I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, to delete lines 5 to 8 and substitute the following:

"(1) The Chief Executive Officer of each health board shall, immediately upon the coming into operation of this Act, appoint officers of the board to be designated officers for the purposes of this Act.".

The background to this amendment to section 2 is that on Committee Stage the Minister of State restructured aspects of the Bill, particularly with regard to health board personnel to whom allegations of child abuse can be made in circumstances where the person making the allegations is immune from civil liability. It was envisaged originally that a health board would appoint an officer to be a designated officer to receive all such complaints from members of the general public, teachers, members of the medical profession et al. It was indicated, however, in a useful and constructive discussion on Committee Stage that there were a wide variety of health board personnel to whom the general public considered it was appropriate to make reports of child abuse, including community nurses, social workers, hospital nurses and members of the medical profession.

The Minister of State indicated in response that it was the view of chief executive officers of health boards that a broad category of personnel should and would be designated by them. The amendment seeks to ensure this. Under the Bill, as it stands, a chief executive officer can appoint one or more officers to be designated officers. It would not be adequate to appoint only one officer to be a designated officer. The amendment would ensure there would be an obligation on chief executive officers to appoint a number of personnel. This would be in accord with the Minister of State's expressed view on how we should proceed. I hope he will see fit to accept it.

The form of wording to be used to allow for the introduction of the designated officer of a health board for the purposes of this legislation has been the subject of considerable debate. It was necessary to amend the Deputy's original proposal which would have allowed a broad reporting structure compared to that proposed in the Bill. My amendment will restrict the persons to whom one can report while enjoying the protection afforded by the Bill to employees of those agencies, namely, the health boards and the Garda Síochána, who have a statutory obligation and the professional training to respond. This was the fundamental point at issue and is one of my central amendments to the Bill as originally proposed.

The chief executive officers of health boards have confirmed that they intend to appoint the widest possible range of personnel to be designated officers. I see no merit in amending the section, especially as I have given a commitment to communicate with the chief executive officers who have assured me of their co-operation. I regret, therefore, that I cannot accept the amendment.

I regret that the Minister of State is not accepting the amendment which seeks to ensure that what occurs in this area complies with the wishes of the House. The Minister of State can issue all the instructions he likes and make all the comments he wishes to chief executive officers but under this legislation they will not be bound to appoint more than one officer to be a designated officer. There is no reason the Minister of State should not accept this amendment, other than the usual obstinacy which one experiences when one suggests that legislation should operate in the way envisaged. I have expressed reservations previously about the manner in which the Minister of State is limiting immunity under the Bill to specific reports of abuse. He is mistaken in dealing with this aspect in this way.

Amendment No. 2 seeks to confer a legal obligation on the Minister for Health and Children to publish guidelines. When we dealt with a similar amendment on Committee Stage the Minister of State did not want to include it in the legislation. He is not willing, apparently, to accept amendment No. 1. If he does not accept amendment No. 2, much of what he said will be meaningless in a statutory sense.

I can only express my disappointment at the approach taken. I am concerned that health boards may deal with this differently. There are eight health boards. Following the reform of the Eastern Health Board, there will be ten. We have an obligation in passing important legislation such as this to ensure consistency.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 4, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:

"(3) The Minister for Health and Children shall publish guidelines describing the category of persons who shall be appointed designated officers as provided for in subsection (1) of this section.”.

This amendment which deals with a related matter would give statutory force to any instructions the Minister of State might issue to chief executive officers to ensure a broad category of health board personnel can be the recipients of allegations of child abuse in circumstances where the person making the allegations is not at risk of civil liability provided they act in good faith and reasonably and their actions are not motivated by malice. If the Minister of State were to accept this amendment to a great degree, it would resolve some of the difficulties outlined. I hope he will accept it.

The Deputy and I have agreed on a number of improvements to the Bill as originally drafted. I rejected this amendment on Committee Stage, however, as I considered it to be unnecessary and excessively prescriptive. It was the subject of a lengthy discussion and my views are well known.

I have gone a considerable distance towards meeting Deputy Shatter's concern that the categories of persons to whom reports may be made should be as flexible as possible. In that context, I gave a commitment to communicate with the chief executive officers of the health boards on the subject of officers of the boards to whom reports might be made. I repeat that I do not doubt their co-operation in this matter. This type of communication is a strength of the Bill in that it does not restrict us to a narrow list of persons or professionals to whom reports may be made. I will not, therefore, be accepting the amendment.

I support amendment No. 2. The Minister of State has fallen into the trap of considering how things stand at present and of making comments in light of discussions he has had with the current chief executive officers of the health boards. That would be fine if the position were to remain constant. However, in drawing up legislation, we must provide for the future when a different Minister may hold office and when different chief executive officers may be employed by the health boards.

The Bill should prescribe the manner in which we intend to proceed for the foreseeable future. In five years, the personnel may have changed. At that stage, if problems arise in respect of reporting procedures or if the guidelines are not being followed, there will be no point in quoting a conversation which took place in 1998. That is not adequate. We must be clear about what is expected of people who have responsibility in this area. For that reason, it is essential that clear guidelines be laid down from the outset. I wholeheartedly support the amendment.

With respect, I find it extraordinarily difficult to understand the Minister of State's obstinacy and obstructiveness in respect of these issues. Having originally introduced the Bill, I have sought to deal with matters on a consensus basis so that this measure can pass speedily through the House and provide additional protections which do not exist in the current legal system. To a degree, the Bill has been redrafted to satisfy the Minister of State and his officials. That has been my experience on a number of occasions regarding Private Members' Bills and I do not know whether it derives from the possessive views of Ministers in respect of their offices or from the views of the officials in their Departments.

It is utterly absurd that the Minister of State will not accept the amendment. He stated that he intends to issue some form of guidelines to chief executive officers. The amendment would give him a statutory right and obligation to issue such guidelines, with which chief executive officers in each health board area would be required to comply. They would also be obliged to appoint a number of people as designated officers who would be in a position to deal with or be the recipients of allegations of child abuse in circumstances where the person making those allegations is immune from civil liability.

Neither the Minister of State nor I can predict the action which might be taken by the chief executive officers of different health boards in this regard in the future. Any instruction he issues will have no legal effect or statutory implication of any nature. We could face a situation where the various health boards will deal with this problem in different ways and some of them may have an adequate number of designated officers while others may not.

In dealing with issues of child abuse, health boards currently operate under the 1987 guidelines. However, three of the health boards — it may now be four — have shown initiative by developing child abuse guidelines which are superior to the national guidelines. The effect is that children receive a different and better level of protection within some health board areas which have been more active and dynamic in updating guidelines and procedures. The amendment is designed to ensure that these issues are dealt with uniformly.

I hope I am wrong and there will be no need for the amendment. There is no point in my pressing the amendment beyond a voice vote because I am sure it will be defeated. There would then not be adequate time to deal with other amendments of equal importance which must be discussed. I predict that time will prove the Minister of State wrong with regard to the way he is dealing with this issue. I hope he is willing to accept that responsibility. In five to seven years when his successor is appointing another tribunal or commission to investigate why allegations of child abuse were not followed up or communicated in a health board area which led to the victims of that abuse not being given protection, I hope the Minister of State will come before the House and accept responsibility for his foolish approach to dealing with a basic amendment which achieves an objective that Deputy Shortall and I believe to be desirable.

From what he stated earlier, the Minister of State apparently wants to achieve exactly what the amendment is designed to achieve. However, there is no point in saying that he wants to take a certain course of action. As legislators, we have the opportunity to incorporate in the Bill provisions to provide essential protection for children. There is no basic reason why the amendment, which is not a party political measure, should not be accepted.

Deputy Shatter will be proved wrong because guidelines with a legislative base do not necessarily have a greater standing than other guidelines given to health boards in respect of their daily operations. I do not accept that guidelines must be given a legislative base. I am satisfied that the negative aspects of such a proposal would be as strong as its positive aspects.

I must draw the Minister of State's attention to the fact we are on Report Stage and Deputy Shatter has already replied to his earlier contribution.

It is total nonsense to suggest that the proposal has any negative aspects.

How can the Ceann Comhairle come to the conclusion that the amendment is defeated when two Members support it while only one opposes it?

My decision is guided by precedent. If the Deputy doubts my opinion, there is a remedy available to him.

Yes, but I assume the Minister of State would call on his battalions to vote down the amendment.

The Deputy should grow up.