Alex Attwood
West Belfast · Social Democratic and Labour Party · Northern Ireland
“I certainly do not take away from the contribution being made by the judiciary in Northern Ireland to framing a society that upholds the right principles and applies human rights standards across the board without fear or favour. <BR /> <BR />There are two issues with bail. One is police bail, which nobody has commented on so far.”
“Whatever it is, it is a flip-flop. It is trying to cover your tracks. It is having said to people that everything was all right when things were not all right. People saw through it.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. When I was housing Minister in 2010-11, I conducted a fundamental review of the Housing Executive. It was based upon a number of principles, including protecting the institution of the Housing Executive, its legacy and name.”
“What world have you been living in for the last two or three months? <BR /> <BR />That is why Mr Agnew is right to say that there will be anger. There will be anger at the DUP on the day that a public inquiry is established into RHI, belatedly endorsed by Sinn Féin because it had no place else to turn.”
“He accepted a point from me and then said, "Well, actually, since that time the then deputy First Minister has been looking at the matter." Is it not curious that 18 months ago, despite NAMA, despite Red Sky, despite ransom strips — and, for all we know, people might have even known about RHI then — Sinn Féin, despite all that evidence, s…”
“Sorry, apologies. <BR /> <BR />I agree completely with Mr Agnew who said, in his opening remarks, that there was a need for an independent open process to investigate ministerial conduct, not least given recent events, and that there will be public anger if the motion is not passed.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,562 lines we hold for Alex Attwood, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 16 of 32.
“The Chancellor is preparing himself and anticipates becoming Prime Minister by 2019, and we will then see the full measure of his dogma and ambition. How dare anybody reduce this Chamber to a postbox after the years of democratic struggle and the pain and grief suffered by our people and allow this now to be the statement of democratic mandate? There are people who claim a democratic mandate, and rightly so. How dare they take away from all the rest of us the democratic mandate that we earned over many decades when there were people not far from this place who chose to put all of that in jeopardy? It is a sorry state of affairs that we have reduced our democracy to the shallow folly that we see before us today.”
“I do not understand how, on one hand, two parties can declare that next week is, in their terms, sufficient and good time to address this matter yet we were reduced to the Assembly and its Members waiting until whatever time last night to get a copy of the motion that is before the Chamber today. Even that motion, in some parts, is hard to make sense of, for reasons that I will touch upon. That is why Alliance and the SDLP were quite right yesterday to reserve judgement on all this. <BR /> <BR />This Chamber is a consequence of democratic struggle to secure democratic institutions in a democratic Ireland, and this Chamber has been reduced today to being a messenger on behalf of the DUP and Sinn Féin for those Tory elites in London who have ambitions on welfare and work that we have not seen the half of yet.”
“<BR /> <BR />I echo the remarks made by other people this morning that we should not be in this place today and rushing through an LCM. In the document released by the DUP and Sinn Féin yesterday, they refer to the fact, and the narrative in the document states explicitly, that an LCM would be required "no later than next week" and no later than 23 November, which is next Monday, and the fact that the Assembly has been put in the invidious place of having to address this matter today. By the DUP and Sinn Féin's own hands, in a document issued around this time yesterday, they declared that the matter needed to be addressed by the Assembly next week or next Monday.”
“The fact that the document is so silent in relation to that matter — that the issue of the past is reduced to eight lines/four paragraphs — is a very sobering commentary about how the talks ended and how so many people outside, if not inside, the Chamber are disappointed that paragraphs 21 to 55, which were meant to be in the draft document, are now redacted for many reasons, although the primary reason may be because of those who have responsibilities in state organisations and, in our view, illegal organisations, continuing to deny responsibility, truth and accountability in respect of the past. In that regard, it is a matter of regret that so little is in the document — as opposed to what should have been in the document — about dealing with the past in a comprehensive and ethical way.”
“If you look at pages 34 and 35 of the agreement that emerged yesterday, you will see that it moves from paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 and has no reference to paragraphs 21 to 55, because they were all lost in the issue of the past not being addressed.”
“The game may have changed for some in here with the election of the Cameron Government for a second time, but we warned, if it came, what the consequences would be in that regard. <BR /> <BR />I want to reassure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that all my comments today will be embedded in the content of the motion before the House. I will try to address the following: the principle of an LCM; the Northern Ireland (Welfare Reform) Bill 2015, referred to in the LCM; the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, referred to in the LCM; the draft Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Order, referred to in the LCM; as well as the issue of payments. I want to reassure you that all my comments will revolve around, and address, all that. <BR /> <BR />I will make this really marginal remark, but it tells you something in general.”
“Some assessments suggest that there is a net deficit, as well as the other deficits in the proposals that emanated from the DUP and Sinn Féin yesterday, such as those in investment in skills and infrastructure, taking forward the needs of the western and southern counties, disadvantaged areas, the north-west, the city of Derry, city deals and all of that. <BR /> <BR />It may come as a bit of a surprise to some people in the Chamber that, as somebody said earlier, the election of a Tory Government changed the game for all of us. If you look at Hansard, you will see that, time after time, a number of Members, including the SDLP, in welfare debates in the earlier part of this year, put down very full markers about what the intentions would be on the far side of the election if there were a Tory, or Tory-led, Government.”
“I know what our submissions were, and I know with which parties and which Governments we shared papers and documents. However, there was a lack of return of papers in that regard. I presume that everybody was arguing that there needed to be bespoke enhancements to support those on welfare and tax credits. As far as it goes, we acknowledge what is in the proposals. We would like to have seen more bespoke interventions, more money and more done, but we are not going to naysay what is there, even though you can interrogate the figures and try to make sense of them. <BR /> <BR />To some degree, it is hard to make full sense of the figures, including the core issues of what more is coming into the Northern Ireland Budget, what more is now being spent from the Northern Ireland Budget, and what the net gain is in that regard.”
“Nonetheless, I acknowledge that, when we submitted papers, there was a full response on many issues, albeit silence on others. The Minister knows what I am referring to. Nonetheless, increasingly at an official level, and certainly at a ministerial level, there was better engagement on this issue than on some others during the process of the talks that have now concluded, and I want to acknowledge that. That is something to build upon, because wherever this goes over the next while, our job in the Assembly and, certainly the SDLP's responsibility, will be to apply our best minds, if we retain any, and judgement to ensure that the best outcomes are secured in the circumstances that we now face. <BR /> <BR />I am sure that all parties made submissions in the recent talks process, although I am not sure what those submissions were.”
“In my short time in the post that the Minister now holds, we contracted Eileen Evason to come in to the Department, I think, two days a month back in 2010. That was done for the simple reason that we needed her guidance and authority as we anticipated what may or may not happen with the Tory welfare agenda. It is timely and welcome that she will play a more central role in that regard. <BR /> <BR />Whilst the Minister and the SDLP will differ on the LCM today, I want to acknowledge again that the level of qualitative engagement with the Minister on this issue is different from what had been the case heretofore. I have a sense — I am treading very gently now — that he might not have been free to do all that he wanted to do in the quantity and quality of that engagement, and I am not putting words into the Minister's mouth.”
“In starting, I want to acknowledge some people and some things. First, as everybody has said so far in this debate on the LCM, arguably, and very probably, the single best servant of those on welfare in Northern Ireland is Professor Eileen Evason. The responsibility that she is now to be given is an immense one. Given the frenzy around welfare and tax credit reform, its impact on an area like this, the proposed mitigation fund and how that will be dispersed among growing numbers of people in need, it is a responsibility that, arguably, no one else could undertake, save Professor Eileen Evason. It is clearly the wish of the House to wish her well in that undertaking, because the judgement calls and the responsibility will be immense, but there is no better person to live up to it.”
“— Haass/O'Sullivan, Stormont House 1 or Stormont House 2, it is an indictment on Governments and politicians that they should, once again, so gravely let down victims and survivors in their search for truth, accountability and justice.”
“Families across Northern Ireland will say that, if we could not do it with Eames/Bradley —”
“However, consistent with that principle, which is common to all, people in and around Eames/Bradley saw in this issue a need to respond in a discrete way over and above what might be the mechanisms to deal with truth and justice that are being negotiated. <BR /> <BR />It is very timely that we have the debate today. Not only is the shadow of Ballymurphy over the Chamber, it is over the negotiations that are ongoing not far away from here. The shadow of all the past is across all the negotiations that are ongoing as we speak. If, on the far side of two, three, four or whatever number of days it takes to conclude those negotiations, any party or Government is on the wrong side of the right standards of justice, truth and accountability, it is not only the families in Ballymurphy who will have been let down.”
“The answer actually comes from Eames/Bradley, because, without breaking the confidence of Eames/Bradley, there are people in that process who, when they met the families of the Ballymurphy massacre, said that not only was their message and experience compelling but that it was of such a scale that the denial of justice, truth and accountability to the families was of such enormity that, if there was ever to be another public inquiry into an event from the past, that might be one such case. That is not, in any way, to diminish the equal right of any victim or survivor to have justice, truth and accountability in the circumstances that they face.”
“That is because of the dignity, resilience, courage and dedication of families like the Ballymurphy massacre families in refusing to have anything other than an acknowledgement of truth and accountability, and, hard though it may be to secure, justice as well. I want to first acknowledge the families. <BR /> <BR />Mr Bell asked a fair question. Why should people support this group of families in the call for an independent review and investigation of the circumstances of the murders of their family members?”
“<BR /> <BR />I do not know if I have said it in the Chamber before, but, at the Haass/O'Sullivan talks, in the early hours of New Year's Eve, Richard Haass said to me that it was the impact upon him and on Meghan O'Sullivan of the voices of victims and survivors that moved him from a position, in September, around the first plenary meeting of those negotiations, where he was not of a full open mind when it came to dealing with the issues of the past, to one where he proposed a variation on Eames/Bradley when it came to dealing with the past. That was because of the voices of victims and survivors and the impact, intellectually and emotionally, that they had on him and her.”
“I apologise for the fact that, when I finish my remarks, I have to leave to go elsewhere in the Stormont estate to deal with some of the issues that Mr Craig has just touched on. Apologies to the House and anybody else in the Building for the fact that I cannot stay and hear what is a very important and welcome debate. <BR /> <BR />First of all, as is always the point of reference when it comes to issues of victims and survivors, I acknowledge the victims and survivors, not least the Ballymurphy massacre families, but many other individual families, groups of families and communities. It is because of their resilience and dignity that, even as I speak, people are continuing to interrogate how the issue of the past should be addressed and, hopefully, addressed in a comprehensive and ethical way.”
“For the first time; not for the last time. <BR /> <BR />I hear what the Minister says about pushing at an open door, but I think that the sense of the Bill, in many places, is that it should be a game changer and that that should be manifest in a qualitative change in the relationships between government and agencies in respect of the statutory duties and a qualitative change in how the Programme for Government is shaped around those duties. Do you acknowledge that that might be the ambition that people have, whilst noting the work of OFMDFM in that regard to date?”
“If the Bill is passed today and receives Royal Assent by Christmas, it will be tested in real time and very quickly, given that there is about to be a new mandate and there will be agreement in relation to the content of the Programme for Government. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, I acknowledge the work of the Bill Office. If you look at the Assembly's programme of work for the next number of weeks, you will see that there is less and less private Member's business, if any, and more and more business of legislation. The responsibilities that fall to the Bill Office, especially at the end of a mandate, are very substantial. The fact that this has progressed from Mr Agnew's opening meeting in January to a Bill being passed in early November is a measure of the good authority of all those involved, not least the Bill Office.”
“However, given that a body of officials have been working on this, thinking about this and working with Ministers in relation to all of it, can the junior Minister indicate if there is now some further thinking about how this will be mainstreamed into the life of OFMDFM and, thereafter, mainstreamed into the life of government? In that regard, given that there is ongoing work, as I understand it, in respect of the Programme for Government and that we are a short number of months from the next Assembly election, if it is not earlier, how does the junior Minister anticipate this Bill and the obligations placed on government being mainstreamed into the next Programme for Government?”
“At times, the balance between, or the hierarchy of, equality and good relations has been a matter of some discussion if not dispute. I would like to hear from the junior Minister how she anticipates the principles being worked through in a way whereby there are no inherent tensions. I think that that can be dealt with, but I would like to hear from the junior Minister in that regard. <BR /> <BR />I come to my second question. This will all be measured in practice. The paint is not yet dry on the content of the Bill.”
“First, at Consideration Stage — when the Alliance Party tabled an amendment in relation to, I think, clause 2, which referred to equality and good relations — I, and I think maybe others were thinking it, expressed a little bit of caution. We now have a situation where the principles that govern practice cover a wide range of children's needs and welfare informed by international instruments. We also have a reference to good relations and equality. Given that this has been introduced and is the will of the Assembly, and given the nature of those concepts, can she confirm that she and OFMDFM are satisfied that there will not be any unnecessary tensions within those principles arising from the good sentiment that informed the Alliance Party amendment in respect of equality and good relations? These are very big concepts.”
“There will be two in particular. This Bill will receive Royal Assent, probably before Christmas, and will become a statutory duty of government into next year, the next mandate and beyond. So, I have two questions for her.”
“<BR /> <BR />For that reason, in acknowledging the presence of the new junior Minister in the Chamber, I will also ask her a number of questions.”
“For the 40 organisations that gathered with him when he launched his consultation on the content of the Bill, it is a measure of their work that another good private Member's Bill will pass through the House today. <BR /> <BR />Mr Agnew asked what difference it will make. He said that there needed to be a culture shift, and that is what is going to be required. In order to bring about a culture shift — as we know in relation to other embedded issues in our society, both current and historical — you need good law, robust process, strong leadership, clear accountability and strong performance. If any of those pillars are missing in how this legislation is now taken forward, there will be gaps in measuring up to the needs of children and young people.”
“In his opening remarks, Mr Agnew referred to the fact that in 2007 there was a policy proposal in relation to that which is before the House today. It has taken eight years to get from there to here, which is far too long. However, in a society that clings to the past and resists change, it might not have been so long after all. <BR /> <BR />Like everybody else, I acknowledge Mr Agnew's particular and personal contribution to creating the space and working the ground in relation to what will be known as Agnew's children's Bill, which is about not just his children but all our children across Northern Ireland. As he also rightly pointed out, more importantly than that, it is the children's sector children's Bill.”
“The reason I make that point, if I may stray momentarily, is that there is a power proposed for the Secretary of State under the draft legacy Bill, in respect of which I am not able to say very much, which grants the Secretary of State the power to make regulations that could prescribe the life of the work of the proposed historical investigations unit (HIU) in a way that would create so many obstacles and difficulties for people going to the HIU for the reinvestigation of past murders that it would not be able to do its job in a way that is enabling as opposed to prescriptive. I ask the Minister to confirm the character of what is intended by that amendment, although I anticipate that her reply will be satisfactory.”
“might mean only that most recent report. However, the relevant clause, as drafted, makes it clear that the report, whenever it is — most recent or more historical — has to cover the full range of potential issues and responsibilities arising from the new duty in a way that ensures that the most recent report will very much capture the character and content of all the reports in order to ensure that the new duty is implemented as fully as possible. <BR /> <BR />I understand that amendment No 4 will not be moved. I ask the Minister of Finance and Personnel to confirm the intent in respect of the regulations to make provision for procedures to be followed by children's authorities. I am sure it is the intention not that it will be overly prescriptive but that it will be enabling.”
“There could have been a potential risk that:”
“<BR /> <BR />The issue of strong, hard accountability is necessary if you are going to shape society in a better way, especially a society like ours which, in too many ways, clings to the past. Therefore, I very much welcome the fact that the reporting period will be 18 months. Whilst endorsing that, I would like to think that, even if there is not a statutory reporting function, especially in the early days, there will be architecture in relation to the implementation of the new duties arising from the Bill and that, even if it does not have to come to the Assembly in the early months, there will be rigorous architecture to ensure that that which is needed to be implemented is seen to be implemented as quickly as possible. <BR /> <BR />I confirm to Mr Hazzard that my party will support amendment No 3.”
“Amendment No 2 would leave out "3 years" and insert "18 months". A number of people — certainly, if I recall properly, that included me — made the point at Consideration Stage that the early life of this Act and how it is or is not shaped and taken forward by Departments will be critical. The best example, in my view, of a reporting function, if you like, was with the implementation of Patten. It had 175 recommendations and 675 performance indicators. Those performance indicators were assessed and managed by not just an oversight commissioner but a panel of experts that was brought in to force home the implementation of Patten, not least in the circumstances at that time when there was a suspension of these institutions.”
“If there is now to be a further paragraph, I seek reassurance from Mr Lyttle that there is no tension in the Bill as it would be amended and that the right assessments would fall to Departments to live up to the various paragraphs in a way that does not, somehow or other, create some tension that is hard to manage. I look forward to Mr Lyttle's reply to that matter. I am sure that I will be satisfied on the far side of his reply.”
“It has been reworked, and it borrows from international best practice and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Therefore, it has as its concentration and attention the standards that are necessary for our domestic law to achieve fully as informed by international law. <BR /> <BR />Whilst the SDLP very strongly supports the sentiments of equality of opportunity and good relations for the reasons that I outlined, I do not want to create and am sure that Mr Lyttle does not plan to create a tension in the legislation between subsection (2)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) and the wider issue of equality of opportunity and good relations. There cannot be a hierarchy in that list; there has to be an integration in it if the Bill's purpose is to be achieved.”
“That is no mean achievement and no mean success by Mr Agnew and those outside the Chamber who have argued for this approach, especially in the children's sector. <BR /> <BR />I will deal briefly with the amendments. As I said, we are inclined to support amendment No 1, which is from the Alliance Party on equality of opportunity and good relations. The SDLP as a matter of principle believes that those are some of the standards that should inform legislation as it goes through the Chamber and is then implemented. I ask Mr Lyttle to confirm to the House that adding paragraph (h) at line 11 will not end up reconfiguring the balance in that clause. Clause 1(2), which defines the well-being of young persons, has been carefully drafted.”
“I confirm that we will support amendment Nos 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, subject to the questions that I have to ask, in respect of which I anticipate satisfactory answers. <BR /> <BR />First, I again acknowledge the work of Mr Agnew and the Bill Office. Mr Agnew can be rightly pleased, and it should be properly acknowledged that he is now within touching distance of another private Member's Bill, of which he is the sponsor, being passed in the Chamber. However, much more significantly, it is a Bill that can, over the lifetime of future mandates in the Assembly, have great authority and impact and can potentially positively change for the better the lives of children, young people, their parents and carers.”
“The club works from small premises but builds relationships within the community and across Belfast. <BR /> <BR />In thanking Michael Conlan and Irish boxing, we should acknowledge the other sportspeople who in recent days and weeks, be it in soccer, rugby or boxing, have lifted the hearts of our people.”
“No group of sportspersons has, in the history of Irish sport, achieved more on the Commonwealth, European and world stage than the group of boxers trained by Billy Walsh and his team. <BR /> <BR />In acknowledging Michael Conlan, his fellow boxers and the team coaches, I also acknowledge, as Ms McCorley did, that boxing is very much a grassroots sport. For all the big achievements on wider stages, it is on the small stages in our communities across Belfast that this sport is played out. There are significant working relationships between sports and boxing clubs in west, north and east Belfast. Boxing is in the vanguard of showing what can be done in good sport and good community relations. No club illustrates that better than a small club on the Glen Road known as Gleann ABC.”
“I welcome this Matter of the Day and join in congratulating Michael Conlan and his family. As has been said, it is an immense achievement to win any world title in any sport at any time, but Michael Conlan is the first Irishman to win on the world stage, after 41 years of that tournament, at the age of 23, and winning each of the three rounds in his final bout. <BR /> <BR />In acknowledging this son of Belfast, I also acknowledge and applaud his teammates who won medals in the world championships: Joe Ward, and Michael O'Reilly, who controversially lost his third place bout. We hope that he will still qualify for the Olympics next year. <BR /> <BR />I acknowledge the head coach, Billy Walsh.”
“More than anything else, it is the children's sector, on behalf of whom it advocates for, showing the very best of authority. That is why I hope that, even if the Assembly were to go into adjournment, an election or whatever it might be, the Bill gets through all its stages before that day and hour were to come so that, at this time of turbulence, the Assembly shows good authority. If there is to be more turbulence, and I do not believe that there will be, and I trust there will not be, it will perhaps be a willing conclusion to this mandate that, in its latter days, legislation is passed that responds to the human condition and the needs of those who are most vulnerable in our society — children in poverty.”
“<BR /> <BR />However, subject to all those comments, in the days that are in it when Ministers are in and out, when Members are in and out of the Chamber — I acknowledge that there could be very good reasons in respect of Mr Moutray, so this is not a personal criticism but more of a party criticism in general — this is actually the Assembly showing its good authority, as well as government and government officials showing good authority.”
“It is my view that, in the early life of this new duty, it will have to come forward more regularly, because my experience in government is that there will be a natural resistance to the ambition of this legislation, be it to having a joined-up approach on policy or the pooling of resources in practice. There will be a resistance. If some who may resist think that they have to account only every three years or a Minister thinks that he has to account only every three years, that could, in my view, especially in the early life of these new legislative responsibilities, frustrate what the Bill, its authors and the sector want.”
“If Departments, especially in times of limited resources, protect and do not pool, the Bill could end up being frustrated. <BR /> <BR />I also acknowledge amendment No 5, which is on the children and young person's plan, noting that it is not to be moved. This clause on the children and young person's plan provision is where the processes are given dynamism. That is because you can have the best processes, but at the end of that you need the best plans with the best follow-up of resources, including pooled resources. That makes dynamic the ambition of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 6, which will insert a new clause reporting the operation of the Act, is also critical. I note that it has been said that a report may come forward more often than every three years.”
“Therefore, this new clause, which will shape an anti-poverty strategy and the process around all that, is very important, given that High Court ruling on a related matter. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 4 proposes a new clause, and Steven Agnew made the point in his opening contribution that this is the place in the Bill where it moves from process to product. This is a pivotal clause, because whatever legislation says and whatever its ambition might be — there is so much in the Bill that is good — unless there are resources to do the work and there is a pooling of resources, we could end up with limited outcomes or less joined-up outcomes. So, critical to the ambition of the Bill is the implementation of this clause for a pooling of resources.”
“That is a critical clause, irrespective of the fact that there was a previous strategy. It is critical not least because of the decision of the High Court in July on the failure of FM and dFM to adopt an anti-poverty strategy. The Committee on the Administration of Justice took a judicial review of the conduct of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister on that. Subject to correction, it is my understanding that the argument of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister was that the Programme for Government was an anti-poverty strategy, and that, rather than adopt a dedicated anti-poverty strategy, the Programme for Government was somehow "the" anti-poverty strategy. If I am correct, that argument was rejected by the High Court when it required OFMDFM to adopt an anti-poverty strategy.”
“Certainly, we are reassured by that. We are also reassured by the fact that people who have been drafting other clauses seem to have been shaping them in an expansive and positive way, which reassures me that other words that might be open to interpretation will not be interpreted in a negative and limited way. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 3 inserts a new clause stating:”
“I look to the sponsor of the Bill to confirm in his reply that that language does not limit the intended ambition of the Bill. In anticipation of confirmation that that is not the case and that that is not a word that dilutes or limits the ambition of that particular clause, we will support the clause.”
“That should also be part and parcel of the legislation that was shared with the parties this morning, with respect to international and European standards — the rights under article 2 of the European convention — that are involved in how the legacy mechanism, the HIU, should conduct its affairs. I acknowledge that model of putting the ambition of a Bill into a Bill by reference to international convention, as well as defining the nature of the issue and the challenges as new clause 1 would. <BR /> <BR />At an earlier stage, the SDLP and I commented on our concern about the words in new clause 1B of:”
“London should hear that, and the Bill is an effective response to that narrative. By having joined-up government across Departments and putting life on the various clauses of the Bill, you will end up addressing what the Church leaders recognised last week, which, to use their words, is "a real crisis". <BR /> <BR />I want to make some passing comments on the amendments that have been tabled. Amendment No 1 seeks to introduce a new clause. That is where the Bill defines the well-being of children and young persons and, in that regard, refers to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. That is a wise approach: to state in legislation, especially by reference to international codes, what the ambition of that legislation is, in this instance the well-being of children and young persons.”
“That includes dealing with the issues of the highest levels of child poverty and mental ill health in areas that have been impacted by the conflict. If we are to deal with our child poverty, we have to deal in the talks with the emotional stress and difficulties that are being experienced by our children. <BR /> <BR />To conclude that argument, I want to quote from what the Church leaders said last week. They said:”