asked the Minister for Education if he will remove the anomaly whereby one year art and design students are ineligible for a higher education grant in view of the fact that the course is part of a three year third level educational programme.

Foundation year/pre-diploma year courses in art are accepted for the purpose of the tenure of grants under the higher education grants scheme where they are specifically recognised by the National Council for Educational Awards for the purpose of its awards.

27.

asked the Minister for Education if he will dispense with the rule whereby it is essential to apply for the higher education grant in the year of sitting for the leaving certificate examination in order to facilitate persons who wish to, or need to, seek employment for some years before entering third level education.

The position under the existing provisions of the higher education grants scheme is that in the case of a student who qualifies academically for a grant in the leaving certificate examination of a particular year and who takes up employment for up to two years before entering on a third level course of education, my Department would offer no objection to the relevant local authority accepting an application for grant from such student and treating it as if it had been received on or before the closing date in the year the student sat for the leaving certificate examination. Accordingly, the concession sought in the Deputy's question is already provided for in the scheme.

It is only granted in part. Would the Minister not agree that the concession period referred to of two years is entirely arbitrary and that it would be appropriate to extend that period to provide for the case of people who have a qualification to enter university but require to work for a period longer than two years in order to obtain sufficient financial means to enable them to do so?

To anticipate a later question, I am conscious that certain aspects of the operation of the grant scheme should be looked at. In that context, it will be examined.

(Limerick-East): In the case of a student who takes up employment for two years is eligibility for a grant purposes decided on the means of the working student or the parents in the leaving certificate year?

It is normally decided on the circumstances that obtained in the year in which he sat the examination. The situation is that, if he completed employment and then applied for a grant, the assumption is that he would be giving up employment so that he would not have an income of his own on which to be assessed. If the Deputy would table a question——

(Limerick-East): Is the Minister aware that the difficulty and stupidity of the present grant scheme is that regardless of the age of the student, the assessment is always made by reference to the means of the parents in the year of certification? In the cases where a student is married and has a child he is still assessed on the means of the parents. Would the Minister look at the situation with a view to removing this ridiculous anomaly?

I should prefer if the Deputy did not use colourful descriptions. In fairness to any schemes in operation, including this, one must begin by having a set of rules. I recall that when the scheme was introduced it only operated for students who took up the grant in the year in which they sat the examination. It was to improve the scheme that the two year deferral was introduced. Various other improvements have been built into the scheme since it was introduced. It is unfortunate to refer to an improvement as stupid. I recognise that there is always scope for further improvement.

(Limerick-East): I suppose it is under review.

28.

asked the Minister for Education if he will remove the anomaly whereby in order to become eligible for a higher education grant, it is necessary to have achieved four honours in the leaving certificate examination in the case of applicants for courses which require less than four honours for entry.

29.

asked the Minister for Education if he will arrange do dispense with the rule requiring four honours to be achieved in one sitting of the leaving certificate examination for eligibility for a higher education grant, having regard to the fact that this rule militates against mature and/or married prospective students.

With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 28 and 29 together.

The rule at present is that in order to qualify for a grant a candidate must have obtained successes as follows in the leaving certificate examination of the year in question: Either (1) Grade C or a higher grade in higher or common level papers in four or more subjects; or (2) Grade C or a higher grade in higher or common level papers in Irish and in two other subjects or in mathematics and in two other subjects; or (3) in the case of a candidate who will pursue an approved course in science (including agricultural science) or engineering, Grade C or a higher grade in higher or common level papers in two of the following subjects: mathematics, applied mathematics, physics, chemistry, physics and chemistry, agricultural science, technical drawing, agricultural economics.

Since coming into office I have noted for review a number of areas within the higher education grants scheme. I am not in a position, however, to anticipate what the results of that review may be.

Does the Minister agree that an effect of the regulations which he read out will be that there could be cases where a person would have achieved sufficient qualifications for a course and yet that would be insufficient to enable him to qualify for the grant? Is it not logical and desirable that, if a student gets sufficient marks in his examination to qualify him for a grant, that should be adequate for grant qualification purposes?

The distinction which the Deputy refers to between qualification for entry and qualification for grant has existed since the scheme was introduced in 1968.

That does not make it right.

I am replying. To make the change suggested would increase the number of students qualifying for grants. It would not necessarily be the most appropriate use of any additional financial resources which might become available. I am reviewing the operation of the scheme but I do not wish to anticipate the results of that review.

(Limerick-East): Is the review taking place at present and when does the Minister expect a report?

I do not want to put a date on it. I requested that it be as a matter of urgency. I expect to have some preliminary results within the next few months.

Question No. 30, Deputy Taylor.

30.

asked the Minister for Education if he will remove the anomaly whereby third level students in the Mater Dei Institute, Dublin, are ineligible for higher education grants.

Courses which in content and character are essentially courses in religious studies have not heretofore been accepted for the purpose of the tenure of grants under the higher education grants scheme. I do not propose to make any change in that position.

Would the Minister agree that it is entirely illogical that third level students of the Mater Dei Institute in Dublin, doing a four-year course which is validated by Saint Patrick's College, Maynooth, whose qualification is accepted by his own Department for teaching purposes at second level, should be debarred in this way?

It has always been the position that any courses which in any sense have an element of religious studies in them are not recognised for the purposes of secular education grants.

Would the Minister agree that, while it has always been the position until now, logic requires that now is the time to change it?

It is not just a simple matter of logic which the Deputy has in mind.

The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.

I had a question down to the Taoiseach regarding instructions from his Department to the College of Art in Dublin to seek the return of the Chester Beatty paintings from the Cork Gallery and you, Sir, ruled it out of order as being argumentative, even though it is a matter within the competence of the Taoiseach's Department. May I have the reasons for your ruling?

I have studied the question and I have also sought the advice of my advisers. It was adjudged argumentative.

If it is a matter in which the Taoiseach has responsibility, surely the question should be allowed and he should answer it.

Not a question that is argumentative.

It was not argumentative. All I sought to do was to ask——

Sorry, Deputy, you are not allowed to question——

——the Taoiseach to instruct——

It is out of order to question the ruling of the Chair.

It should be allowed.

Deputy, it is not within your rights to question a decision of the Chair when a question is disallowed. You are welcome to discuss it with me at my office.

That does not get the question down on the Order Paper for answer by the Taoiseach, and the matter is his responsibility.

If you will discuss it with me, we will review it in the light——

I ask you to allow it on the Order Paper for next week.

If it is proved not argumentative, I will indeed.

That seems an awful waste of time.

On a point of order regarding the questions on the Order Paper today, at the last sitting of the Dáil prior to the Easter recess on 1 April I asked for a written answer to Question No. 153 on that occasion. In the written answer the Minister included Questions Nos. 154 and 155 of that day. I had not requested a written answer to either of those questions. You have now disallowed my question to the Minister for Justice on the basis that it was answered previously.

I will look into the matter further.

With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I wish to raise on the Adjournment of the House the abrupt closure of the National Film Studios of Ireland on 3 April and the subsequent threat to employment, tourism and the Irish film industry.

I will communicate with the Deputy.

I would like the Minister for Industry and Energy to make a statement on the problems at Quigley Magnesite Ltd., Dungarvan, County Waterford, which is in trouble and may close with the loss of 150 jobs.

That is a matter for a question.

There is great urgency about it.

You can put down a question on that.

On the question of your ruling on the grounds that a question was argumentative, I have a question down to the Taoiseach about a deal between himself and Deputy Blaney which is covering the front pages of all the Northern papers.

There is a rule in the House that you cannot question at this time a decision of the Chair. I did not make the rule.

Why has the Chair disallowed the question on the grounds that it was argumentative when there was nothing argumentative about it?

That is your opinion. I am sorry, you cannot raise that even at this time.