I have two questions I want to deal with separately. The first is the Tom Dollard case from Bandon——

I would prefer if names were not mentioned.

I merely wanted to differentiate between the two cases. There is no objection to the facts of the case being known. In fact, it might help to get some sensible decisions from the Departments. In relation to that matter, will the Minister accept that this case proves conclusively how ludicrous it is to put obstacles in the way of unemployed people pursuing educational courses so that they may get qualifications leading to job opportunities? Further, will he accept this is a classic case where the Minister, who now has the power under the Act, should use that power immediately, taking into account the circumstances of the person concerned. This involves a drop in family income from £147 per week to £102 per week, a willingness on his own part to pay the RTC fees of £395, a willingness to pay travelling expenses to the RTC which cost about £22 per week——

Again, I appeal for brevity. Some 25 minutes have elapsed and we have not yet disposed of four questions.

Will the Minister agree that someone who is prepared, with the agreement of his wife and family, to make this sacrifice, who has had to sell some household items and who has borrowed £1,000 from the bank, should be given the utmost consideration? Should not the Minister immediately use the power he has and allow this man to do this course so that he can get a job?

No, I would not accept many of those statements. First, the gentleman in question applied for and was granted the period for the leaving certificate. The question now arising relates to higher level education and that will have to be considered in the context of regulations. As the Deputy has said, the family income has been reduced from £147 per week to £102 per week, plus another £25 but that is a separate matter.

That was available before for mortgage subsidy.

It is still available.

The drop in income is £45 per week and that was the point I was making.

The person in question was invited to appeal the case but has not done so to date.

He has been told he cannot get in under the regulations.

The question that arises for the deciding officer is that of availability for work. Previously the person concerned made the case that he was available for work if work came along and the deciding officer decided he could be regarded as available for work under existing regulations.

He cannot get work.

I would point out to the Deputy that the amounts of money are quite substantial. If this were to be made available to 1,000 people we must consider the costs——

We could get people off the dole.

The costs could be considerably greater and other difficulties may arise in that connection. All that must be considered in the context of the regulations because we are interpreting how far and how wide that can go at third level.

He is willing to meet those costs——

There is a cost involved because you are setting down a cost for social welfare for the next two years.

He is paid if he stays and does not attend any course——

Anybody can do that——

——he does not get a job, but if he completes the course he can get a job.

Anybody over 21 can say they wish to go back to university but this does not strictly come under the terms of the Department. That is part of the difficulty. It is a question of what is his position under the ESF, under education grants and what allowances are being made by third level institutions to provide for people like that. In that sense it is a question of how much should be done under social welfare and under our legislation and how much should be done elsewhere. That matter is being considered in the context of the regulations.

Does the Minister not——

The House will accept that we have devoted an inordinate amount of time to these questions and we have only reached the first question to this Minister. He is taking three questions together——

Yes, but he did not reply to one of them.

I want to make progress. I have asked for brevity and I am not getting co-operation.

You will get it.

I will call the Deputy, then Deputy De Rossa and a final question from Deputy Flaherty if they are brief.

If you are looking at this side for brevity, might I strongly suggest that you turn your head to the other side.

I have no control over the Minister's replies——

That is the problem.

——but the Chair has control over Deputies' questions. When the Chair gives an admonition I expect both sides to respond.

In relation to the Bandon case, does the Minister not know that in continental countries, and in Holland in particular, there is a requirement that a person attends an educational course before he gets welfare?

Nonsense.