Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 29 Jun 2004

Vol. 588 No. 2

Adjournment Debate.

Civil Defence Board.

Mr. McGinley

In 2002, Dr. Michael Ryan was appointed chairman of the Civil Defence Board, However, in the short time that has passed since this appointment the Minister has allowed a situation to develop where there appears to have been a total breakdown in communications between his Department and the Civil Defence Board, and this has now resulted in the dismissal of the chairperson.

Speaking at the time of Dr. Ryan's appointment, the then Minister of State at the Department of Defence and Government Chief Whip, Deputy Brennan, stated he was delighted that people of the highest calibre had agreed to serve on the board. It is hard to credit that things could have gone so badly wrong in the short time since then. We must also have concern for the possible long-term damage to Civil Defence in Ireland that has arisen from this extraordinary situation.

The Minister has questions to answer on this matter. In the first instance, I want to know why he refused to meet with the chairperson and other members of the Civil Defence Board. The chairperson of the Civil Defence Board wrote to the Minister on 28 October 2003 and requested such a meeting. On 12 December 2003 a further letter was sent to an official at the Minister's Department with a similar request. More recently, on 24 March last, the chairperson of the Civil Defence Board wrote again to Minister and urged that he agree to meet a delegation at the earliest opportunity.

Organising such a meeting should have been a straightforward matter. Only a little over a year ago in May 2003, the Minister signed the order establishing the board and declared his full confidence in its membership. Why then did he refuse to extend the basic courtesy of a meeting to the members of the Civil Defence Board?

Decentralisation is also an issue in this astounding situation. I am aware that the Civil Defence Board has grave concerns that the facility selected for decentralisation to Roscrea will not meet the future needs for the development of Civil Defence in Ireland. The board has ambitious plans for the role and expansion of Civil Defence. Obviously, if the board has concerns with regard to the selected building, it has an obligation to voice these concerns. However, in raising this matter with the Minister the chairperson of the Civil Defence Board has discovered that the Minister is only interested in pursuing the decision already made, regardless of whether it meets the needs of Civil Defence. Voices of dissent will not be tolerated.

I wish to raise the failure of Minister to implement the Civil Defence Act 2002. This perhaps has been the most contentious point in the relationship between the Department of Defence and the Civil Defence Board. It is clear from the Civil Defence Act 2002 that the board must assume a variety of important functions, and that it does not exist simply to advise the Minister, although it does have some consultative and advisory roles.

It is clear that the Civil Defence Board has fundamental concerns that the key elements for which the board has responsibility, such as staffing, finance and facilities, have been retained by the Department of Defence contrary to the Civil Defence Act 2002. For example, the Minister has failed to appoint members of staff to the Civil Defence Board, and the budget and estimates for the activities of the board have been decided upon by the Minister without any consultation with the board. In failing to provide the Civil Defence Board with the staff it requires to carry out its statutory functions and in retaining all control on matters of finance and facilities, it is clear that the Minister has reserved to his Department functions that are clearly vested in the Civil Defence Board under the 2002 Act.

Civil Defence is critical to the security and protection of people in the State, and is relied upon for the smooth and safe running of many events around the country. Civil Defence volunteers offer invaluable support to the Garda and Defence Forces. This support should be built upon, not weakened. However, in failing to meet the Civil Defence Board, in railroading through decisions on decentralisation without any regard to concern or consultation, and in centralising power in his Department, the Minister has damaged Civil Defence and must account for his actions to this House.

Minister for Defence (Mr. M. Smith)

On 23 April 2004, I requested the Secretary General of my Department to carry out an investigation of the manner in which Dr. Micheál Ryan had been carrying out his duties as chairman of the Civil Defence Board.

On 4 May 2004, having considered the Secretary General's report, I wrote to Dr. Ryan informing him that I was contemplating his removal as chairperson and as a member of the Civil Defence Board pursuant to paragraph 7, Schedule 2, of the Civil Defence Act 2002 on the basis that it might be necessary for the effective performance of the functions of the Civil Defence Board. I invited him to write to me within 14 days, namely, by 18 May, making any representations that he wished to make in regard to my proposed course of action. I undertook to consider his representations in conjunction with the report of the Secretary General before making a final decision. Owing to Dr. Ryan's absence abroad on holidays and at the request of his legal representatives, I extended the period for reply until 14 June.

A reply from Dr. Ryan's solicitors and a statement prepared by Dr. Ryan were provided on 11 June. I reviewed the report of the investigation carried out by the Secretary General of my Department and the documentation received from the solicitors. This review led me to form the opinion that Dr. Ryan's actions have hampered the effective performance of the Civil Defence Board's functions pursuant to sections 8(1)(n) and 8(1)(o) of the Civil Defence Act 2002. I formed the opinion that the functioning of the board was hampered by the following actions.

Dr. Ryan contacted the owners of properties adjacent to the property chosen for the Civil Defence headquarters in Roscrea, to use Dr. Ryan's words, "to seek out any potential objections or difficulties which may arise". The effect of this contact was apparently to ridicule the choice of Civil Defence headquarters. This led to one of the said owners contacting me through a third party and had the effect of undermining my decision to decentralise Civil Defence to Roscrea.

At a Civil Defence Board meeting on 4 March 2004, Dr. Ryan asserted that he needed to consider his position because of his relationship with the director general and adjourned the meeting, having advised the board that it could not convene in his absence. This had the effect of hampering the effective performance by the board of its functions and, in particular, the board's function of advising and assisting the director general pursuant to section 8(1)(o) of the Civil Defence Act 2002.

Dr. Ryan gave an address at a Civil Defence conference on 3 April 2004 in which he indicated that he proposed to fill the post of chief Civil Defence officer without sanction, contrary to the provisions of section 36(5) of the Civil Defence Act 2002 which are as follows:

The Board shall appoint a person who shall be a uniformed officer to be known as the "Chief Civil Defence Officer" to perform such ceremonial or related functions as the Board may determine and who shall hold office on the terms and conditions (including terms and conditions relating to remuneration and allowances for expenses) that the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, may determine.

Dr. Ryan asserted that he did not infringe this section or advocate any course of action which sought to infringe the above section. What Dr. Ryan asserted, as referred to at the conference, was a proposal under which a part-time Civil Defence officer would be appointed to accept the role of chief Civil Defence officer on a voluntary basis at no cost to the State until such time as a fully sanctioned position as chief Civil Defence officer arose.

I therefore formed the view that, on his own admission, Dr. Ryan proposed to fulfil the post of chief Civil Defence officer without sanction. It is clear from the terms of section 36(5) that the terms and conditions of the chief Civil Defence officer are for me, as Minister, to determine. If it were proposed to appoint a chief Civil Defence officer on a voluntary basis, I would still have to sanction the terms and conditions of that officer's appointment. By referring to this proposal Dr. Ryan hampered the effective performance by the board of its functions pursuant to section 8(1) in general and section 8(1)(o) in particular.

I therefore decided, pursuant to powers conferred on me by paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 of the Civil Defence Act 2002, to remove Dr. Ryan as a member of the Civil Defence Board, with immediate effect, as it appeared to me that his removal was necessary for the effective performance by the board of its functions. In this regard, I wrote to Dr. Ryan on 24 June 2004 informing him of my decision.

There is no crisis within the board. I took the action of removing the chairman as I consider this course to be in the best interests of Civil Defence nationwide. The organisation continues to serve local communities in a voluntary and selfless way. I have appointed a new chairman to the Civil Defence board and I want the board to concentrate on the development of the organisation in the interests of local communities.

I intend to continue to assist it in every way I can. I have increased the Estimate for Civil Defence each year since my appointment. It has purchased 116 ambulances, we invested €2 million in protective clothing and we will continue to serve the interests of Civil Defence without fear or favour.

Harbours and Piers.

Mr. Glennon

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for the opportunity to raise this very important issue. I also thank the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, for taking the debate. I raise the issue in the context of the imminent sale — tomorrow, we understand — of the harbours of Balbriggan and Skerries into private ownership. I understand that the Tánaiste may already have made some reference to the sale in the House today. I am not party to what she said but no doubt the Minister of State will inform us all.

North County Dublin, or Fingal as it is more commonly known and as the natives prefer to call it, is steeped in history, particularly maritime history. St. Patrick landed off Skerries in the 5th century, the Danes landed at Lambay in the 8th century and, in more modern times, the gun-running Asgard, under skipper Erskine Childers Snr., landed its cargo at Howth in the early 20th century.

North County Dublin, which is now an extension of suburban Dublin, is blessed with a number of harbours dotted along the coast, including Howth, Rogerstown, Rush, Loughshinny, Skerries and Balbriggan. These harbours have been bustling centres of trade of all descriptions. In the 19th century my grand-uncle sailed schooners out of Skerries as far as St. John's in Newfoundland, Genoa in Italy, and Tangiers in Morocco. In the 20th century, activity was mainly confined to fishing but the occasional coal boat came over from the coal mines of north-west England and discharged its cargo in the autumn to keep the home fires burning in Skerries and Balbriggan.

Since time immemorial, the locals of the area and visitors — there was once a flourishing tourism trade in the area but now it is based much more on day trips — have always had uninterrupted access to these harbours. There is one unfortunate exception, namely the harbour at Rogerstown. As the Minister of State is very well aware, it presents a sorry sight today in that it is the only harbour on the coast that is under lock and key, with access denied to all comers, whether they come by land or sea.

Fingal, as we are all aware, is probably the most rapidly expanding area of the country and the uses of its harbours have changed dramatically in recent years. Fishing is in decline, unfortunately. In my youth, the harbours were mainly used by the thriving fishing industry and there were a few leisure craft. Now the balance is gradually shifting and leisure craft are becoming dominant. However, there is still a very strong fishing community and much business is done in this area. The new marinas in Malahide and Howth are probably a portent of developments further along the coast.

It is in this context that I raise the issue of the proposed sale of Skerries and Balbriggan harbours. The Dublin Port Company has assured us that, as of tomorrow, it is its intention to sign off on the sale of these magnificent assets. They are assets not only to the local community but to the wider community. It has made it patently clear that it will be signing off under what it considers to be its present legal liability. The only thing we know about the buyer is that it is not a public authority of any description but from the private sector. The port authority says it has no alternative. I do not agree with it but there is not much point arguing with it at this stage.

We are here tonight at what is very much the 11th hour to request the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to activate the legislative mechanism open to him under section 88(4) of the Harbours Act 1996 which provides for the transfer of both of these harbours to Fingal County Council and further provides that the subsection shall come into operation on such a day as is fixed by order made by the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, with the consent of his colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

Clare has the Burren, Killarney has its lakes, Dublin has Phoenix Park and St. Stephen's Green. Nobody would ever contemplate the passing of any of those magnificent assets into private ownership. The people of Skerries and Balbriggan should not be asked to contemplate this in respect of their two major natural assets. I urge the Minister of State to do the right thing to enable the local authority, the local communities and Balbriggan Town Council——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should conclude. In fairness to the staff of the House I ask Ministers and Deputies not to exceed the five minutes allowed.

Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. Browne)

I am pleased to have this opportunity to inform the House that earlier today I made an order, with the consent of my colleague the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, to give effect to the transfer of the harbours at Balbriggan and Skerries to Fingal County Council. The transfer is effective from tomorrow, 30 June 2004. The making of this order will ensure that the harbours will be retained in public ownership as a resource to be enjoyed by the public for the future.

I will outline to the House the background to this development. It has been the long-standing policy of my Department to transfer a number of regional harbours, including those of Skerries and Balbriggan, to the control of the relevant local authority. Section 88(4) of the Harbours Act 1996 provides for the transfer of both these harbours to Fingal County Council. The Act provides that the subsection shall come into operation on such a day as is fixed by order made by me with the consent of my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

Officials from my Department have continued to work closely with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to progress our long-standing policy regarding the transfer of certain regional harbours to the relevant local authorities. In the past week, my Department has been facilitating discussions involving public representatives, including Deputies Glennon, Sargent and Séan Ryan, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Fingal County Council and Dublin Port Company with regard to the future of the two harbours in question. The opportunity now presents itself to all interested parties to work with the county council to ensure that the two harbours will prosper and provide ongoing benefits and amenity value to the communities of Balbriggan and Skerries.

I am particularly pleased that this decision has been made and that we have concluded the matter to the satisfaction of the public representatives. Deputy Glennon has been beating a path to my door and has been ably assisted by the Deputies in his constituency and I am pleased that, because of the transfer to Fingal County Council, the harbours will remain in public ownership. It will be the responsibility of the council and the local communities to develop them.

Health Board Services.

Mr. Crawford

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise this very important issue and I thank the Minister of State for attending at this late hour. There are two elements to the matter. First, there is the failure of the health board to provide adequate mileage allowance, never mind all the red tape involved in the claim form, for home helps and home carers. Then there is the issue of the serious cutbacks in the hours available to those in need.

Can the Minister of State justify a mileage allowance of 19 cent per mile in 2004, with petrol costing €1.06 per litre, insurance very expensive and the rise in motor tax in the last budget? I have a letter from the health board dated 11 March 2004 advising that arrears had been paid for June 2000 to December 2002 and that the board was preparing to pay all outstanding arrears for 2003. Staff with only one client do not qualify for any mileage payment. Payment of 19 cent per mile is promised for the journey from the first client to the second and so on, but not after the last client for the home help's way home.

Mileage is paid in arrears of at least one year. For this allowance, home helps or home carers must provide insurance that indemnifies the North Eastern Health Board, no matter what that costs. They must also include a copy of the tax book or vehicle registration book to prove they have a car available. I suggest these people are treated more like criminals than caring people.

I tried to telephone two of the people concerned tonight, just after 10 o'clock. Of course, they were not available. They were out putting clients to bed at a time when much more senior medical people would not be available, no matter what the cost. I beg the Minister of State to intervene and to have these people paid through a simple system on time and at a realistic rate.

The second issue is the cutback in hours available to clients who need home helps or home carers. The North Eastern Health Board has cut hours in half in the Cavan-Monaghan area. People who had been provided with care for five hours per week, or one hour per day on Monday to Friday, have had their hours cut to two or three hours. Imagine someone who needed help to get out of bed each day that their family was at work. Are they supposed to stay in bed two or three days per week?

Some common sense and real care is needed. Only this week I was advised of the case of a severely handicapped individual. This person has been offered five hours per week of home help on returning home from respite care. A close friend of this person, now working in the health system in another health board region, stated that the same person would get five hours per day, seven days per week without any question in that other region. Why should someone living in counties Cavan or Monaghan be treated as a second class citizen? Have our people any rights under the Constitution which is supposed to treat all people equally? What is the proper cost of home help care? Our hospital is closed and people need help. It would cost much more to put people into homes for the elderly.

No money is available for transport to bring patients to clinics elsewhere. Only today, I received a letter refusing an old age pensioner who is receiving treatment in Cavan hospital any support towards transport costs. The letter simply states that money is not available in that health board area.

I call on the Minister to review the finances available for the home support area. Family carers together with home helps and home carers have the potential to save the Government millions if the system was properly structured and financed. Meanwhile, people should not be forced to sell their birthrights for what is often only a short stay in a nursing home. Out of a budget of more than €11 million, cutbacks should not be necessary if proper administrative structures were in place. I beg the Minister of State to make sure the home help and home carer structures are revisited and refinanced.

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. Callely)

I acknowledge Deputy Crawford's genuine concern in this regard. I pay tribute to the many people involved in the home care support services which are available throughout the country and who do a tremendous job in a front-line service.

I am concerned at some of Deputy Crawford's comments. I will let some of them go because I believe they do not merit repetition. I am sure he would dissociate himself from the statement that people who do this tremendous work in a very caring way are being treated like criminals.

Mr. Crawford

That is how they feel.

Mr. Callely

Deputy Crawford also referred to serious cutbacks in home help hours for those in need. It would be a sad reflection on any of the providers of home help care if they are cutting back on services to people in need. I do not believe that is happening.

Let me give an example of what may be happening. A person who has had a hip replacement operation might need the assistance of a home help for the period of recuperation from the operation. Statistics might show that person's home help being cut back but only because the person is recovering and no longer needs home help. If the professional administrators in Deputy Crawford's area are cutting back on home help hours for those in need I would like evidence of that so I can take up the matter with the people concerned. That is not what is happening.

I pay tribute to those involved in the delivery of service. The policy of my Department is to maintain older people in dignity and independence at home for as long as possible in accordance with their wishes, to restore independence at home to those older people who become ill or dependent and to encourage and support the care of older people in their own community by family, neighbours and voluntary bodies. Home care supports are vital to the implementation of this policy.

Following the publication in 1998 of the report, The Future Organisation of the Home Help Service in Ireland, by the National Council on Ageing and Older People, there has been a major step forward in the implementation of the home help scheme since 1999, both in the amount of service delivered and treatment, wages and holiday entitlement of the home helps themselves. Upwards of €30 million has been injected into the system to insure that home helps receive a decent level of pay and other benefits. I am delighted that my public record shows I was instrumental in that development. In 2003, expenditure on the home help service was over €110 million and this year funding of €113.75 has been allocated to the service.

The total increase in expenditure on the home help service across all health board areas since 2000 is over 113%. I emphasise this figure in the context of claims that the service is being cut back. The Government is committed to developing the home help service as part of a package of community supports such as the new personal care packages, which I have introduced, and other schemes for older people living in the community.

In line with the substantial increases in investment in services over recent years, major progress has been made in enhancing the terms and conditions of employment of home helps employed in the health service. In 2000, around 14,000 home helps benefited from substantial pay increases and benefits, including holiday pay as well as lump sum payments under the national level agreement concluded by the Health Service Employment Agency. This agreement represented a fundamental step in regularising the employment status of home help personnel employed by health boards.

Turning to the issue of travel expenses for home help personnel, in view of the role played and duties performed by these people, a key element of the 2000 agreement was the introduction of an automatic entitlement to payment of an allowance in respect of travel costs incurred by home helps. Such payments had traditionally been available to home helps on an ad hoc basis, with entitlements varying from region to region.

An Ceann Comhairle

I ask the Minister of State to conclude. It is very unfair to the staff of the House at this hour of the night when Members go well beyond the five allotted minutes on the Adjournment.

Mr. Callely

I will conclude by saying that there is a banding system that is meant to be user friendly. Rates apply to the distances the home helps travel and the system should work effectively. If not, the Deputy can bring it to my attention.

Visa Applications.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

The case I am raising is that of a 12 year old girl named Precious who is living on her own in Nigeria. Her parents have been granted leave to remain in Ireland on the basis of their two Irish citizen children. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, whom I regret is not present, is aware of the case to which I am referring as I have spoken personally to him about it and raised it on the floor of this House earlier this year during the debate on the Immigration Bill.

I am raising this matter again now because there is new information requiring urgent reconsideration of her family reunification visa which the Minister has denied on two occasions. Her family has just been informed that Precious has become a victim of the barbaric practice of female genital mutilation. I stated in my letter of appeal to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform in December that she was in danger of falling victim to this practice and I am unable to find the words to express my sadness and anger that this has now come to pass.

Female genital mutilation is a horrifying procedure — I doubt the Minister would disagree with that. Its short-term complications can include shock, haemorrhage, tetanus and infection. Long-term, it can lead to a multitude of complications as well as psychological effects. To my profound regret, Precious has not been able to escape this brutal procedure but, with the Minister's permission, she would at least be able to obtain proper medical treatment in the company and comfort of her parents and her two Irish siblings. Surely this is the least she deserves after her ordeal.

Precious's family, who are still trying to come to terms with what has happened to their daughter, have also learned that the same tribal leaders who subjected Precious to this horror are now trying to force her into a marriage with a much older man. If she remains in Nigeria she will be kidnapped and forced into this marriage, there is no question about it. Her parents, now living in Dublin, are sick with worry about her and, indeed, who would blame them? Their 12 year old daughter has been violated in the cruellest way imaginable and now faces being handed over to an older man about whom they know absolutely nothing, including whether he will subject her to further abuse or allow her to keep the limited contact she has had with her parents in the five years since they fled the country.

Precious's parents have been resident in Ireland for five years and have applied for naturalisation. As Irish citizens, they will be entitled to family reunification under Irish and European law. The naturalisation currently takes 18 months and Precious and her family simply cannot wait that long. Naturalisation is at the Minister's discretion and there is no guarantee that their application will be approved. The important thing now, however, is that the family are reunited.

In response to Precious's earlier applications, the Minister stated that he has stopped approving family reunification visas in these matters as a result of the L&O decision. I remind him that nothing in that decision mandated that response, nor was anything said in that decision about parents such as Precious's who have already been granted leave to remain. There is nothing in Irish law to prevent him granting this visa, it is entirely within his power to do so and it is beyond my comprehension why he has refused.

I also question the anomaly in our immigration laws concerning family reunification visas. If Precious's parents were already citizens, refugees or even migrant workers, this visa would have been granted long ago. Why are people granted leave to remain in this State not similarly allowed to be joined by their children? Is it a case of some families being more equal than others?

There are serious questions to be asked about the constitutionality of a policy which excludes a certain category of people from the protections of Article 41 based solely on the reason for their legal residence in this country. There is no justifiable basis for this. It is a spurious distinction and anyone looking at the situation honestly would agree with me. I do not understand the Minister of State's laughter as this is a serious and sad case.

It is too late to undo what has been done to Precious, but it is not too late to prevent her and her family suffering further anguish. If the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform does not act quickly, however, it will soon be too late. I plead once more on behalf of this child not to allow this to happen.

Mr. Callely

On behalf of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, I am pleased to respond to the matter raised by the Deputy. This debate centres around the issue of family reunification for families where members of the family have permission to reside in the State. It is important to clarify certain matters surrounding the issue of family reunification. The Refugee Act 1996 contains provisions which oblige the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to allow family reunification to certain family members of refugees, including spouse and dependent children. This provision operates on the premise that since a person who has refugee status is unable to return to his or her own country through fear of persecution, it is a reasonable and humanitarian gesture to allow other close family members to join them here.

It was also the general policy of successive Ministers to operate a similar policy in respect of persons who were given leave to remain in the State on the basis of having an Irish born child. It is important to bear in mind, however, that the policy was a concession and that the family in Ireland did not enjoy a statutory right to be joined by the family member in question.

As Deputies on all sides of the House are aware, the issue of claims for leave to remain in the State by the non-national parents of an Irish born child has been a matter of serious concern to Government for some time. A claimed right to reside in Ireland based solely on the birth of a child in Ireland had come to be used as a method of attempting to circumvent normal immigration controls. That concern extends also to the knock-on consequences of granting permission to remain to the parents of Irish born children and the extent to which the vehicle of family reunification was being used to bring other family members into the State.

In light of the Supreme Court's decision in the cases of L&O, the Government decided that the separate procedure which then existed to enable persons to apply for residency on the sole basis of parentage of an Irish born child would no longer apply and this procedure ended on 19 February 2003. The Government also decided that the general policy of allowing such parents to be joined in the State by other family members would no longer apply. The visa application to which the Deputy refers falls into the latter category.

It is generally the case that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform does not comment on the detail of individual cases, but because the Deputy has put information on the case to the House and due to the manner of his presentation, it is appropriate that l reply accordingly.

The parents in this case were granted leave to remain on the basis of parentage to an Irish born child in 2001, having withdrawn their applications for asylum made the previous year. A visa application was made in October 2002 for the purpose of allowing their other daughter to come and reside in the State. No reference whatsoever was made in this context to the threat of female genital mutilation and the visa application was refused. This decision was appealed and fresh information was supplied in support of this appeal to the visa appeals officer. The issue of female genital mutilation was never raised in this context either. The first time this issue was raised with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform was in the course of this debate, despite the fact that the parents have had an opportunity to raise it on two separate occasions prior to this.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

That is not true.

Mr. Callely

I understand that the father and mother have one other child living in Nigeria. Therefore, there are two children living in Nigeria at present who have been separated from their parents for over four years. The current family reunification application relates to the eldest child who is now 12 years of age. It is not clear to me why the family waited one year after obtaining residency in the State to apply for family reunification for their daughter. Similarly, it is not clear to me why no application has been made in respect of the other younger child resident in Nigeria or if an application will ever be made for that child.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

He is a male and a very different situation pertains to him in Nigeria.

Mr. Callely

The visa process is predicated on credibility. On the basis of the information available, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is not satisfied that the information supplied by the Deputy is credible. It is, of course, open to the parents to reapply for a visa at any point and if they choose to do so they should present information in support of the application which they consider relevant.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

That is a tragic reply.

The Dáil adjourned at 12 midnight until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 30 June 2004.