Nichola Mallon
North Belfast · Social Democratic and Labour Party · Northern Ireland
“I have had the very moving opportunity to meet families who have tragically lost a loved one on that stretch of road. That was an important opportunity for me to hear at first hand their experience and the experiences of the local community as they try to go about their everyday business while living in close proximity to a key transport…”
“I take safety on our rural roads very seriously. My Department continues to be actively committed to improving safety on our roads and to work closely with our road safety partners to deliver a programme of road safety education, engineering and enforcement activities.”
“I thank Mr Muir and all the members of the Infrastructure Committee for very constructive working relationships. At times, those working relationships were tense, but they were always very constructive — I mean that.”
“It was important to me to take forward the motor insurance legislation to try to protect people against a hike of up to £50 in their motor insurance premiums. Members will be aware that I took the decision to freeze any hike in public transport fares.”
“That commenced a consultation process that is open until 6 May. I encourage anyone with an interest in this significant project to make their views known during the consultation period. <BR /> <BR />In advance of the major upgrade, it is important that we do what we can to improve road safety.”
“I have announced my intention to extend the concessionary fares scheme to provide free travel for people with disabilities who currently pay half fare and to new operators who have already indicated or expressed an interest in joining. I am aware that many people with a disability have limited travel options.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,494 lines we hold for Nichola Mallon, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 47 of 50.
“The case continuously put forward by the Housing Executive is that it is, in fact, a ventilation or condensation issue and that the solution lies in simply opening the window. <BR /> <BR />I want to make it clear that I am not using this opportunity to level universal criticism at the Housing Executive or at the many good people who work and deal with me and with many of us in the Chamber. I believe, though, that there is reluctance to accept the real reason for this issue, which is one of resources. They simply do not have the resources to deal with the problem and therefore there is a reluctance to acknowledge it in the first instance. As a result, the cost is paid by the individuals and families who live in these homes.”
“Like many Members, I could paint the walls of the Chamber with photographs of the homes of my constituents that are black with mould and damp, where, in little children's bedrooms, the corners are completely black, where parents are spending a fortune trying to clean the walls and decorate over the mould, and where their children are suffering a series of respiratory conditions as a result. <BR /> <BR />Like many Members, I can share my story of the bureaucratic battle that we have on a daily basis. When a constituent comes to us for help, we contact the environmental health team in the respective council area and then engage in a protracted debate with the Housing Executive over what is at the root of the problem.”
“In North Belfast, the vast bulk of my constituency work is housing-related. I do that almost daily, and I see daily the intrinsic connection between health and housing, which is perhaps most starkly laid bare in the motion before us and the issues that we are debating today. The extent of the problem, and its prevalence in social housing and in the private-rented and homeowner sectors, has been well-documented by other Members, so I do not intend to repeat the statistics.”
“I support the motion. My view on the critical importance of housing and the intrinsic role that it plays in successfully tackling disadvantage, driving economic growth and job creation and creating a better environment and a healthier, more equal shared society is well-documented, and I have articulated it several times in the House. It is also well known that I believe that there are five human rights. People have the right to food, to healthcare, to education, to work and to a home, and access to a secure, affordable and good-quality home is the anchor. It is the glue that holds other aspects of an individual's and a family's life together. <BR /> <BR />We know the extent of the problem that the motion is trying to address. We see it every day in our constituency.”
“The Member will be aware of the continued attempts by Members to my right to create the fallacy that the SDLP is in some way solely responsible for the botched scheme and voted for it. Will the Member please put on record the actual facts and truth?”
“<BR /> <BR />Many issues divide us in the House, but it is clear today that there is an issue that unites us, and that is our unreserved condemnation of what took place last night. The truth is that violence has no place in our society. All it serves to do is to create heartache, pain and suffering. As each and every one of us in the House knows, there are far too many families in our constituencies who endure that pain and suffering daily. So, I think that it is right that we stand united and send that very strong message to those who were behind the attack last night, but, importantly, to the people right across north Belfast. We will stand against this; we will stand opposed to this; and we will stand up for those who deserve it.”
“I will speak on behalf of the SDLP and the many constituents who contacted me last night to express their shock and anger at the despicable gun attack on an officer out on duty, trying to serve and protect our community. I add my voice to the unreserved condemnation of that attack, and I urge anyone with any information, no matter how small it may seem, to please pass that on to the PSNI. <BR /> <BR />I express in the House today my best wishes to and my concern for that police officer. Indeed, last night, when I spoke with his colleagues at local and senior level, I asked that those wishes be passed on and the wishes of the people, many of them in Ardoyne and right across north Belfast, who contacted me last night to ask that I would do that on their behalf.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I have no doubt at all about your passion for the people whom you represent; that has been evident on multiple occasions in the Chamber. Do you recognise, however, that we are in a very difficult position because of political failures? Yes, Sinn Féin, who are absent today and have been absent on so many issues, are to blame, but do you accept that the DUP plays some part in being responsible for where we are today at this very stark and dark moment?”
“Can the Member see at all that there is a very definite difference between strength and arrogance and that perhaps the arrogance of the DUP has helped to bring us to this political precipice that we are all now lamenting?”
“Given the Minister's commitment to involve people from the community on the panel looking at suicide and self-harm in prisons, can she advise which persons and organisations she has appointed?”
“People need to face up to the fact that when you are in power, the buck stops with you. You are responsible, which is why you get the big money, and you should be held to account.”
“All Departments need to be put under scrutiny, as do all Ministers and all special advisers. That is why the SDLP has consistently called for a public inquiry. We have nothing to fear from the questions of who knew what, when they knew it and what they did about it. Sinn Féin, a joint partner in government, knew about this for a year and said nothing until the public started to get very angry about it. On the airwaves today, a member of Sinn Féin derided this debate on such a critical issue, describing it as a "meaningless" discussion. That sums it up, and it tells the public who is genuinely exercised and outraged by all of this. It is very clear that we will see attempt after attempt to distract from all of this, because we could have been several weeks into a public inquiry and saved the public £85,000 every day.”
“One second. They said nothing, but they became very vocal and frantic when the 'Spotlight' programme threw this into the public domain. Sinn Féin, in particular, became vocal only when it could see the public backlash. Up to that point, it tried to keep it from the public. That is the truth. I will let Mr Nesbitt in.”
“As other Members have said, the DUP has finally begun to realise and wake up to this fact, hence the shift in tone, the move to being more contrite and the U-turn articulated so blatantly today by Mr Poots that it is now in favour of a public inquiry. <BR /> <BR />The third unquestionable truth, and then I will let Members in, is that under this Executive, the scandal has cost the taxpayer over £20 million. The DUP created this mess but is a partner in government with Sinn Féin. There is joint authority and joint responsibility. The Executive parties knew about this scandal for well over a year — some of us could argue, much longer than that — and yet they said nothing.”
“In one second. <BR /> <BR />As Mr Smith has outlined and as Sam McBride tweeted, this DUP scandal has cost the taxpayer £3 million since 'Spotlight' was broadcast. It has cost the taxpayer over £32 million since the whistle-blower warned the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister in January 2016, and it continues to cost the taxpayer £85,000 every day. <BR /> <BR />A second unquestionable truth in all of this is that the situation has been fuelled and pushed to this brink because of the arrogance of the DUP in their response and their defiance when being held to account.”
“What they have done is engage in a blame game: it was the whistle-blower's fault; it was the civil servants' fault; it was the consultants' fault; it was the media's fault, and it still is when we listen to the contributions that have been made thus far; or it is the Opposition's fault, and, when we raised valid questions about who knew what and when and about what they did and who was responsible and should be held accountable, we were accused of misogyny. Mr Frew accuses us today of wanting to engage in a bloodfest. On top of that, we have Mr Bell's account of events versus Mrs Foster's account of events. Wherever the truth lies — a public inquiry will determine where the truth lies — the unquestionable truth is that this is a DUP-created mess of epic proportions.”
“For the record, Mr Poots, I do not hate Arlene Foster; I do not hate anyone. <BR /> <BR />The timeline of the introduction of the scheme and the deliberate intervention to alter the scheme and to remove the cost controls, signed off by the Minister Arlene Foster, is well documented. The number of warnings personally given to Arlene Foster and to the Department in question is well documented. The DUP talks about understanding public anger. They talk about sharing public anger, but what they have refused to do is to take responsibility for the part that they have played in it.”
“Does the Member also agree that, considering we could have been several weeks into a public inquiry to establish the truth, with every day that has gone by, £85,000 of the public's money has been squandered? Does she think that that is an absolute shame?”
“Mr Ó Muilleoir highlighted memos that he had sent and meetings, as you referred to, but the key question that he has yet to answer is this: why does his party continue to be the only party that does not support a public inquiry that could get to the truth and get to the bottom of the fallacy and the duping of the public that he so eloquently and passionately said he was vociferously opposed to and horrified by?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Unfortunately, the Member who spoke previously did not. I noted that Mr Ó Muilleoir, in his contribution, said that he was speaking on behalf of the public, and he kindly provided all of us with multiple examples of what the £85,000 that is being squandered every single day could be spent on. I am sure that each and every one of us could provide a litany of projects. I certainly could in my constituency of North Belfast. Does the Member agree that the truth is that, under this Executive, the scandal has cost the public over £20 million?”
“The Minister recognised that and increased investment in the physical infrastructure of tribunals, but there remains a gap around advice workers who are specifically trained to assist people through the tribunals process. In Belfast alone, 30,000 people will go through the appeals process this year, so I urge the Minister to look again at the issue and, if possible, bring forward ring-fenced funding to ensure that people who have specific training in the tribunals process are there to help to navigate our most vulnerable citizens through a very daunting and complex process.”
“I support the regulations, but the Minister will not be surprised that, because the regulations refer to the appeals process, I wish to take the opportunity to emphasise a point on which I have been in correspondence with his Department. It is about the fact that, to access a mitigation package, the necessary gateway is to go through the tribunals process and appeal a benefit decision. The Department has recognised that there will be a huge spike. I obtained figures from the Department that testify to the fact that the appeals forecast for this year is just under 12,000. That rises to almost 33,000 next year, in 2018-19 it rises to over 41,000, and it goes on.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. Sadly, that is the very real case, but I look forward to hearing Members from other political parties provide the answer to Mr Eastwood's question.”
“I will square it clearly and succinctly: if it had not been put in the legislation, it would not have been happening. <BR /> <BR />Anyway, I will draw my remarks to a conclusion. Some things are too important to play party politics with. The lives of the vulnerable are one of those things, and, sadly, people have played politics, particularly in the past number of weeks. The 34,000 people who have been treated like this will be listening to the tone of this debate: is it any wonder that people do not have faith in politics here?”
“Mr Stalford, what I believe should have happened is that, acting responsibly as Ministers, they should have sought legal advice; they should have come to a considered and guaranteed position before they went to the airwaves to terrify the most vulnerable across our society. I find it deeply disappointing that both Ministers engaged in a battle over the airwaves when they should, despite the party politicking and electioneering that is going on, have stepped aside and, in private, had the conversations that were required of two Ministers to bring certainty to the people who needed it most.”
“In a minute, Alex. People could not sleep at night because they were being told that they were facing the prospect of being slapped with the bedroom tax. That is what the Minister for Communities — the Minister responsible for protecting our most vulnerable — did. I give way to Mr Stalford and then to Mr Maskey.”
“In a minute, Christopher. The Minister publicly stated that there was very little, to nothing, that he could do to bring forward the mitigation measures to protect our most vulnerable from the bedroom tax. He said that without knowing, categorically, that that was the truth. Why, in my humble opinion, do I believe he did that? It was because he wanted to put pressure on his partners in government to prevent them from calling an election. What his comments did was to terrify 34,000 vulnerable citizens in my constituency and in that of each and every Member across this Chamber. People could not sleep at night —”
“We had hoped, and we were told at the time, that others were going to put forward a petition of concern for exactly the same reasons. That verbal commitment was never followed up by substantial action, and so we find ourselves in this position. <BR /> <BR />Fresh Start was heralded with much fanfare. In fact, the mitigation of the bedroom tax was specifically singled out as a shining example of how the Executive were delivering for some of our most vulnerable citizens. I have to say that I have listened to statements and watched incidences unfold over several weeks and months. The political brinkmanship that has been played with our most vulnerable over the mitigation of the bedroom tax is something that I find profoundly obscene, and I do not use that term lightly.”
“We are here to debate regulations for which, in all honesty, there is lack of the detail and time that is deserved, given the importance of the issue. This has been handled shambolically. Listening to the tone of debate, it was clear that, very sadly, the Minister has opted to use his contribution more as a pre-election pitch than to deal with the issues in front of us. That I find deeply disappointing. <BR /> <BR />Let us be clear: we would not be in this position if, as the SDLP had argued, mitigation of the bedroom tax was not put into legislation. We feared that this mishandling might happen and that it might fall victim to party politicking, either in the Chamber or across the water. That is why we signed a petition of concern.”
“<BR /> <BR />The House is aware of the controversy and the difficulty that I have had in having my questions for urgent oral answer on this matter heard, and, in advance of today, our amendment calling for a review of the social investment fund process by the Audit Office, along with other amendments, was refused. Why? What is there to fear from an Audit Office review? If all is as the First Minister and deputy First Minister say, they shall be vindicated and its critics will be silenced, but they continue to run away. Let me reassure them that, for as long as they continue to run away, those of us who believe in openness and transparency will not go away. Of that, Mr McGuinness and Mrs Foster can rest assured.”
“Almost two months on, the First Minister and deputy First Minister continue to refuse to answer a question that I posed, asking them to list all the organisations that applied to the social investment fund, the organisations that were successful and the funding awarded for each project. Why? <BR /> <BR />The First Minister and deputy First Minister have been asked to publish the minutes of the steering group meetings. They still have not done so. Why? They have been asked to publish the register of interests completed by all steering group members. They still have not done so. Why? They have been asked to outline clearly the value added by Charter NI to the employability project being delivered by GEMS, given the huge administration fee that it is receiving for it. They refuse to do so. Why?”
“It has been crystallised in their lack of courage in standing up to Dee Stitt, a self-confessed UDA boss and the CEO of an organisation that was handed £1·7 million of public money to administer and given half a million pounds for doing so. It is not the Opposition or the media who have called into question SIF and all associated with it; it is the silence from our First Minister and the weakness of our deputy First Minister in the face of Dee Stitt. <BR /> <BR />The First Minister cites employability legislation as the reason why she cannot get involved, but she is perfectly entitled as the First Minister to express her opinion on whether she believes that he is fit to hold office. She refuses to do so. Why?”
“<BR /> <BR />Time and again, my party colleagues and I have been on record recognising and acknowledging that there are good organisations with good individuals doing great work. We are supportive of those projects. Our issue is not with them; our issue is with the process. We have been on record as far back as 2011 raising concerns about the process, and the continual failure by the First Minister and deputy First Minister to address those concerns left our members, in all but one of the steering groups, with no option but to resign. <BR /> <BR />The social investment fund is mired in controversy. The public do not have any confidence or trust in its operation, not because of the Opposition but because of the approach of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, and the way in which they have handled this.”
“<BR /> <BR />The First Minister and deputy First Minister and their Back-Benchers are trying furiously to peddle the myth — we heard it again today — that the blame for the controversy lies with those of us in the House and outside it who have the audacity to ask legitimate and valid questions about the openness and transparency, or lack of it, of the social investment fund. Their second tactic is to try to distract everyone from the reality of that lack of openness and transparency by accusing all of us who ask those questions of deriding and demeaning all the community and voluntary organisations and projects involved in SIF. Let me unequivocally deal with both those failing tactics.”
“The Member is absolutely correct, and I will specifically address that issue in my contribution. <BR /> <BR />As I said, in that academic independent research report, the social investment fund is specifically singled out as a crystallised example of that cosy relationship. Its singling out should come as a surprise to no one. The social investment fund is a masterclass in how not to manage something politically. It was blighted by delay and is now mired in controversy.”
“That is a description of the social investment fund. It is not the words of the SDLP but is as reported in the final research report on the independence of the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector in Northern Ireland by the Building Change Trust and Ulster University, which was published just a fortnight ago. That same academic report, which was based on interviews with government officials, CEOs and a range of individuals in the sector, identified as a major concern the:”
“I thank the Minister for his clear commitment to tackling domestic and sexual violence. I also welcome the tripartite arrangement. Given that he is clear that it is a priority for him, what discussions has he had with his ministerial colleagues, particularly in Health and Justice, to ensure that they view this issue equally as a funding priority?”
“I thank the Minister for her answers to date and for her commitment to tackling air pollution. I seek assurances from the Minister that, in the event of Brexit, we will maintain the current levels of environmental protection for air quality.”
“It also shows that, on an issue of such fundamental importance — human rights and how we manage our society and protect our most vulnerable — the DUP and Sinn Féin are completely and utterly split. It is very telling and is another very disappointing outcome and realisation from the debate.”
“I thank Mr Stalford for his intervention. If he had listened to the debate, he would have heard quite clearly — he prides himself on understanding the history and politics of this part of the island — that the Good Friday Agreement, its links to the Human Rights Act and its convergence with our membership of the European Union are all inextricably linked. In showing leadership today, my party leader is in London at the Supreme Court trying to protect and stand up for that right and for the democratically expressed consent and wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />As I said, it is bitterly disappointing that not a single Minister made the effort to come down today to respond to the debate.”
“<BR /> <BR />A number of times, we heard the slogan — stand up for someone's rights today —and about the framework within which we are to view this year's international Human Rights Day, and yet not a single Minister in the Executive felt it worth their time to make the very short journey from their offices into the Chamber to stand and respond to the debate. For me, that is the most disappointing aspect of the debate. Regardless of the contributions we have all made, for the citizens in Northern Ireland and anyone with an interest in human rights, to look in here today and see that the Executive did not deem it worthy or important enough —”
“Mr Attwood made the point that life on these islands and across the world is increasingly being shaped by the lifeline of human rights and less by the bloodline of ethnicity. It is an important development, but its progress requires effort. It requires, as many Members pointed out, education, awareness raising and campaigning. I echo the praise articulated by several Members about recognising the efforts of the many organisations and agencies working tirelessly to promote and protect human rights here and abroad.”
“It is important, given that the European Convention on Human Rights is a requirement of the Good Friday Agreement and a fundamental part of our hard-won architecture here, that both are explicitly referenced in the final motion. I would argue that this is more important, given the hostility of the current Tory Government, and in particular the Prime Minister, to the Human Rights Act and the turbulence and stirring of hostilities as a result of Brexit.”
“Sadly, however, that is where agreement ended, and, as Mr Logan informed us, the DUP will oppose the motion and the amendments. <BR /> <BR />Yes, we have come far, but as many Members have highlighted, there are several areas where we still fall short. I add my voice to those of Members from other parties who welcomed the efforts to bring a motion on this issue to the House. It is also important to acknowledge and recognise the views that Members have expressed about the hypocrisy of the proposers. It would be foolish and unrealistic not to acknowledge that, but I accept that it has caused considerable discomfort and unease across the Benches. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the fact that there is support for the motion and for our amendment, as indicated by all parties except the DUP.”
“This week, we have international Human Rights Day. There was universality across the Chamber in recognising the importance of marking this day and taking the time, particularly during this period, to pause and reflect on the harrowing experiences of those right across the world who live an existence in which they are denied their human rights. Mr Logan and Mr Beattie shared some very personal memories, having witnessed what that existence means and, in particular, the pain and suffering that is endured by children and women across the world. <BR /> <BR />There was also agreement across the Chamber on the importance of reflecting on how far we have come as a society in our compliance with human rights standards and the Human Rights Act.”
“The Member is right. We met a range of stakeholders in the housing sector, and it certainly was a concern of theirs. It is a prerequisite if we are to move forward. I understand, from tabling questions, that the Minister is undertaking a review of the public land available, and we look forward to its findings. <BR /> <BR />As I said, there is a range of issues that we need to look at and a range of interventions required if we are to tackle homelessness. If we do not do that, we are just tinkering around the edges and continuing to fail the many men and women and their children who come to our constituency offices looking for help.”
“— if we do not reform the common selection scheme in the private rented sector and if we do not understand that homelessness is much more than rooflessness, we will have failed.”
“If we do not do that, if we do not make land available, if we do not build more social houses —”
“I seek reassurances today from the Minister that the Committee for Communities will be involved in and consulted on the parameters of any review that comes forth from this debate. <BR /> <BR />A suspension of the house sales scheme pending a full review of its long-term impact on the provision of our social housing stock is just one of the many measures required to tackle the housing crisis that is devastating the lives of so many of our constituents. I do not want to sound like a broken record, but the game changer in tackling the crisis is to build more new social and affordable housing. We should have clear and ambitious targets, particularly for accommodation for older people and bungalows for disabled people, because that is where the housing need is most acute.”
“My argument is that the evidence demonstrates that other schemes are better enablers to realise the aspiration of buying your own home. Therefore, support for a suspension pending the outcome of a review with clear terms of reference and within a clear and specified time frame does not, I urge Members to note, amount to an abandonment of that principle.”