WHEN Justice Ministers met in Brussels this week there was a hint, diplomats say, that the long running dispute over Europol is at last coming to an end.
The British Minister, Mr Michael Howard, suggested at Tuesday's meeting that the UK believed the argument about the role of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in interpreting the Europol convention can be resolved before this summer's Florence summit.
If it is it will be a considerable relief to the Irish Minister, Mrs Owen, whose onerous task during the Irish presidency of the EU will be to put real muscle into Europe's fight against drug traffickers.
And about time too, most observers say. Despite general agreement that the fight against international crime must come to the top of the EU agenda, the Union has proved singularly slow at forging co-operation in this area.
This is testimony, most say, to the cumbersome and secretive inter governmental mechanisms which it uses.
Only four binding agreements have been adopted in this area of policy making since the Maastricht Treaty two years ago
. a limited convention on extradition covering only those who agree to be extradited
. the launch of the European Drugs Unit, the predecessor to Europol, without any executive authority, to co-ordinate drugs related intelligence
. steps towards making it easier for EU schoolchildren to travel around the EU (prompted by the turning away of Moroccan children legally resident in France from the Belgian border)
. a convention on racism and xenophobia, finally agreed on Tuesday, which will prohibit incitement to discrimination and facilitate blocking the export of racist material from one member state to another.
No one is under any doubt that there is a desperate need for the sort of criminal intelligence co-ordination in which Europol will be involved, particularly in the area of drug trafficking. There is considerable embarrassment among ministers at the legitimate criticism by the European Parliament of the delays.
Agreement has been held up by an argument that has little to do with the fight against crime and a lot to do with a British ideological determination not to allow the ECJ to have any role in the so called Third Pillar areas of justice and home affairs co-operation.
A formula is on the point of being agreed which will allow the 14 other member states to opt for an ECJ ruling if they cannot agree on the interpretation of the convention. Another variable brick in Europe's architecture.
When Europol does get off the ground, it will provide from its Hague headquarters a clearing house for information on everything from the number plates of suspect vehicles and movements of known criminals to trends in the wholesale market for drugs such as place fluctuations, import routes, and the role of ethnic criminal organisations such as the Mafia, Chinese triads and Nigerian and Turkish gangs.
It will have a key role in monitoring drug flows from eastern Europe and the former Yugoslavia. It will also be involved in monitoring money laundering and trafficking in illegal immigrants.
Despite the failure of the member states to ratify the Europol convention its forerunner, the European Drugs Unit (EDU), does seem to be coming into its own and demonstrating in a most practical way the demand for increased cooperation in the drugs field.
In a report to Tuesday's meeting its boss, Mr Jurgen Storbeck, notes that the unit dealt with no less than 1,474 official requests for information in 1995 from member states, three times as many as the previous year.
He claims that his staff "have achieved notable successes in the field of drug trafficking, with information exchanges leading to seizures and arrest."
But he warns that the EDU can realise its potential only when it truly becomes Europol. The organisation is becoming better known among investigators hence the increasing demand for its intelligence. But often, he says, they become disillusioned by its failure to match their expectations.
The challenges are huge for an organisation of only 90 staff and with no executive powers.
Meanwhile, some progress is being made on a broader EU agreement on extradition, following a bitter row between Spain and Belgium over the latter's recent refusal to extradite suspected terrorists.
A convention is close to being agreed which will follow the Irish 1994 legislation in removing classes of crime, such as possession or use of weapons, from a "political offence" defence against extradition.
There is some resistance to Spanish attempts to include "associating" or "complicity" with terrorists in the legislation.
