There are four proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. 29a, 29b and 56 without debate agreed?

No.

Under normal procedures, No. 29a would be referred to a committee of the House. We had understood that it was to be referred to the Select Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights but, according to the terms of the motion before us, I presume it will be passed without debate.

It is important that we should not allow a motion as serious as that relating to the planning and development regulations to be passed without debate. The legislation which gave rise to the regulations has been the subject of controversy and people are now obliged to pay to make comments on or objections to planning applications. In future, people will ask why legislation of this sort, which removes people's ability to participate in the democratic process, came about. I object to the fact that there will be no debate on this matter.

Motions such as No. 29a sometimes come directly before the House and on other occasions they are referred to committees.

That has not happened since the establishment of the committee system.

It has.

Not without debate.

Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. 29a, 29b and 56 without debate agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 30 agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 7 agreed?

This Bill is being rushed through the House. We only received it late on the evening before last. As I do not know whether the House will sit next week, it is perhaps facetious of me to suggest we take Report Stage then. It is dangerous to pass legislation in this way. While I am agreeable to taking the Bill today, I wish to put down the marker that if there are flaws in the Bill, the House is not being given the opportunity to examine them.

As I believe the Deputy recognises, the Bill represents a very major step forward for those concerned about hepatitis C. Given its importance, it is vital that the Bill is concluded as early as possible.

Is the proposal agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 1 agreed?

(Mayo): A Cheann Comhairle, you will recall that I pressed time and again for the publication of this Bill and promised to co-operate fully on it. This does not extend, however, to agreeing to take all Stages in three hours. Even the schedule initially agreed last week, under which the Bill was to be taken all day, was very restrictive given that this is major, technical legislation. We have repeatedly seen the dangers of rushing technical legislation through the House. I am not agreeable to the proposal.

I agree with Deputy Jim Higgins. It would be very irresponsible to agree to take all Stages today. The Bill has immense implications for the organisation, structure, management, control and balance of communications. It is totally unacceptable to take all Stages today.

This question is not just one of technical detail, but also of—

Principle.

—health implications. A considerable amount of new information, not all of which we have received, needs to be taken into account. It would be irresponsible, therefore, to pass this legislation before considering all available information.

This is not a rushed Bill. It has been around for a long time, having been published on 22 February and debated at length in the Seanad. The Minister will be happy to accept amendments that are relevant to the Bill.

Will the Minister for Education and Science confirm whether the two teenagers who are facing charges arising from the deaths of Garda Tony Tighe and Garda Michael Padden had, when previously convicted for car stealing offences, been refused admission to Oberstown House and Trinity House, both of which are within the charge of the Minister for Education ad Science? Will he explain how after five years in government neither he nor his predecessor, Deputy Martin, provided sufficient places for young offenders in either Oberstown House or Trinity House, or any other location?

Yesterday in the House and earlier following the tragic events of the weekend the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform attempted to make great play of the provision of extra places of detention for young offenders. Many people will not be aware that the Minister for Education and Science is the person responsible for young offenders, unlike the Ministers of State at the Departments of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Health and Children who have responsibility for those who have not come before the courts and require places. Those places are being provided.

Perhaps, the Minister for Education and Science, with his encyclopaedic knowledge, will tell us why there is such management chaos in the Finglas Child and Adolescent Centre; why there has been disarray among management in that centre; why its full capacity of 39 places is confined to an operational capacity of only 27; and what is and has been going on under his stewardship of the centre for the last two years. Can he indicate to the House whether he is aware of the grave concern that has been expressed by many people in the area on the failure of management to deal with the problems of young offenders in this institution, and the effective sterilisation of a significant number of places which if they had been open and available under proper management would not have resulted in these two young offenders, to whom Deputy Noonan refers, being turned away?

As the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has pointed out, there are some 5,000 young people on probation and on various community works. The two boys at the centre of the current controversy are aged 15 and 16 years. Neither of the boys has been refused a place in either Trinity House or Oberstown Boys Centre. Since the events of last weekend, one of the boys—

That was before the event. It would not have happened if they were locked up.

Talk about closing the stable door.

The Minister without interruption.

A place will be available for one of the boys – the 15-year-old – at Trinity House when he is brought there from court this morning. This boy had been refused a place in the middle of last year, not in recent times. The Minister of State, Deputy Hanafin, has done a great deal of work to ensure that places are available and the refusal-—

There are fewer places than there were five years ago.

Order, please.

—which is mentioned was the refusal in the middle of last year.

So what?

Since then, nobody has been refused.

Since the middle of last year.

Order, please.

This is a pathetic Government.

The second boy was assessed at Finglas Child and Adolescent Centre on 15 Feb ruary 2002. The recommendation was that he be placed in a probation hostel.

Is the Minister saying that nobody was refused since the middle of last year? He needs to qualify that statement.

Order, please. Deputy Rabbitte should cease interrupting. The Minister without interruption.

In relation to the provision of places—

Where did the Minister get his script?

There has been a serious problem in relation to the provision of places. The total number of places currently available is 162. The operational number at the moment is 126. That is because a major programme of refurbishment and extension is under way. That programme will provide 181 places when concluded. Provision of those places is costing £25.5 million.

The "Bertie bowl" is costing £1 billion.

It is a matter of great concern and deep regret that these events should happen. However, they are events that will come before the courts which will have to deal with them. Places will be available. In addition, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform said in the House last night that, in conjunction with my Department, he is providing 20 additional spaces as an interim measure. The full details of that will be given within the next week or so.

It is pretty sad at the end of five years in Government for a Minister for Education and Science to come to the House and give such a reply, and have it drafted in a manner which is downright misleading. The issue is places for remand prisoners – teenagers on remand. The Minister instead gave the statistics for the total number of places available. Will the Minister confirm that the number of remand places is 31? Young people on remand are being turned away from both Oberstown House and Trinity House and this applies to the young people involved in the tragic death of two gardaí. The Minister said that a place would be available for the 15-year old tomorrow. Is that place being provided by the release of another young person? The Minister also said that there was an assessment at the Finglas centre to refer the second teenager to a hostel. Was he referred to that hostel? What procedures were in place in the hostel and how come he was out driving a stolen car late at night if he was supposed to be in the care of the hostel?

The Minister might answer my question also.

Included in the 162 are 31 remand places.

There is spare capacity at the moment.

The Minister without interruption.

There is capacity and room available, yes.

Why does the Government not use it?

We move on to a leader's question from Deputy Quinn.

The Minister should answer the question.

I have called Deputy Quinn. The Minister has sat down.

I asked a question.

There is no further provision for that. It is Deputy Quinn's turn to ask a question.

The Minister must answer the other questions.

Was the young teenager released from the hostel?

We cannot deal with this. We cannot have any more supplementary questions under Standing Orders.

I asked a question. The Minister is not filling in for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

I call Deputy Quinn.

Deputy Noonan is entitled to a reply.

I gave the Minister the floor.

This is outrageous.

The Deputy is in defiance of Standing Orders. He should resume his seat.

I wish to raise a point of order.

I have ruled that the Deputy is out of order in defiance of Standing Orders. The Deputy may only ask one final supplementary.

I called on the Minister. The Chair cannot force the Minister to reply. I call Deputy Quinn.

I have ruled on the point of order, Deputy Noonan.

I have not raised a point of order. How could you have ruled on it?

The Deputy did. If the Deputy has another point of order—

What is the point of order that I raised, if the Ceann Comhairle has ruled on it?

The Deputy was asking further supplementary questions. The Chair is not open to cross-examination by the Deputy. The Deputy will resume his seat.

The Ceann Comhairle has the answer now. He has found the page.

On a point of order—

Deputy Noonan should resume his seat while the Chair is on his feet. I call Deputy Quinn on leaders' question.

On a point of order—

The Chair is on his feet. The Deputy cannot have a point of order when there is total disorder.

There is no disorder except that which the Ceann Comhairle is causing.

That remark is not worthy of the Deputy. The Chair is on his feet and the Deputy should resume his seat properly.

On a point of order other than the one ruled on—

I have made my ruling. The Deputy has got his full leaders' question. He is not entitled to any more supplementary questions. There should be no more cross-examination of the Chair.

The Ceann Comhairle is protecting the Minister who will not give an answer.

Deputy Noonan will resume his seat. I call Deputy Quinn on leaders' question.

This is a Parliament not a circus.

The Deputy is being totally disorderly. We will proceed to the next business. The Chair has ruled on the matter. Deputy Noonan has asked his questions and is not entitled to any more.

Does the Ceann Comhairle see this as an example of total disorder?

It is total disorder. The Deputy is being totally disorderly and should resume his seat while the Chair is on his feet.

This is not disorder. Can I raise a point of order?

I call Deputy Quinn for his leaders' question.

Let us hear the Minister's answer.

Deputies will not disrupt the House. I have ruled on the matter and that is final. Deputy Quinn on leaders' questions.

On a point of order.

The Deputy cannot raise a point of order during leaders' questions. The Deputy is not the leader of his party.

I am talking about a serious matter, namely the deaths of two gardaí. The Minister is deliberately avoiding answering serious questions. He does not know what is happening in his Department, any more than the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform does. It is outrageous and a total disgrace.

The Deputy is not entitled to raise a point of order. The Deputy is being disorderly. I have ruled on the matter. Deputy Shatter must resume his seat.

On a point of order.

There can be no point of order raised. This is leaders' questions. The Deputy is not entitled to intervene during leaders' question on a point of order.

Is there a duty on the Chair to protect the interests of the Minister and to ensure impartiality?

The Chair is not subject to cross-examination by the Deputy.

You are not impartial.

I ask the Deputy to cease being disorderly and to resume his seat.

It is due to the failure of the Minister to answer the question.

I suspend the sitting of the House for ten minutes in view of the failure of Members to accept the rulings of the Chair.

I call on Deputy Quinn to ask his leader's question.

Before I ask my question and within the order of my right to speak here, I want to draw attention to the farce in which we have been engaged.

The Deputy should ask his question.

I will ask a question. We are in the House while the Taoiseach and Tánaiste are out campaigning. We have a hapless Minister here who simply refuses to answer a question put by the leader of the Fine Gael Party. I had a separate set of questions that I wanted to put to this hapless Minister, but in the interests of parliamentary solidarity I feel obliged to continue with the question that was put by my colleague the leader of the Fine Gael Party.

That is quite in order.

I think it is. It is a comment—

The Chair has no power to make a Minister reply.

Where is the Taoiseach?

Where is the Tánaiste?

We will proceed with leaders' questions. Deputy Quinn will ask his questions.

We have a stand-in.

(Dublin West): The Taoiseach is out canvassing while the rest of us are here.

It would not happen in Zimbabwe.

I appreciate and sympathise with you, a Cheann Comhairle. You have no responsibility for replies from that side of the House and you were carrying out your job. However, you must understand that we were frustrated that legitimate questions asked during leaders' questions were refused a reply by this Minister. Let me start again and I hope he has got his notes together. The Minister of State sitting behind him can give him the prompts when required.

We have had the tragedy of the killing of two gardaí on duty over the weekend by young offenders who should have been under the care of the Minister for Education and Science in one of the institutions for which he has responsibility. He has failed abysmally to answer the questions put legitimately to him by Deputy Noonan. I want to bring him back to the question he did not even address when I asked about the same subject. The Finglas Child and Adolescent Centre has a capacity of 39 places. At present 27 beds are available for use. Have you ever been to this place, Minister? Are you aware of the chaos there? Are you aware that the inmates have taken over the running of this institution? Are you aware that on one occasion such was the disorder that some of the inmates got on to the roof and the Garda helicopter had to come to restore order? Are you aware that due to the incompetence of the management there, overseen by the incompetence of your Department, that the operational cost to the taxpayer for every child in that institution works out at £250,000 per year in old money? I can give you the questions in serial number. One, are you the Minister with responsibility for this institution? Two, have you ever been to it?

It would be more in order if the Deputy addressed his questions through the Chair.

I did not want to implicate you in this in any way.

That is the way things are done in this House.

You have a tough enough job to do as it is. Making you responsible for him would be unfair to you.

To keep the matter in order it would be better to address questions through the Chair.

I accept that. Is the Minister for Education and Science the Minister responsible? He does not seem to know whether he is. Has he ever been to the institution in question? Is he aware of the management crisis there? It is not just about some of the young offenders causing damage internally. There is a separate but related management crisis that is exclusively within the domain of the failure of the Department in Marlborough Street to exercise authority over the executive management in that institution. What steps does he propose to take in the dying days of this Administration to ensure that young lethal offenders who took away the lives of two gardaí over the weekend will not be turned away from a place where they could be safely kept in custody and dealt with? Would the Minister like me to put that in writing or can he remember it?

Before the Minister replies, there is a supplementary question on the same subject from Deputy Noonan.

Can the Minister confirm that in this matter he is not substituting for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and that the items raised are totally within the responsibility of the Minister for Education and Science and his Minister of State? Will the Minister put on record all contact which his Department has had with the two teenagers who were in the car that was driven at high speed and which led to the deaths of two gardaí? In the interchange between his Department and these young offenders, could he state in particular whether or not the recommendation of the Finglas centre to send one of them to a hostel was carried out? Will the Minister explain why, after five years in Government, there are only 31 detention places available for under-16 year olds on remand? Why has there been such a failure in his Department to address this when the issue of young offenders stealing cars and driving them at high speed is well known, not only in this and other cities, but also in the Minister's own constituency?

Earlier, I explained the position in relation to one of the boys, but that was when Deputy Noonan and his colleagues began to create an uproar. I said that one of the boys was assessed at the Finglas Child and Adolescent Centre on 15 February 2002. The recommendation of the assessment was that he be placed under the guidance of the probation service in a probation hostel. That was the last information available from my Department about that case.

Was it done, Minister?

When the Deputy asks for more details I am conscious that this boy is before the courts today.

The Opposition does not want any due process.

Please allow the Minister to reply. The Minister should proceed.

I am naturally reluctant to get into the personal details.

Did it happen?

It is a matter for the Garda Síochána and the courts. That was the recommendation, following which an appointment was made but the boy did not turn up. I do not want to say any more about that case.

Surprise, surprise.

That is the information I have.

Judge Kelly has been on about this for years.

I do not believe what I have just heard. I put a set of questions to the Minister who then addressed, incompletely, a previous question from the leader of the Fine Gael Party. He has not addressed one of the questions I put to him.

That is right.

What is going on, Minister?

Incompetence.

What are we supposed to do? You have an impossible job, a Cheann Comhairle. We agreed there would be leaders' questions and that somebody of seniority would deal with them if neither the Taoiseach nor the Tánaiste could be here. In the interests of charity, I think we should just fold and let the Minister off. It is not fair to ask any further questions of this man.

But this is his area of responsibility.

I know it is his area of responsibility but what are we supposed to do? Should we be unruly and shout and roar, as I have been accused of doing? I am not shouting and roaring, I am asking everybody in the Gallery to look at what we have witnessed.

Irresponsibility.

This is a democracy in which we, the elected representatives, are asked as leaders to put questions and hold the Government to account, yet the Minister sits down.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): And drinks water.

What am I supposed to do?

Throw out the Government.

A Cheann Comhairle you cannot force the Minister to reply. He has been sent in here by the Taoiseach, who is campaigning down in Cork, and the Tánaiste.

The Tánaiste is in Limerick.

What is the Opposition responsibly supposed to do? You have already suspended the House for ten minutes, a Cheann Comhairle, because we were interrupting, yet we got no replies. I am the only one who is supposed to be allowed to speak at this point. I can repeat for the third time the questions relating to Finglas. I know that the Minister of State, Deputy Hanafin, who sits embarrassed behind the Minister, visited the place last year. She is aware of the problems and was briefed about them in detail. I can see from her face that she is ashamed of this failure of democratic accountability by the senior Minister.

Not so.

She is doing nothing about it.

I just do not know where we can go from here. I will ask the Minister for the last time if he has been to Finglas and if he is aware of the problems. Has he personally gone to see them since he received the report of the inspector, which he said he would send out in reply to a question posed by my colleague, Deputy Shortall, in February? I am sure the Minister will find the reply somewhere in all that paperwork. In light of what he has heard in the last couple of minutes, will the Minister tell us what he is going to do? Does he accept from the files in Marlborough Street that there is chaos in this particular centre? What, if anything, is he going to do about it?

The Deputy referred to the Minister of State who has a statutory, delegated function in this area, and Deputy Quinn is aware of that.

It is her fault, is it?

Did the Minister of State get that point?

I have answered questions in the House about these issues. First, an independent review of residential provision for young offenders is currently being carried out by an expert of international repute. His report is expected very shortly.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Another report.

As I have pointed out, there is an enormous amount of work going on in these centres at a cost of €25 million. That work is progressing and in the interim the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is making provision, with our support, for some 20 places. Large sections of the Children Act, 2001, are due to commence shortly, including sections relating to curfews, fines and parental responsibility.

What about ministerial responsibility?

What about the Taoiseach's responsibility?

As regards the individual case, I gave Deputies the latest information available to me concerning the boy who was mentioned. I have to say, however, that this matter is before the courts this morning and I cannot interfere.

Has the Minister been to Finglas? For the fourth time, will he answer my question?

I would prefer if the Minister would not listen to interruptions.

I have not been there recently.

Has he ever been there?

The Minister of State has been there as a delegated function.

The sooner this Parliament is dissolved and the Government goes, the better.

The Standing Order on leaders' questions is very specific.

Right.

There is an opportunity for the leader who asks the question to have one supplementary question. I understand that Deputy Quinn has already has his supplementary question and I would prefer if he would not ask another.

On a point of order—

There are no points of order during leaders' questions, unless they are supplementing the Standing Order.

As I have said, that is the current position. Deputies Noonan and Quinn asked about the situation concerning the assessment that was made in February.

I asked about what was happening in Finglas.

There is a major refurbishment going on in Finglas.

There is no provision for a number of supplementary questions.

I am assisting the Minister whose recall is deficient.

There is no provision under Standing Orders for assisting a Minister either. I call on the Minister to conclude.

It is time to turn off the lights and let us out of here.

The Minister is responsible.

Deputy Quinn is being disorderly.

In relation to the individuals concerned, the position is that these are matters for the Garda Síochána, and they are currently before the courts. The Deputy referred to the Taoiseach who is away on official business, as Deputies are aware.

He is campaigning.

The Taoiseach has responsibility for this debacle.

(Mayo): We have a mere three hours to debate all Stages of a very insipid Communications Regulation Bill, which is most unfair. We have tried to inject some fibre into the legislation by tabling amendments. In tandem with that, there is the digital hub Bill which is equally important because one cannot have one without the other. Is there the foggiest chance that we will have the Digital Hub Bill before the end of this Dáil and Government?

The Bill was published on 14 January and is ordered for Second Stage.

The Government has promised a Parliamentary Commission Bill to look at how this House operates and the responsibilities of committees and Ministers. Yesterday in Wexford I understand the Minister for the Environment and Local Government was allocated to an unelected person to assist his campaign for election. Can I ask—

Has the Deputy a question appropriate to the Order of Business?

An unelected person yesterday, Sir—

I will call Deputy Flanagan if Deputy Howlin has not got a question appropriate to the Order of Business.

I will try to shorten my preamble.

The Deputy can only raise a question appropriate to the Order of Business. There is no provision for a preamble.

It might help the Chair to understand the question.

May I ask the Chair if it is appropriate for information that has been withheld from this House to be given by a Minister to a candidate—

Deputy Howlin is being disorderly. He will have to find another way of raising that matter. I call Deputy Flanagan.

The Minister for the Environment and Local Government has informed the non-elected candidate assigned to him in Wexford that the schools building list will be announced next week, information we sought repeatedly in the House but which was not forthcoming. That was a breach of the protocols of the House and showed a lack of respect for the House, particularly when the Minister denied that information to a Member of the House.

I have called Deputy Flanagan and if he does not wish to offer we will move to the next business.

The Minister wishes to reply to Deputy Howlin.

The Minister cannot be disorderly, any more than any other Member of the House. I call Deputy Flanagan.

Will Deputy Howlin please resume his seat?

Has a system of parliamentary mentoring been introduced that does not have to be put on a statutory basis? All the second string candidates seem to have been adopted by a Minister.

The Chair just implements Standing Orders and if Members do not like them, they have the means to change them. I call Deputy Flanagan. If Deputy Rabbitte does not resume his seat we will move on to Private Members' business.

The Leas-Cheann Comhairle is one of the most senior Members of this House and I put it to him that he has never witnessed the type of farce that is taking place.

That does not arise on the Order of Business.

Yes, it is important on the Order of Business. It relates to the manner in which we are now ordering business in the dying days of this Administration.

Has the Deputy an appropriate question?

Yes, I have. First, why is the Taoiseach not here to answer leaders' questions? The Tánaiste is campaigning and the Minister for Finance is as rare a sight in the House as the corncrake.

That does not arise. Has the Deputy a question appropriate to the Order of Business?

Yes. Before Easter, a number of important Bills were rushed through the House. Some of those were referred to in the comprehensive report issued yesterday on the motor insurance industry. One of the items mentioned was the Courts Bill, on which a comment was attributed to the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Treacy. That Bill was passed here late at night under pressure, with amendments being guillotined at the behest of the Government. Will the Minister for Education and Science, speaking on behalf of the Government and deputising for the Taoiseach, confirm the veracity or otherwise of a statement attributed to the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, that the courts Bill which was guillotined through this House will not now be enacted, but will be repealed before it is even signed into law, if that is possible?

The Bill has been enacted. The report referred to will be the subject of a three months period of consultation and the legislation will follow on that.

Go raibh maith agat. I call Deputy Stagg.

On a point of order, the Minister has not answered the question I asked.

That is not a point of order. The Chair has been generous on that question. I call Deputy Stagg.

No. 56 on today's order paper, motion re Planning and Development (No. 2) Regulations 2002, deals with an anomaly in the system. Has the Government any intention of dealing similarly with a further anomaly whereby single parents on FÁS schemes, with two children, are now excluded from supplementary welfare allowance—

Has the Deputy a question appropriate to the Order of Business?

I am asking if the Government intends to introduce, as an emergency measure, the type of order which appears on the Order of Business today.

There is no legislation promised in that regard.

I call Deputy Creed.

In other words the Government intends to leave the anomaly whereby a single parent with two children will not receive a rent subsidy while a single parent with one child will.

The anomaly arises under legislation passed when the Deputy was in Government.

Where stands the Education for People with Disabilities Bill, 2002? Is it the Government's intention to withdraw that Bill and to consult widely with representative groups?

That Bill has completed its period in the Seanad and various groups have been consulted. A task force which had been set up in advance of the Bill consulted very widely. On the Bill, as published, there has been very consider able consultation to date and as soon as that is finished the Bill will progress further.

Will the Minister for Education and Science confirm that there are now fewer detention places for under 16s than there were five years ago?

Has the Deputy a question appropriate to the Order of Business?

Will the Minister cut through all the spin and confirm that there are fewer places now than five years ago?

That is not a question appropriate to the Order of Business. I call Deputy Enright.

What is the position with regard to the proposed spending of approximately €1.5 billion on Campus and Stadium Ireland and will the relevant Bill be published before the general election? Will all the available money be spent on that project? Will the Minister reply to the correspondence sent by Offaly and Laois County Councils? Will the Government provide funding for swimming pools in Birr, Clara and Tullamore?

Please, Deputy Enright. The Minister wishes to reply. If the Deputy does not wish to give the Minister the opportunity to reply we will move on to Private Members' Business.

The heads of the Bill have been approved by Government and it has gone for drafting.

I ask the Minister to reply to correspondence—

Deputy Enright should allow his colleagues an opportunity to ask a question on the Order of Business. If there is any further disorder, we will move on immediately to Private Members' business. We have already spent an hour and a quarter on the Order of Business. That is longer than normally allowed.

(Dublin West): For refusing to segregate little children on sectarian lines in his school, the principal of Scoil Gaelach Thullach na nÓg in Dunboyne was sacked yesterday. Unfortunately, the Minister was not here last night—

Has the Deputy a question appropriate to the Order of Business?

(Dublin West): It is relevant, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. The suggestion that primary schools are private institutions under independent management indicates that the Minister wishes to wash his hands of the matter. Will he bring forward amendments to the Education Act or the Teaching Council Act to ensure teachers cannot be sacked in a sectarian manner?

That matter was dealt with in this House on the Adjournment last night.