Is the Minister aware that many of the trainee teachers are married and have no other income while pursuing this course? In those circumstances, why is the Minister charging such a high fee as £250 to these trainee teachers? It is rather harsh.

First, I should like to correct the Deputy. If he listened to me carefully, he would know the fee is £225. Secondly, I want to point out that these people were unemployed and would have had no prospects at all were it not for the fact that I initiated this scheme. The position of other graduates selected in the normal way for the graduate trainee course was that they had to pay the fee of £225 and did not have any salary. I was providing them with a substantial salary from which £225 had to be paid in fees and food. I think the bargain is what somebody called a damn good bargain.

In view of the fact that they were unemployed, why charge them a fee of £225 which they can surely ill-afford?

I should like to tell the Deputy that, in terms of students, the salary is a substantial salary and I am not admitting——

It is not a substantial salary.

I did not interrupt the Deputy. The deduction of £225 for very substantial benefits is not in any way exorbitant.

The Minister is aware it is not a substantial salary. It is far below what they would get if they were employed.

The Deputy is not permitted to make a statement. If he insists on doing that, it will be contrary to the Chair's ruling.

On a point of order, there is a misprint in this question. The word "examiners" should be "examinees".

I am sorry about that, but I examined the question very carefully and if Deputy Collins cannot distinguish between "examiners" and "examinees", it is not my fault. My answer is based on the exact wording as spelled out in the question. If he wants to put down a question about examinees, I will be only too willing to answer it.