It is not agreed to. I seek clarification from the Taoiseach. Will he explain the background to this motion? We did not receive the Order Paper circulated earlier. I have just received it and consulted the Chief Whip. Why is there to be no debate on that motion and what is the background to it?

When the remit of the Ombudsman was being extended last year, the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs and the Ombudsman for Children sought to have the remit of the Ombudsman for Children extended in a similar manner. Accordingly, the Ombudsman (Amendment) Act 2012 amended the Ombudsman for Children Act 2002 to align the remits of the two Ombudsmen over public bodies. The Ombudsman's remit has always excluded the administration of prisons or other places for the custody of persons committed to custody by the courts. There was a similar exclusion in the Ombudsman for Children Act 2002, other than for reformatory schools and industrial schools certified under Part IV of the Children Act 1908. This exclusion of places of detention was maintained in the Ombudsman (Amendment) Act 2012. The Minister for Children and Youth Affairs made an order with effect from 1 July 2012 which removed the exclusion which had previously prevented the Ombudsman for Children from dealing with children in any institution in which children were held in custody or detention. It was considered at the time that the subsequent Ombudsman (Amendment) Act 2012 would have no impact on this order. However, following concerns expressed by the Ombudsman for Children on the issue earlier this year and subsequent advice from the Attorney General on this highly complex legal matter, it is now evident that the amendments made in the Ombudsman (Amendment) Act 2012 had the unintended consequence of, again, precluding the Ombudsman for Children from dealing with complaints relating to children held in custody or detention. Under section 4(10) of the Ombudsman Act 1980, as amended by section 6 of the 2012 Act, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform has the power to make an order to make an agency a reviewable agency at the request of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, with the consent of the Minister for Justice and Equality, is proposing to make such an order in order that the Ombudsman for Children can investigate complaints concerning children in custody or detention. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform has laid a draft order before the Houses of the Oireachtas and is bringing a motion to both Houses seeking a positive resolution with a view to the order being passed as quickly as possible.

From what I can gather, there is a significant lack of accountability to the House on this issue. This is coming in under the radar without debate, for example, on the inadequacies of the 2012 Act, the unintended consequences, as the Taoiseach described them, which, again, precluded the Ombudsman for Children from hearing complaints regarding children in detention. I cannot understand why there would not be a debate on this motion, a presentation by the Minister, a statement outlining why the House is being asked to approve this resolution, the background, implications and consequences of it. It is sharp practice to lay this motion before the House almost in silence without any accompanying statement to the House in plenary session.

Until I stood up and asked for the information, the many Members present would not have been very aware of what was being slipped through. I can understand why and may have no opposition to it, although I would like to check the legal underpinning. Trying to apply this power via the agency route may not be as legally robust as doing so by primary legislation, which was the original intention. Somewhere along the line the Taoiseach got it wrong in terms of the original legislation and its unintended consequences. I do not know the background to this or why it happened, but we need far more transparency in the House. There should be no reason someone did not today issue a statement to facilitate a debate because many issues arise from the Ombudsman for Children's reports, particularly on children in detention, which have proved contentious during the years and which merit debate. It is wrong that did not occur.

The Deputy's party welcomed this move. This is the first time ever that an ombudsman can go into a place of detention or custody to investigate a complaint concerning a child.

Did people know this with the original Bill?

Yes.

Was it valid then? How far does it go back?

Yes. I have -----

It seems from what the Taoiseach has said that the intentions of the Oireachtas were not put into effect over the past 12 months and nobody knew about that. Nobody was told about them.

I have given the Deputy the background and given him -----

Am I right that 12 months ago it was the intention of the Oireachtas to ensure reports could be made on children in detention? Is it the case that what people thought they passed was not passed and nobody knew anything about it until now or that has not been published? Nobody has got any clarification on that.

The Deputy will not listen. As I said, new legislation was brought in here. The fact of the matter is that the Ombudsman for Children expressed concerns earlier this year and following her concerns, advice was received from the Attorney General on what is a highly complex matter. That advice indicated that the amendments that were made in 2012 had the consequences of precluding the Ombudsman for Children from dealing with complaints relating to children held in custody or detention. Therefore, all that is here is a technical-----

Was the House made aware of that at the time?

No it was not. There was no deliberate intention here.

Should it not have been?

Who here was involved? This was new legislation.

That would not matter. It is basic procedure that if the House passes something and it turns out that the House thought it passed something, but it had not -----

The Deputy wants clarity, openness and transparency and I am giving him that.

In getting the clarity, I have discovered something else.

The Deputy's party welcomed this.

The Taoiseach is missing the point.

I am not missing the point.

For 12 months people held the belief that the Ombudsman for Children could raise these issues, but now it has transpired that -----

The point is that the Ombudsman for Children, following on the new legislation, made an observation expressing concerns. Those concerns were brought to the attention of the Attorney General and it transpired that based on the evidence, the unintended consequence was to preclude the Ombudsman for Children from dealing with cases of children in detention. This technical amendment allows for the Ombudsman for Children to go into a place of detention or custody to deal with complaints concerning children. I do not believe anybody could say that is not the right thing to do.

In terms of the legislation, getting it wrong makes the consequence serious in that the Ombudsman for Children could not do what she wanted to do or that everybody wanted to give her the power to do, the least the House deserved in a situation like that is a statement from the Minister responsible.

To be clear about it, we have had some comments on these things before. I do not have any problem and I am quite sure that the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform has no problem either with regard to the legislation that came here and coming in to explain this in greater detail if the Deputy wishes. We are not in the business here of excluding anybody who wants answers to questions.

Is there any chance we could get the legal advice? I think we should.

I must ask the Deputy - does he not want the issue dealt with today?

I am going to oppose it now.

There is no need to oppose it. We can put it back. If the Deputy does not want it taken today, we will not take it today. We can put it on the Order another day. All that is in it is the right of the Ombudsman for Children to go into a place of detention.

Will the Taoiseach publish the legal advice on it?

No, we will not publish the legal advice. We never do that.

The Taoiseach has proposed that No. 2 -----

The Deputy's spokesperson has already welcomed this amendment.

I am not against its principle. The Taoiseach is missing my point.

To be clear on this, what we will do when these things happen is extend the time.

No, let us be clear, the Taoiseach and the Minister knew about six or nine months ago that something was wrong here, but they never advised the Dáil of that. They should have, and that is the point.

That charge is unfair. The Deputy's party did not give any time on the substance at all, but his spokesman welcomed it.

Is the proposal withdrawn, Taoiseach?

Yes.

Is it agreed that the proposal is withdrawn? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with Private Members' business agreed to? Agreed.