Member's statement: Recycling Targets: Nappy Waste
Member's statement by Miss Michelle McIlveen on .
- MLA
- Miss Michelle McIlveen
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 23 September 2024
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Recycling Targets: Nappy Waste
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4543631
Read the official Assembly record
Text
In the Climate Change Act, which came into effect on 6 June 2022, there is, among other targets, a requirement that at least 70% of waste is to be recycled. The recycling rate between January and March 2024 was 46·4%. The AERA Minister wants us to reach 74% through the proposals set out in his consultation. While there are various types of reusable nappies on the market, disposable nappies are still the most attractive option for parents. At present, the only bin that can take those disposable nappies is the grey bin, so they go straight into landfill. It has been estimated that nappy waste equates to around 3% to 4% of the residual waste going to our landfills: nearly 40,000 tons per year. Wales is the only country in the UK to have reached the 50% household recycling target.
In fact, Wales has achieved a 59% recycling rate, with Pembrokeshire County Council being the best-performing local authority, reaching an amazing 73·2%. Interestingly, Wales operates an opt-in nappy collection service through its local authorities that extends beyond nappies to other absorbent hygiene products. Nappies contain recyclable materials, such as cellulose fibres and plastics, that are being thrown away in Northern Ireland. Members may be aware of a trial in Wales a couple of years ago, where nappy fibres were added to the bitumen on asphalt roads, and those roads were shown to last twice as long as other roads. Carmarthenshire County Council now resurfaces its roads with that product, hailing it as a prime example of the local circular economy in action. Nappies have been collected in Wales since 2009. They are recycled in Japan, the Netherlands and Canada. How disappointing was it, then, to find that there was no mention of nappy recycling when the Minister consulted on his waste strategy to align with the targets under the Climate Change Act? When I raised the issue of nappy collection and recycling services with the Minister in questions for written answer, it seemed to be something that might be of interest to him, which pleased me, as I want to see the issue taken forward. The Minister's response, however, was that he would be reactive if local authorities were to raise the issue, yet is something that he as Minister should be driving from the centre. The recycling of nappy fibres presents the Minister for Infrastructure with an opportunity to access longer-lasting and more cost-effective road surfacing at a time when there is continued chronic underinvestment in our roads. It is also an opportunity for the AERA Minister to take a massive step towards diverting tens of thousands of tons of recyclable waste away from landfill sites. We need both Ministers to be innovative, not just managers of budgets.
459 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 | 0.02 | 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 | 0.99 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:03 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.