asked the Minister for Education how it is proposed to define school needs to enable them to qualify for the allocation of a guidance teacher as outlined in paragraph 5.8. of the action plan in education.

As stated in paragraph 5.8 of the Programme for Action in Education 1984-1987, a formal mechanism will be set up in consultation with interested agencies in order to draw up guidelines for schools and teachers on the provision of guidance. Schools seeking a specific allocation of a guidance teacher in future will be required to demonstrate, in the context of the guidelines established, a coherent guidance programme identifying target groups and actions related to them, with well defined objectives and satisfactory links with out of school agencies.

With respect, that reply is only claptrap though I am sure the words are not the Minister's own.

It is verbiage.

We are told that everything is to be reviewed. One might compare this to a lenten penance in that there seems to be no end to it. The Minister has said that a formal mechanism will be set up and that it will involve all interested bodies. May we take it from that that any school wishing to engage a guidance counsellor must now submit themselves to this formal mechanism?

Yes. The programme for action document is wide-ranging. There are certain reviews taking place. Any school seeking a guidance teacher would make application in the normal course and their case would be dealt with by way of this mechanism.

This formal mechanism is presaged in paragraph 5.8 of the programme but is not detailed. Can the Minister say when the formal mechanism is to come into operation and whether it will be different from the ordinary mechanism whereby a request for a guidance counsellor at second level is made and then considered? Would the Minister not accept that every school should have a guidance counsellor having regard especially to the complexities of life facing our young people today?

The programme states that the committee will be established on the lines of the existing syllabus committees so that the school managers and teachers, as well as the institute of guidance counsellors, will be represented and that the committee will be free to invite other interested agencies to participate.

Deputy O'Rourke asked what was the need for new criteria and whether the Minister accepted that the criteria operating within the Department reflects the need for school guidance counsellors in all schools. Does that need not still obtain? In other words, what evidence has come to light to suggest that there should be new guidelines?

As I have said, the establishment of this mechanism is included in the action programme in order to allow for the determining of whether some schools are entitled to guidance teachers. I understand that applications are to be made through this mechanism and will be considered on the basis of need.

Is this not contrary to the spirit of the programme for action in that a lot of time and many words are devoted to expressing the need for passing that crossroads with regard to vocational training? Surely the only mechanism in secondary schools to enable students to overcome this difficulty is the school guidance counsellor. Why create further confusion at this stage?

It is probably necessary to have an examination of the situation. The committee is being set up to examine the whole area of guidance teachers. I see nothing wrong with that. The committee will be representative of teachers, school managers and other interested educational groups and I consider it quite democratic and legitimate to set up a committee to examine an entire area and to advise the Minister.

I ask the Deputy to accept that it is not reasonable to debate this programme again. We had a debate on it.

It is a debating book.

Yes, but this is not a debating society and this is not debating time.

What are we to do? We cannot get to grips with anything in this book.

This is not the time to debate it. Ceist 12.

The fundamental issue is the need for guidance councillors in each school. We are not disagreeing with the Minister on the need for reviews. Does the Minister and the Department accept the need for guidance councillors in each school irrespective of criteria or reviews? Is the Minister prepared to answer that?

It is a separate question.

We must take it then that the answer is in the negative.

If the Deputy feels I am not giving him sufficient information I am quite prepared to discuss the matter with him later. If the Chair instructs me to go on to the next question I intend to obey the Chair.

We are not getting the answers.

Perhaps the Deputy is not getting the answers she wants, but the Chair has no control over that.