Mark Durkan
Foyle · Social Democratic and Labour Party · Northern Ireland
“That review involved an extensive engagement exercise with charities, regulators and funders, aimed at creating a more modern and proportionate regulatory system.”
“When the review was commenced in 2021, many organisations were still in the midst of responding to the pandemic. Since then, they have faced a succession of new and evolving challenges. The ending of European funding programmes, on which so many in our communities relied for decades, has left a significant gap.”
“<BR /> <BR />The broad principles behind the Bill are sensible. The changes will modernise charity regulation, strengthen the Charity Commission's ability to intervene where misconduct or mismanagement occurs, improve information sharing and, importantly, reduce unnecessary red tape, particularly for smaller charities with limited adminis…”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak today. Before turning to the detail of the legislation — there will not even be that much detail in the debate today at Second Stage — I pay tribute to our charity sector. Across every constituency, charities provide support that changes and saves lives every single day.”
“<BR /> <BR />Whilst the SDLP supports legislation that removes unnecessary bureaucracy, we should not kid ourselves that administrative reform alone will secure the future of charities and organisations in the voluntary and community sector.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. Like other Members, I welcome the fact that we have reached this point. There seems to be consensus among Committee members and, I am sure, all Members that the introduction of these measures will save lives, which begs the question of whether the 10-year delay in introducing the measures had an opposi…”
The complete record
Every one of 3,938 lines we hold for Mark Durkan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 35 of 79.
“However, we cannot afford not to address the root causes of damp and mould in the existing housing stock and to identify solutions. The Housing Executive must look inwards and ask questions about how it spends money and the cost-effectiveness of certain schemes. <BR /> <BR />I had hoped that the motion would provide an opportunity to raise the review of the housing fitness standard. I spoke to Housing Rights, and issues of housing fitness remain a significant concern for many people who avail themselves of its advice service. Unfortunately, my amendment was not accepted. However, it needs to be said that the minimum housing fitness standard in Northern Ireland is very low.”
“It is shameful that the issue of damp and mould has become so rampant that it is treated with an almost blasé attitude in some quarters of the Housing Executive. <BR /> <BR />Mr Easton cited research by the British Lung Foundation on the very serious health impacts that damp and mould can have. In consideration of those facts, the failure to respond to concerns could have far-reaching and even fatal impacts on tenants. In the case that I mentioned, but for the grace of God, negligence had the potential to result in devastation for that family and their young son. <BR /> <BR />I fully appreciate the financial constraints faced by the Housing Executive and acknowledge the role that the cavity wall insulation plan will play in this matter.”
“Black mould ravaged almost every room, particularly the child's bedroom. The window frames were rotten, the cot and pram were covered in mould and were no longer fit for purpose. It was not until my office intervened that the family's complaints were finally heard, and they were rehoused. <BR /> <BR />What is most frustrating is that that case is far from unique. To add insult to injury, when attempting to rectify issues with damp, tenants are often treated like idiots. They are told time and time again that valid, genuine concerns are merely condensation. Of course, I can speak only to the experiences that I have encountered. However, too often, these issues are not dealt with, and, in some instances, records of complaints are not kept.”
“<BR /> <BR />One case that comes to mind is that of a young family who contacted my office last year. After a year of raising concerns with their housing officer and the Housing Executive, they were no further forward. Each time, the young couple was advised to open windows and ensure that the property was properly ventilated. Housing officers said that there was a superficial damp problem. Every member of the family suffered from persistent coughs and chest infections, including the couple's infant son, who had recently been diagnosed with asthma. Despite assertions from the family's GP that the illnesses were the result of their housing conditions, no action was taken. When I set eyes on the photographs provided, I was astounded that anyone lived in such conditions.”
“I welcome the opportunity to debate the perennial issue of damp and mould, which, it is fair to say, plagues many Housing Executive properties across the North and, indeed, many other homes, as Ms Mullan correctly said. It is incumbent on all of us to ensure that housing standards are upheld. It is shameful that we are standing here today to demand action and ask for accommodation to be habitable so that it does not present a risk to the health and well-being of individuals and their families. Our constituency office staff have become accustomed to bearing witness frequently to tenants' horror stories. During my time as an elected representative, I have witnessed multiple serious instances of not just damp but black mould in Housing Executive properties right across the Foyle constituency.”
“We look forward to seeing, scrutinising and, hopefully, being able to support something that is essential to allow councils to work effectively, delivering vital services and value to our ratepayers.”
“It was consulted on and reconsulted on for years, so I do not concur with the Chair that it is appropriate to use this Bill, particularly under accelerated passage, to tamper with the Act without urgent need and the full consideration of and consultation on the outworkings and impact of the proposed changes. For that reason, we will support the Minister and Mr Allister's opposition to clauses standing part and Mr Allister's amendment. I commend the Minister for being flexible on the matter. The Minister has now clarified that the amendment will not be fatal to the Bill or its original intent. <BR /> <BR />The Minister has also indicated that she will table an amendment at Further Consideration Stage.”
“Last week, we consented to grant the Bill accelerated passage. I, along with many other Members, lamented the use of accelerated passage as a suboptimal way of doing business. The Bill embodies why that is the case. We should try to restrict not only the number of times we use accelerated passage but the nature of the legislation that is treated in that manner. We should use accelerated passage only where we have no alternative, which, in this case, is clause 1: what needs to be done now. <BR /> <BR />I have concerns that some of the other clauses go far beyond the desired and stated intent of the Bill and go too fast. Ms Bradley referred to the Local Government Act 2014. That is certainly not perfect, but the passage of that Bill was painstaking and painful.”
“Another £2 million was allocated in the recent monitoring round precisely for the purpose of clearing the backlog in appeals. Clearly, if Capita was doing its job properly, we would not be incurring that cost. <BR /> <BR />How much will Capita gain from the two-year extension to its contract? Whatever way we look at it, it is rewarding not just failure but the abuse of vulnerable people.”
“The NIPSO report that was published last week was shocking but, sadly, not surprising. So many vulnerable people have suffered at the hands of Capita and the current system, not just to their financial detriment but at huge cost to their health and well-being. Our office workers and the vital independent advice sector do their best to help people navigate a system that fails people, and not a week goes by that we do not hear a fresh horror story of how Capita conducts its business. <BR /> <BR />By any measure, Capita has failed. The NIPSO report laid out some of those failings, but we also have to look at the number of successful appeals that are being heard. What is the cost of the appeals system to the public purse?”
“We need more time, and I look forward to hearing from and speaking to officials at Committee on Thursday about what else the Bill contains and why. I do not doubt the intent. I, like the Chair, certainly support the legislation in principle, but the unintended consequences — at least, I hope that they are unintended — of some aspects of the Bill require closer examination and will, undoubtedly, be the subject of further and more-forensic debate next week. I look forward to that, but, for now, I support the Bill.”
“The pandemic has forced councils to modernise and embrace technology. I argue that it makes, on occasion, for more-effective working. In affording flexibility, it has proven beneficial for members with young families, caring duties, illness or those living in rural areas who usually have to travel long distances, and be paid for doing so, to partake in meetings. In essence, the Bill should make for better representation and uphold greater levels of democracy. <BR /> <BR />I acknowledge that making those temporary regulations a permanent fixture for local authorities is a discussion for a later date. The priority now is getting this legislation through as quickly as possible, but the Bill should not disempower councils.”
“Evidently, getting anything done — I am not blaming any one Department or individual — here seems to be marred by delay, but we should not accept that. We, collectively, have to strive for better. <BR /> <BR />We now find ourselves in the position where the Assembly is having to scramble to push through not just this legislation but other crucially important Bills before the fast-approaching summer recess. Not having this legislation in place poses serious barriers to getting council business done. After speaking with council colleagues from across parties and NILGA, it is clear that they are keen to retain that ability beyond COVID and into the future. Hopefully, we will have a future beyond COVID. <BR /> <BR />Maintaining the ability to host hybrid meetings is just common sense.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is not just unfortunate — Mr Allister made this point in the earlier debate — but unacceptable that primary legislation has not been brought forward before now. From 7 May, due to the failure to extend this legislation, councils here have been left without the protections provided therein. On the face of things, that may appear to be a minor issue, but, once those regulations ended, it meant that any member attending virtually was not officially regarded as being present, which could have had, or could yet have, far-reaching implications for any decisions that were taken during that period. Scotland was able to develop its own primary legislation and has seemingly been unaffected by that issue. As such, there is no excuse as to why we here could not have implemented the Bill sooner.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. <BR /> <BR />This year has forced us all to rapidly adapt and adjust how we work and live. There has been a massive effort from all quarters to alter working environments, grapple with technology and, ultimately, ensure that people can continue business as normal or as close to normal as possible. Our local councils have been no different in that regard. The outworkings of the Local Government (Meetings and Performance) Bill would ensure that local authorities can set up procedures to hold meetings virtually, deliver for their — and our — communities and continue work with developers, preventing their local economies from stalling completely.”
“Minister, what is your response to the Audit Office report on the sports sustainability fund and do you still regard it as having been an appropriate and prudent use of public money?”
“As I do not believe that they are insurmountable, I will support accelerated passage with the proviso that clause 2 is removed, as the Minister has pledged.”
“I am on record here many times expressing my concerns about the use of accelerated passage. The Committee was aware of the intent of the Bill and of the urgency required. At the time, I again expressed reservations about the use of accelerated passage, but the Committee reluctantly accepted the need for it in this instance. <BR /> <BR />The Committee was not aware of the full contents of the Bill until members received it, as the Chair said, in their pigeonholes yesterday. This procedure has almost gone beyond accelerated passage and become turbocharged passage. As we looked at the detail, it became clear that many parties are not happy with it. However, I thank the Minister for swiftly responding to those concerns in the foyer outside the Chamber.”
“<BR /> <BR />My colleague from South Belfast will speak more extensively on group 2, but, hopefully, not as extensively as he did at the previous stage.”
“First of all, I declare an interest. The overhaul of our archaic and very restrictive licensing laws is long overdue, and I am sure that I am not the only one here today who is so excited and happy to see a finish line now in sight for this legislation. <BR /> <BR />The Committee has been painstaking in its consideration of the issue. I commend the Minister for the amendments that she brought forward. The Committee worked very well together on the Bill, and we have been ably and very patiently supported by departmental officials and Bill Office staff. <BR /> <BR />Other Members have outlined the rationale behind today's amendments. They are technical in nature, tidy up bits here and there and iron out any glitches in the legislation, so we will support all the amendments in group 1.”
“I do not have anything to add. I support the SRs.”
“I respect that, last year, the Health Minister, Robin Swann, committed to consult on the implementation of minimum unit pricing here; however, the amendment requires the Health Minister to enact that provision within three years of the Act coming into play. It is better to ensure that minimum unit pricing is accounted for within the confines of this legislation than to keep that crucial element on the back burner, where it has been for so long. <BR /> <BR />I support the amendments on sports clubs and, in particular, amendment No 62, which deals, as other Members said, with the misuse of one-day club memberships. It will amend the current policy to ensure that non-members can avail themselves of club facilities only if they are engaged in sporting activity, rather than having the sole purpose of accessing the bar.”
“I support all the amendments, so it is not that much of an issue. <BR /> <BR />Many of these amendments and those tabled by the Minister are technical authorisations dealing with underage and private functions and the requirement for under-18s to be accompanied by an individual with parental responsibility. We support those improvements, the focus of which must be on the creation of a safe and controlled environment for underage functions and functions at which underage people are present. <BR /> <BR />At Second Stage, I raised concerns that the Bill failed to touch on the minimum unit pricing issue. I am pleased that that inclusion has now been afforded under amendment No 44, which would introduce new clause 17A. In the interests of the public health impact of the Bill, that inclusion was and is a necessity.”
“<BR /> <BR />I seem to have lost a page or two. Maybe someone took them during the voting to speed things up.”
“That certainly warranted careful consideration, in conjunction with the fact that such issues have been exacerbated over the lockdown period. <BR /> <BR />I concur with the Chair's comments and those of Ms Mullan on the value of our engagement with young people. It is important that we continue to ask young people what, they think, should be in legislation, rather than dictating to them. Following the engagement with those young people, the Committee determined that the best approach was a comprehensive education programme, delivered in educational settings, that will be similar to other successful public health campaigns. While the communication strategy must be embedded in the liquor licensing system, a cross-departmental approach will be key in addressing the potential for alcohol-related harm.”
“First, I echo the sentiments expressed by others and recognise the importance of this section of the Bill and the safeguarding children and young people against alcohol-related harm. Much as the Bill's focus is the relaxation of licensing laws, we must not lose sight of the fact that we are always trying to strike the right balance between a vibrant hospitality industry and responsible drinking. <BR /> <BR />I reiterate assurances that a myriad of evidence and research was considered as part of the process. The public health impacts of alcohol are keenly felt, particularly in my constituency of Foyle. I am acutely aware of the scourge of addiction issues in our communities. Concerns have been raised from some quarters that alcohol-related harm could increase, given the increased availability of alcohol.”
“<BR /> <BR />I appreciate that the conclusions reached here today will not be welcomed with open arms by all elements of the sector and probably not by any of them. However, I reiterate that the Committee was tasked with a particularly challenging and convoluted piece of legislation that forced us to consider the wide-ranging impacts of the changes. I have no doubt that some local brewers will be left feeling a bit short-changed, but, in the interests of fairness, certain sacrifices must be made. I believe that we have been as balanced and meticulous as possible in our considerations.”
“Wet pubs have been among the hardest hit in the last year, and many of them have not been able to reopen their doors following the extended period of closure. Bearing that in mind and considering the pleas made by local publicans, I cannot justify extending the opening hours for taprooms, which would place those premises in direct competition with severely struggling businesses. <BR /> <BR />In recognition of the challenges facing those in the hospitality sector, I support amendment No 18, which would impose a system of penalty points and fines on taprooms that breach sale of alcohol rules beyond the permitted hours or the permitted alcohol. Likewise, I support amendment No 33 and the restriction of the use of occasional licences. Lastly, I support the Minister's technical enhancements to the Bill in amendment Nos 34 and 61.”
“I recognise that that is a lot less than many brewers want, but it is also a lot more than a lot of publicans want. The figure is fair and balanced; I keep coming back to those words. The Chair referred to one of the publicans' concerns being additional competition. I do not think that it is that; I think the fear is that it would be unfair competition. I, therefore, will not support amendment Nos 28, 29 or 31, which seek to extend that provision. <BR /> <BR />Taprooms certainly offer potential for the local economy and tourism. However, we must be mindful of the landscape in which the outworkings of the Bill will be felt and the implications that it will have for and, indeed, the competition that will impose on other licensed premises, namely wet pubs.”
“<BR /> <BR />I support the requirement for the suitability of premises to be determined prior to a licence being granted, as well as the limit on opening hours and the 104-days restriction for the sale of alcohol.”
“While the Committee agreed to increase the number of samples and the quantity of alcohol that local producers can provide as part of a tour, we also agreed to limit the hours for consumption of alcohol on the premises, so I support amendment Nos 9, 13, 15 and 16 tabled by the Minister, which, I think, supersede amendment No 8. <BR /> <BR />I support amendment No 19. It would insert new clause 8A, which relates to the sale and consumption of liquor on local producers' premises for reasons already outlined. I support the further amendments or improvements even detailed in amendments Nos 20 to 27, 30 and 32, which will essentially tidy up existing clauses. As the Chair said earlier, striking a balance proved to be difficult. While the Committee reached a majority vote on taproom-related clauses, it did not reach a unanimous decision.”
“The previous version of the Bill failed to make provision for on-site sales of their beer, which is allowed in Britain and, increasingly, across the world. We have witnessed across the water and across the border just how popular brewery tours and taprooms can be. Northern Ireland has certainly been a step or two behind in that regard. <BR /> <BR />Having listened to proposals from local breweries and from pubs that stock local craft beers, I support amendment No 8, which provides more scope for producers to sell their product. I spoke about the need for the issue to be dealt with in a fair and balanced way.”
“You might need a drink to sit through them. <BR /> <BR />The remainder of the amendments deal with local producers and taprooms, and, contrary to the old adage, it has proved extremely difficult to organise anything in a brewery. This group has proved a wee bit divisive among Committee members, and, despite devoting substantial time to debate and consideration, we could not reach overarching agreement. If we do not deal with the matters in the Bill, however, and take a holistic view of the industry, it is highly likely that we will have to return to the issue <BR />sooner rather than later. <BR /> <BR />Having engaged with producers in my constituency pre-pandemic, I saw clearly that current legislation had hindered their business.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention, and I entirely respect his point of view. The family-friendliness that those venues pride themselves on is not something that they would want to compromise. I am fairly sure that we are not talking about 'Toy Story 4' cocktails. It is envisaged that the sale of alcohol will be allowed at specific viewings of specific films. That enables cinemas to manage things better. <BR /> <BR />Interestingly, when we were taking evidence, I asked a couple of the cinema owners whether the issue of people smuggling alcohol into the cinema had ever arisen, as the law currently prohibits its sale in cinemas. Two owners gave different answers on the films that had caused them most difficulty. I am sure that the Member will have seen both of them. One was 'Fifty Shades of Grey', and the other was 'Magic Mike'.”
“I think of cinemas in my constituency and of the lengths that they go to in order to make sure that everything is shipshape for people coming in. I do not know what the detriment or the unforeseen circumstances would be that Ms Ennis referred to — they are unforeseen, I suppose — or what damage would be done by making the amendment to the Bill. I ask the Minister to clarify that.”
“I share the Minister's view that it is important to have places of entertainment where alcohol is not prevalent, but I cannot envisage circumstances in which cinemas would jeopardise their family-friendliness, which is their biggest selling point, by not having strict policies on when, how and to whom alcohol is served.”
“It is hard to think of many industries that will have taken the same hit as cinemas with the development of Netflix, Amazon and God knows how many other apps that allow people to watch even the latest releases from the comfort of their home. <BR /> <BR />We were deterred from proposing an amendment to the effect of Ms Sugden's following assurances that cinemas could and would be added as a place of public entertainment through regulations after a short consultation that would take place over the summer. It is only fair that cinemas and cinemagoers here should be afforded the same opportunity as those in other jurisdictions. I heard a clip of the Minister on the radio this morning. It was only a clip, Minister — I did not hear the full interview — but I wondered whether you were backtracking a wee bit on that.”
“However, following engagement with distillers, brewers, cider makers and public health, as well as the added context of the effects of the pandemic on the wider hospitality industry, it soon became clear that it must be managed in a fair, balanced and cautious manner. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 7, from Ms Sugden, interests me. She certainly put forward her case very well. The Committee received evidence from a number of cinema owners, and, as I recall, all members were sympathetic to their asks. The amendment would give them the ability to offer something new. We talk a lot about the tough time that businesses have had. We are hearing tonight about the tough time that hospitality has had during not just the pandemic but the many years that preceded it.”
“I think that it is fair to assert that this group of amendments has been eagerly anticipated by local producers. It marks a set of provisions that deal with the rise of local producers throughout the North and with the notion of taprooms, which is an issue that has gained traction and come to the fore since the first iteration of the Bill. It is important that any legislation can evolve and adapt with the changing economic climate and shifts in consumer habits. Evidently, it is an area of the industry that continues to grow, so it must be provided for under the Bill. It is an exciting and potentially prosperous inclusion that could provide a wealth of opportunities for tourism and hospitality alike.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. After my earlier intervention, Mr Allister said that an extension of my fatuous argument, as he described it, was that it would be better to open all bars all the time. The flip side of that is that an extension of Mr Allister's argument is that we would be better to close all bars all the time and ban the sale of alcohol entirely. What does the Member say to that?”
“Over the lockdown that we have come through, when bars were all closed, did we see a decrease in alcohol abuse and its effects? Early reports from the PHA suggest otherwise. Does the Member accept that alcohol consumption is better in a controlled environment, under supervision, than at home alone or at house parties?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I certainly share his view on the damage caused by alcohol abuse. The Member has outlined the cost to the economy, which is staggering, but that pales in significance to the cost to families and the social cost of alcohol abuse. The Member cites two factors: affordability and availability. It is not for this Bill, but we have, in a later amendment, called on the Health Minister to get to work on minimum unit pricing, which is essential when it comes to affordability of alcohol. <BR /> <BR />Later in tonight's debate, my colleague, speaking on group 4, will outline the dramatic decrease in the number of bars in Northern Ireland over the past 20 years. Have we seen any decrease in alcohol abuse and its sad effects in the same time? I contend that it is quite the opposite.”
“<BR /> <BR />In bringing my remarks on the first group of amendments to a close, I will say that amendment No 63 is technical, as it adds a reference to Sundays. I will not elaborate any further on it other than to say that I also support that change.”
“Following calls for evidence, it became apparent that a series of new clauses was needed. Those have been accounted for in the following amendments that I will discuss and that I will support. Amendment No 47 addresses the discrepancy between clubs and other licensed premises by requiring clubs to apply to the court before altering their premises. The option for clubs to apply for late-night opening or late opening for special occasions on 104 nights, rather than 85 nights, is welcome and brings them into step with similar provision offered to other licensed premises. Based on the evidence submitted to the Committee, 104 nights, in this instance, is sufficient. Increasing it to 208 nights, as per amendment No 50, particularly without any consultation, is unnecessary.”
“<BR /> <BR />As I mentioned, the legislation has, from its genesis, been highly collaborative and heavily consulted upon. In that same vein, it is important, given the significant rise in late nights provided for under amendment No 4, that local residents be informed of and consulted on any changes. I therefore support amendment No 6. However, I cannot support Mr Allister's opposition to clause 4, because we need to give the sector, and small clubs in particular, a fighting chance to regrow their businesses.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 4 is a provision that will give small pubs and clubs a fair crack of the whip among bigger players by increasing the number of late nights that they can apply for from 85 to 104. Those small venues have been among the hardest hit in the sector and must be supported where possible as they navigate the economic fallout of the COVID pandemic. <BR /> <BR />As mentioned previously, amendment No 5, with its suggestion to increase the number of late openings from 85 to 208, was not discussed at Committee nor evidenced in our research. I therefore do not support it at this point, but I will listen to the debate. As the Minister has said that the number of nights can be changed in regulation, perhaps she will clarify whether the number can change upwards as well as downwards.”
“Given that Committee members were content with, and voted in favour of, 104 nights, we cannot support that being doubled to 208 nights. Others have referred to the impact on people who live near bars in residential areas, as well as the massively increased policing bill to supervise that and to ensure the safe return home of customers on their way out of the bars. <BR /> <BR />I support amendment No 3 and its enhancement of clause 2, which requires licensed premises to give notice of intent to increase opening hours. In recognition of the hardship faced in the hospitality sector over the past year, it is incumbent upon us to afford every reasonable opportunity for businesses to get back on their feet. The option for further additional hours is a welcome inclusion, and I will therefore not support the opposition to clause 2.”
“At this point, I pay tribute to the departmental officials for their expertise, input and unwavering patience throughout the process, and I thank all the stakeholders who have given evidence. <BR /> <BR />On the detail of the Bill, we will support amendment No 1 and amendment No 48, which, similarly, entail the introduction of late Sunday opening hours in line with those permitted on weekdays for licensed premises and registered clubs. The provision will be broadly welcomed across the industry. I know that early Sunday closures have been something of a bugbear for businesses and consumers, or potential customers, alike. That issue is particularly acute west of the Bann. This provision marks a significant modernisation of our licensing law and will bring us in line with other jurisdictions. <BR /> <BR />I move to amendment No 2.”
“Although Committee members may not agree on every detail of the Bill or the amendments, we have reached consensus, for the most part, on the bulk of the legislation. It has been deliberated upon at great length and scrutinised to the nth degree, but, ultimately, it will fall to the House to decide on certain elements of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Consideration Stage of the Bill is very technical in nature. I appreciate the fact that the Minister and the Chair have already covered much of the detail of the amendments. It was clear from the evidence considered by the Committee that it was necessary to amend existing clauses and provide new clauses. It was agreed that the Minister's amendments would be proposed in conjunction with the Committee's to streamline the Bill.”
“<BR /> <BR />Before I touch on each amendment, I must reiterate a point made by the Chair, the Minister and Mr McCann thus far. It is fair to say that this legislation has undergone an extremely comprehensive consultation process. Week-on-week, we have engaged with a wide range of stakeholders, discussing the impacts of the legislation on business, tourism, young people and wider public health. We have considered a significant amount of oral and written evidence from organisations, businesses, experts and individuals, which has shaped the legislation and the amendments before us today. We are no strangers to technical blips — much worse than that suffered earlier by Mr McCann — but we have worked very well together as a Committee to get through them.”