The European Parliament is about to take the next step in the road to changing the Dublin system, which regulates EU asylum policies and has been a hot potato in the EU since the very start of the migration crisis, with many frontline states calling for alterations to the mechanism.

On 9 March, EU Parliament MEP and Swedish liberal Cecilia Wikström, will present her draft report on the EU Asylum Rules to the Civil Liberties (LIBE) Committee within the EU Parliament, which will then be discussed and voted on before moving to the next stage.

The draft report is a first response to the Commission's proposal, presented in May 2016, for reform of the Dublin regulation, and consists of proposed amendments to it. This regulation, which determines which member state is responsible for processing an asylum application, is currently undergoing a number of changes. In the report, Ms Wikström proposes ways to remedy the issues currently existing within EU asylum rules.

Back in May 2016, the EU Commission had presented proposals to reform the Common European Asylum System, “by creating a fairer, more efficient and more sustainable system for allocating asylum applications among Member States. The basic principle will remain the same – asylum seekers should, unless they have family elsewhere, apply for asylum in the first country they enter – but a new fairness mechanism will ensure no Member State is left with a disproportionate pressure on its asylum system. The proposals also include transforming the existing European Asylum Support Office (EASO) into a fully-fledged European Union Agency for Asylum to reflect its enhanced role in the new system and reinforcing of the EU's fingerprinting database, Eurodac, in order to better manage the asylum system and to help tackle irregular migration.”

MEP Wikström’s report focuses on her suggestions for alterations made to the European Commission’s proposals, and will be the basis for discussion within the LIBE committee, and will also play a part in the EU Parliament’s overall discussions on the amendment proposals.

The MEP’s key proposals include that EU countries where the refugees arrive must register all asylum seekers, while guarding and maintaining their borders to prevent unregistered asylum seekers from passing through the EU. It also states however, that “the Commission proposal requires that a member state take on 150 percent of their fair share of asylum applications before receiving assistance from the corrective allocation system (this percentage is based on a key, reflecting total population and GDP on the concerned country). I suggest that this threshold should be lowered to 100 percent. I also suggest that corrective allocation should stop once the relative share of a member state under corrective allocation has dropped to 75 percent of total allocations, in order to ensure that member states do not fluctuate in and out of corrective allocation.”

In addition, the MEP, through the report, also argues that if a member state does not guard its borders, and allows unregistered asylum seekers continue on to other EU countries, then the Council should have the ability to suspend transfers from that particular state.

One clause which the Rapporteur recommends removing from the existing text, was the Commission’s proposal to impose a requirement to establish whether an asylum application is admissible before determining the responsible member state for processing. MEP Wikström argues that this would create too much administrative burden on the EU’s frontline states, and says that relocation should be a quick and that admissibility should be checked by the country that is responsible for processing the asylum application.

Another aspect of the draft report deals with family reunification. “Member states should ensure, in particular when benefiting from corrective allocation, that procedures are efficient and allow applicants for international protection to be promptly relocated to other Member States. With a view to avoiding costly and time-consuming secondary transfers and in order to provide an efficient access to family unity for applicants under the corrective allocation mechanism whilst not unduly overburdening frontline member states, a light family reunification procedure should be envisaged which would allow for the transfer of applicants that are likely to meet the relevant criteria to allow them to be reunited with family members in a particular Member State.”

The MEP also highlights children and unaccompanied minors, and proposes that guardians in receiving member states be appointed before unaccompanied minors are transferred. In addition, other proposed amendments include that interviews with minors shall be conducted in a child-friendly manner in the presence of the guardian and, where applicable, a legal advisor or counsellor.

The document reads “When it comes to unaccompanied minors, the quick appointment of guardians (within five days), improved best interest assessments, as well as the use of multidisciplinary teams for assessments, will allow authorities to build trust with the minors, as well as break the negative influence of smugglers and traffickers. This will greatly improve the chances that minors will trust and work within the system. We cannot go on with a system that causes thousands of children to go missing, as is unfortunately the case today. Together with greatly improved family reunification procedures and the procedure to request, the application of the discretionary clause minors will get a quicker access to the procedures and a stable environment.”

In her report, the MEP referred to the Commission’s suggestion to introduce an “opt-out” from the corrective allocation system, which would have allowed member states to buy themselves out of the corrective allocation by paying €250000 per applicant. “I find it unacceptable to put such a price tag on human beings, and I therefore suggest deleting the provision”. In the report, she states: “I have suggested introducing a conditionality between the proper participation in the corrective allocation mechanism, and the European Structural and Investment Funds. It would not seem logical to allow member states to benefit from the solidarity of others whilst ignoring their own commitments under our commonly agreed rules.”

The MEP also suggests that a five-year transition period be allowed, thereby giving time for countries to adapt to the new procedures.