolve row over racism monitor centre

Date: 13/02/1997

By Mark Turner

THE dispute over plans to set up a European monitoring centre for racism and xenophobia looks unlikely to be resolved when justice experts meet later this month to consider the issue.

An ad hoc group of national officials will try to defuse the bombshell dropped by the UK in January, when it rejected the European Commission's plan to use a 'catch-all' article in the Maastricht Treaty as the legal base for setting up the centre.

But with most other member states afraid that the UK's suggested alternative - an intergovernmental body in which the Commission would not have a role - would take too long to establish, finding a way out of the impasse will be far from easy.

The creation of a permanent guardian of ethnic minority rights was to be one of the highlights of the 1997 Year against Racism and Xenophobia.

“In some ways, this will be the only concrete thing left once the year is over,” said a Commission spokeswoman.

Under the Commission's proposals, the centre would focus on a wide range of areas where minorities and foreigners are traditionally at a disadvantage - such as employment, education and the media.

Primarily a data-collecting body, it would then pass its findings on to governments and international institutions.

Since the Maastricht Treaty does not contain any specific clauses dealing with racism, Social Affairs Commissioner Pádraig Flynn called for the centre to be set up under Article 235, which allows for EU action in areas not covered by other provisions.

Since the same legal base had been used without difficulty to establish a similar centre on drugs and drug addiction, the Commission did not foresee any major difficulties.

“Not only do we have a precedent, we have a glorious precedent,” said the spokeswoman.

But the UK is standing firm. “We do not see that the Community has any competence in this field,” insisted a British official, stressing that the drugs centre was different because the EU did have limited competence in the field of health policy.

London also maintains that a recent interim ruling from the European Court of Justice, temporarily banning expenditure on social exclusion programmes under Article 235, made it clear that this provision could not be used “to extend Community competence”.

In addition, it insists that setting up the centre on the basis suggested by the Commission would limit its capacity to carry out vital tasks.

“If we based the centre on Article 235, it would not be able to do crucial intergovernmental work, such as tackling racially motivated crime,” said the official.

But the Commission and other member states are keen to see the centre set up before the end of June, when the Dutch hand over the EU presidency baton to Luxembourg, and want to avoid the long and protracted procedure required by intergovernmental instruments.

The Commission also denies that the ECJ's interim ruling in the social exclusion case has any bearing on the current dispute.

Given the political sensitivity of this issue, it is unlikely that officials will be able to resolve it. The hope is that justice ministers will be able to find a way ahead in April, following a debate in the European Parliament.