European Union justice and home affairs ministers have failed to agree new rules to decide which member-state should take responsibility for processing asylum applications. But Denmark, which holds the EU Presidency, has given other member-states a week to find agreement on changes to the Dublin Convention.
Agreed in 1997, the Dublin Convention aims to prevent multiple asylum applications being made throughout the EU by providing that an asylum-seeker must make an application in the first EU country in which he or she had an opportunity to do so. If an asylum-seeker does not avail of this opportunity, and instead travels to another EU country, he or she may be sent back to the first country.
The Commission has proposed changes to the Dublin Convention, which has been criticised as time-consuming, costly and ineffective. Under a Danish proposal, member-states would have 12 months to show that an asylum-seeker came from another country.
Southern countries want this period shortened to six months but northern member-states want it extended to 24 months. Ireland supports the Danish proposal and many other member-states appeared last night to be willing to compromise. Germany is expected to hold out for a longer time limit.
The Minister for Justice, Mr McDowell, said he was eager to get an effective system in place. He said that the housing, care and administration of asylum-seekers cost the Exchequer €300 million each year.
Mr McDowell dismissed concerns that a proposal to share personal data on EU citizens with US authorities could endanger civil liberties. The proposal was due to be discussed by justice ministers in Brussels today but it was taken off the agenda after Germany, France, Spain and the Netherlands expressed concerns about it.
Mr McDowell said the Irish and British security services had long had friendly, informal relationships with their counterparts in the US. "If people are worried about this, they should have been worried about it for the last 30 to 50 years. There's nothing new about it as far as we are concerned," he said.
Mr McDowell said that the changing nature of international terrorism and the use of the Internet by terrorists meant that governments must seek new ways of dealing with the threat.
"The response to international terrorism has to be commensurate to the risk posed," he said.
Mr McDowell restated his opposition to proposals at the Convention on the Future of Europe to give the EU competence in criminal law. He said the Government was playing an active role at the Convention but insisted that all decisions affecting the EU's future would be taken at the Inter-governmental Conference (IGC) that follows it.
"The Convention proposes but the IGC disposes. Anyone who thinks the IGC will be a rubber stamp for the Convention is mistaken," he said.
