Motion or amendment: Collection and Recycling Scheme for Disposable Nappies - Amendment 2
Motion or amendment by Mr Gerry Carroll on .
- MLA
- Mr Gerry Carroll
- Party at the time
- People Before Profit Alliance
- Date
- 23 January 2025
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “Collection and Recycling Scheme for Disposable Nappies”
- Heading
- Collection and Recycling Scheme for Disposable Nappies - Amendment 2
- Assembly identifier
- Document 424841
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Collection and Recycling Scheme for Disposable Nappies - Amendment 2
Leave out all after ‘promote’ and insert:
‘affordable reusable nappy products as an alternative to disposable nappies; further calls on the Minister to work with Executive colleagues to introduce a pilot scheme to provide free nappies in key public sector buildings; and calls on the Minister, drawing on best practice in other jurisdictions to develop a strategy, in conjunction with local councils, for the collection and recycling of disposable nappies and other absorbent hygiene products in Northern Ireland.'
88 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.95).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.88 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.10 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:01 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.