Minister for Justice 'confident' Government will have 'vigorous' screening for migrants
Speaking to reporters in Limerick he said: 'I think we will be operating a very effective screening program once we enact and commence the International Protection Bill that I've got approval from government to draft, and it'll be brought into the Oireachtas at the end of the year.'
Advertisement
Minister Jim O'Callaghan said that the current 'Eurodac system', which assesses asylum applicants into Ireland will be 'upgraded' in June, to include 'a full biometric analysis performed in respect of any individuals who are coming in seeking international protection in Ireland'.
Concerns were reported that because Ireland does not have access to certain EU security databases available in Schengen member states, it may not be able to carry out robust screening identity checks on asylum applicants.
Minister O'Callaghan said Ireland was not part of Schengen because 'we want more robust systems in terms of protecting our borders'.
'I'm fairly confident that at present and certainly in the future, in June, that we will have very vigorous mechanisms in place to assess and ensure that we properly have information on individuals claiming international protection in Ireland,' he said.
Advertisement
Minister O'Callaghan said he previously visited the Eurodac screening system in place at Dublin Airport and found that all international protection applicants were 'fingerprinted', and are checked against Europol's watch list 'to see whether or not they have applied for asylum in other EU countries'.
However, the Minister acknowledged 'there's an issue arising in terms of individuals coming down from Northern Ireland' to the Republic.
He warned: 'Our systems have to become much stronger as time goes on.'
While Ireland is a welcoming country for people 'fleeing persecution', the minister added, 'we need to have a system in place that ensures our security is properly preserved'.
Advertisement
Michael Gaine
Seperately, he said he was 'very disturbed' to hear body parts belonging to murdered farmer, Michael Gaine had been found on Mr Gaine's farm, at Kenmare, Co Kerry, last Friday, eight weeks after he was declared missing.
The minister would not be drawn on whether he shared concerns growing in Kenmare in respect of how gardaí have so far handled the probe.
'I was very disturbed to hear that some of the body parts that were identified are those of Michael Gaine, and I just want to express my condolences to his family in respect of that very traumatic development.'
Minister O'Callaghan said he was being 'kept updated on it by the Garda Commissioner' but said, 'I'm not going to start getting involved in talking about that investigation. I'm going to leave policing investigations to An Garda Síochána, it's not my job to get involved and start directing them or commenting on their investigations.'
Advertisement
Ireland
EU engaging 'sensibly' with US administration foll...
Read More
'All I would say is I would appeal to anyone in the area who has information in respect of the murder of Michael Gaine that they would provide that information to the gardaí.'
Meanwhile, following the publication of crime statistics, Minister O'Callaghan said he had a 'simple message for the Garda Commissioner and senior garda management - I want to see more gardaí out on the street'.
Asked what his plans were to reduce the number of people carrying and using knives in public, he replied: 'I was worried about the increase in those figures over the past five to six years or so.'
'The gardaí obviously have to do their job in terms of seizing knives which are being carried unlawfully. But also, we as politicians need to send a message out that it's unacceptable for young men, and I regret to say, boys as well, to be carrying knives. It's unnecessary for them to carry a knife.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leader Live
38 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Starmer faces Labour turmoil and global volatility as he marks year in Number 10
The Prime Minister led his party back into power with more than 400 MPs on July 4 last year – clinching a majority just short of Sir Tony Blair's landslide in 1997. But with a daunting in-tray of problems including a stuttering economy, creaking public services and global volatility, his political honeymoon period was short-lived. His personal popularity is now the lowest of any British premier after their first 12 months in office, political scientist and polling guru Professor Sir John Curtice said. 'There were pretty clear potential weaknesses before they even started, and most of those weaknesses have basically just been exposed over the course of the last 12 months,' he told the PA news agency. Sir John said part of the problem lay in what he described as a failure of narrative in setting out the Government's vision for change to the public. 'They're portraying themselves as a repair gang rather than the builders of a new Jerusalem. Pessimism doesn't necessarily go down very well,' he told PA. 'The thing with Starmer is, he's a brilliant prosecution lawyer… But prosecution lawyers present cases that have been (put together) by someone else. The problem is that as a political leader you've got to prosecute your own case. 'Maybe he needs new personnel? Either he's got to learn to do it himself or get someone in to do it for him.' That verdict was echoed by some dissenting voices within Labour ranks, where there is lingering discontent among rebels over the Government's Welfare Bill despite Number 10 offering major concessions on the legislation. The Government saw off the threat of a major Commons defeat over the legislation on Tuesday after shelving plans to restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip), the main disability benefit in England. 'I think he really needs to think about why he wants to be a Labour Prime Minister and what is it he actually cares about,' one long-serving Labour MP said. They said Tuesday had marked 'the lowest point' in Sir Keir's premiership so far and raised questions about his authority, warning that backbenchers may now feel emboldened to demand further U-turns elsewhere. Sir John said that the Government's challenges in passing legislation were unsurprising with the broad but fragile coalition of support on which Labour built its election victory, securing 412 seats on just 35% of the vote. That means many MPs defending narrow majorities and raises the prospect of 'a large body of people who are nervous about their political futures,' he said. The Government's original welfare proposals had been part of a package that ministers expected to save up to £5 billion a year, leaving Chancellor Rachel Reeves needing to look for the money elsewhere. The fallout threatens to cause lasting damage to morale in Labour ranks, with some rebels calling for a reset in relations between the parliamentary party and the leadership before fractures widen. Images of the Chancellor crying in the Commons on Wednesday have also led to questions about her future, although a Treasury spokesman cited a 'personal matter' as the cause of her distress and Number 10 said she would remain in post. Asked whether it was time for a course correction, Downing Street has said the Prime Minister will 'plough on' with the 'very busy agenda' of Government. But the MP quoted above said: 'The idea that they can keep carrying on as they've been carrying on is suicidal. 'They have no real sense of how the party thinks and feels.' Others had a more optimistic view of the year ahead, with a Starmer loyalist who supported the Bill suggesting the upset could be salvaged with a 'measured but solid response' from the Government. 'The worst they can do is nothing,' the backbencher added. The Prime Minister used a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday to defend his record in office, telling ministers the welfare Bill was 'to help those who can work into employment and ensure dignity and security for those who can't work.' He said they could all 'rightly look back with a real sense of pride and achievement' on the last 12 months, pointing to a reduction in NHS waiting lists and a series of economic agreements struck with the US, EU and India. Abroad, the Prime Minister faces a tricky diplomatic balancing act as he seeks to strengthen ties with both Europe and Washington amid global instability from the Ukraine war and Middle East crisis. At home, Labour is staring down a threat from Nigel Farage's Reform UK party, which turned opinion poll momentum into widespread gains at the ballot box during the local elections in May. Sir John said that parties such as Reform and the Greens offer more choice to voters wanting to express their discontent with Labour while the Tories continue to flounder in the polls. 'The character of the challenge is different from what it has been historically,' he said. Tim Bale, professor of politics at Queen Mary University, said people had been expecting bold change on areas such as workers' rights and growth, and the Government's achievements so far were 'pretty small beer' by comparison. Critics say the first year has instead been marked by a series of U-turns, including a partial reversal of cuts to the winter fuel payment and the move to launch a national inquiry into grooming gangs after months of resisting opposition pressure to do so. The Government disputes that framing, pointing out for example that ministers had never explicitly ruled out a statutory probe into child sexual exploitation but waited for a review to be carried out before making a decision. Prof Bale said he believed the first year had gone 'worse than most people imagined' and warned 'it's difficult for a leader who starts badly to persuade people that he or she is what they need.' But he said the problems were not necessarily fatal, adding that setbacks early on in a premiership have an upside in allowing for more time to 'turn it round'. 'If you look back to Margaret Thatcher, she was able to do that, so it's not a foregone conclusion that all is lost, even for Keir Starmer himself,' he said. Arguing that the Government could recover in the polls if its plans for the economy and public services pay off, he added: 'I think you can see the light at the end of the tunnel, but it's a very long tunnel.' Sir Keir has pledged to lead a 'decade of national renewal' through a phased approach to Government, the first year of which he said would involve 'cleaning up the mess' his administration had inherited. In a speech last week seeking to set the tone for the future, he said: 'We've wiped the state clean, we've stabilised the economy, and now we can go on to the next phase of government, building on that foundation.' A Government spokesperson said: 'We were elected with a commitment to deliver change and security for working people – and we are getting on with the job. 'We are delivering our Plan for Change – wages are rising faster than prices, interest rates have been cut four times, immigration has come down with 30,000 people with no right to be here removed and over four million NHS appointments have been delivered. 'Progress has been made, but we know people are impatient for change – and we are too – so we will continue to govern in the national interest for British people and deliver a decade of national renewal.'
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
MSPs alarm over welfare costs as bill to soar to £9 billion
Richard Leonard, the convener of the Holyrood committee, wrote to auditor general Stephen Boyle, to respond to future work plans he had presented committee earlier in the year. "The committee supports the areas set out in your draft work programme and agrees that the sustainability of public services in their current models are now in doubt and that fundamental change is required. We also share your concerns around the persistent inequalities in areas such as health and poverty," said Mr Leonard. 'We agree with your assessment that 'social security spending is increasingly outstripping Barnett consequentials in Scotland' and that this is a risk to the Scottish Government's financial position.' READ MORE: Mr Leonard's letter to Mr Boyle on Monday comes as the fiscal watchdog the Scottish Fiscal Commission forecast that social security spending in Scotland is projected to increase significantly, from £6.8bn in 2025/26 to £9.4bn in 2030/31. In its report last November, Audit Scotland warned public services were at risk as a result of the Scottish Government's failure to implement meaningful reforms while making a series of multi-billion pound spending commitments. The spending watchdog accused the administration of not knowing how it will pay for above inflation public sector pay deals or rising welfare costs. It added that the Scottish Government had set out plans to balance the books in 2024/25 with a one-off raid of up to £460 million on a clean energy fund, but "does not know how this higher spending will be funded in the future". Meanwhile, spending on welfare has ballooned, owing to policies such as Nicola Sturgeon's Scottish Child Payment which cost £467m in the current financial year. Mr Boyle told the public audit committee on April 30: "The current context for the Scottish Government and public services in Scotland remains challenging. "Rising demands together with a constrained financial outlook pose risks to the sustainability of public services in their current form. A clear vision and strong leadership are required to drive the reforms that are needed to ensure the sustainability of services into the future." He added: "The scale and pace of the public sector reform that is required to support future sustainability have not yet been delivered." In its latest five-year outlook, published in May, the Scottish Fiscal Commission (SFC) said that while overall funding for the Scottish budget is forecast to grow, much of the increase will be absorbed by the rising cost of devolved welfare benefits, public sector pay settlements, and new policy commitments, such as the permanent scrapping of peak-time rail fares. The Commission noted that Scotland is forecast to spend £1.3bn more on devolved social security than it receives in UK funding in 2025-26, with that gap widening to around £2.2bn by the end of the forecast period. A key factor is the Scottish Government's decision to mitigate the two-child limit in Universal Credit, a policy expected to cost £156m in 2026-27 and rise to £199m by 2029-30. The MSPs' concerns over the rising costs of welfare in Scotland comes after a climbdown by the UK Government on Monday to reform the welfare system. In a late concession on Tuesday evening, ministers shelved plans to restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip), with any changes now only coming after a review of the benefit. The changes, which were made to meet demands from Labour backbenchers, has left Chancellor Rachel Reeves with a £4.5bn gap to fill with tax rises or cuts elsewhere, after the retreat means the package of welfare reforms may end up increasing spending. Meanwhile, the outlook for the Scottish and UK economies has weakened, with growth now expected to remain sluggish through the rest of 2025, according to the Fraser of Allander Institute at the University of Strathclyde. The analysis said economic growth is now slowing compared to the start of the year and inflation has also edged up to 3.4%, after staying below 3% throughout 2024. It added that the business environment is showing signs of strain, with companies reporting cutting back on activities in the first quarter compared to last year, hit by rises in national insurance contributions, which took effect in April, alongside uncertainty surrounding US President Donal Trump's trade tariffs. Dr Joao Sousa, Deputy Director of the Fraser of Allander Institute, said: 'The fiscal announcements by both governments suggest that there are significant economic challenges in the years and months to come for the UK and Scottish governments. 'Particularly from 2027-28 onwards, the choices of government look to become more difficult. Of course, this is the role of the government in power: but the difficulties of the UK government this week show that events can quickly derail its plans.' Speaking to journalists in Edinburgh on Wednesday the First Minister vowed he would not replicate the Pip changes in adult disability payment, which is the equivalent benefit north of the border. John Swinney said: "We will not make the changes or to make the cuts that the UK Government was proposing, we've made that crystal clear." A Scottish Government spokesperson said: 'Social Security is a vital safety net for families across Scotland and any one of us could need to depend on it at any time. "Our compassionate approach is based on the values of dignity and respect, and seeks to ensure as many people as possible get the help they are entitled to. 'This approach allows for support that is not available anywhere else in the UK, including the Scottish Child Payment which is keeping 40,000 children out of relative poverty this year. As of 31 March 2025, 326,225 children aged 15 and under were actively benefiting from Scottish Child Payment."
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Judge blocks Trump's asylum ban at southern border saying he exceeded authority
A federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump's order suspending asylum access at the U.S.-Mexico border. In a day-one executive order, Trump declared the situation at the southern border constitutes what he called an invasion of America. The president said he was 'suspending the physical entry' of migrants and their ability to seek asylum until he decides it is over. Federal District Judge Randolph Moss has now blocked that order, writing, 'the President cannot adopt an alternative immigration system, which supplants the statutes that Congress has enacted.' Moss added that neither the Constitution nor immigration law gives the president 'an extra-statutory, extra-regulatory regime for repatriating or removing individuals from the United States, without an opportunity to apply for asylum' or other humanitarian protections. The order will take effect July 16, giving the Trump administration two weeks to appeal. American Civil Liberties Union attorney Lee Gelernt, who argued the merits of the case, called Moss's ruling a 'hugely important decision.' 'Not only will it save the lives of families fleeing grave danger, it reaffirms that the president cannot ignore the laws Congress has passed and the most basic premise of our country's separation of powers,' Gelernt said in a statement. The Homeland Security Department did not immediately respond to a request but an appeal is likely. The president and his aides have repeatedly attacked court rulings that undermine his policies as judicial overreach. The ruling comes after illegal border crossings have plummeted. The White House said Wednesday that Border Patrol made 6,070 arrests in June, down 30 percent from May. On June 28, the Border Patrol made only 137 arrests, a sharp contrast to late 2023, when arrests topped 10,000 on the busiest days. Arrests dropped sharply when Mexican officials increased enforcement within its own borders in December 2023 and again when then-President Joe Biden introduced severe asylum restrictions in June 2024. They plunged more after Trump became president in January, deploying thousands of troops to the border under declaration of a national emergency. Trump and his allies say the asylum system has been abused. They argue that it draws people who know it will take years to adjudicate their claims in the country's backlogged immigration courts during which they can work and live in America. But supporters argue the right to seek asylum is guaranteed in federal law and international commitments — even for those who cross the border illegally. They say asylum is a vital protection for people fleeing persecution — a protection guaranteed by Congress that even the president doesn't have the authority to ignore. People seeking asylum must demonstrate a fear of persecution on a fairly narrow grounds of race, religion, nationality, or by belonging to a particular social or political group. In the executive order, Trump argued the Immigration and Nationality Act gives presidents the authority to suspend entry of any group that they find 'detrimental to the interests of the United States.' Groups which work with immigrants — the Arizona-based Florence Project, the El Paso, Texas-based Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and the Texas-based RAICES — filed the lawsuit against the government, arguing the president was wrong to equate migrants coming to the southern border with an invasion. They also argued Trump's proclamation amounted to the president unilaterally overriding '... the immigration laws Congress enacted for the protection of people who face persecution or torture if removed from the United States.' But the government argued that because both foreign policy and immigration enforcement fall under the executive branch of government, it was entirely under the president's authority to declare an invasion. 'The determination that the United States is facing an invasion is an unreviewable political question,' the government wrote in one argument.
