Debate contribution: Disposable Nappies: Collection and Recycling Scheme
Debate contribution by Miss Michelle McIlveen on .
- MLA
- Miss Michelle McIlveen
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 27 January 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Disposable Nappies: Collection and Recycling Scheme
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4759275
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I beg to move
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The motion seeks two outcomes: first, that the Minister engages with local councils to develop a strategy for the collection and recycling of disposable nappies and other absorbent hygiene products, and, secondly, that the Minister and his Department take an active role in the promotion of reusable nappy products as an alternative to disposable nappies. The aim of both those outcomes is to reduce and, ultimately, remove disposable nappies and other absorbent hygiene products from our residual waste. As we are all aware, the Assembly passed the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, which requires that Northern Ireland collectively recycles at least 70% of its waste by 2030. We are just five years away from that date. In the 2023-24 period, councils in Northern Ireland recycled 50·5% of waste. That was the first time that such a percentage had been achieved in three years. In the previous year, we had recycled 49·7% of our waste. Given those figures, the idea of a 70% recycling rate is ambitious to say the least. Recently, the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs undertook a waste consultation. It was suggested that we reduce grey bin capacity either by providing smaller grey bins or by moving to, at least, grey bin collections every third week. It was suggested that, by implementing those proposals, we would reach the 70% recycling target. In fact, the Minister has said that he wants us to reach 74% through the proposals that were set out in his consultation. In its amendment, the Alliance Party calls on us to welcome the consultation. I point out to the Alliance Party that the consultation refers to developing non-statutory guidance on absorbent hygiene products. That simply does not go far enough. I consider that to be a flaw. I know of at least one council, with which the Minister and I both have a relationship — Ards and North Down Borough Council — that highlighted that in its response to the consultation. While the motion deals with reusable and disposable products, and various types of reusable nappies are on the market, disposable nappies are still the most attractive option for parents. When I use the term "nappies", I include nappies for all ages as well as incontinence products. At present, the only bin that can take those disposable nappies is the grey bin, so they go straight to landfill. It has been estimated that nappy waste equates to around 3% to 4% of the residual waste that goes to our landfill sites or is shipped off for incineration. That is nearly 40,000 tons per year. To put that into some sort of context, one child may be in disposable nappies for two and a half years. Young babies will go through around 10 to 12 nappies a day, while older babies may require around six to eight each day. One child can go through 6,000 nappies in their lifetime. Of course, many parents have more than one child in nappies at a time. Parents of young children will often say that their grey bin is full by the time that it is due to be collected after two weeks. The Minister's consultation focuses on reducing grey bin capacity, either by having smaller grey bins or fewer collections. That will present a problem for those parents if the proposals are implemented. It will also present a problem for people with medical and incontinence waste. How will they manage when their bin is collected only every three to four weeks, or when their grey bin is smaller? The problem can be addressed while helping Northern Ireland to take a step towards achieving the 70% recycling target that was imposed by the Assembly. It is something that has been considered by the part of the United Kingdom that has the best recycling target. Wales operates an opt-in nappy collection service through its local authorities and has reached a 66% recycling rate. It has done that without all its authorities collecting such waste. Currently, four do not, but, of those, Swansea Council operates a scheme through which nappies can be left at recycling centres. Where a scheme is in place, the following are collected: disposable nappies, including nappy bags and wipes; adult incontinence pads; absorbent bed sheets; disposable aprons; colostomy stoma bags and catheters; cotton wool; and plastic gloves. Those are collected either each week or fortnightly. The Welsh Government want all councils to adopt a collection and recycling scheme. Pembrokeshire County Council, which does operate a collection and recycling scheme, is the best performing local authority, having reached an amazing 73·2% recycling rate — not quite our Minister's dream goal of 74%, but close.
Nappies contain recyclable materials, such as cellulose fibres and plastics, that are being thrown away in Northern Ireland. Members may be aware of the story of a trial in Wales a couple of years ago. Nappy fibres were added to the bitumen in asphalt roads that were then 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, and they are also recycled in Japan, the Netherlands and Canada. I would like us to adopt the wider scheme, under which we would deal with the same range of nappies and incontinence waste as places such as Wales. In tandem with that, more needs to be done to encourage the use of reusable nappies as an alternative. I appreciate that that will not suit all busy parents; however, at present, the schemes run by many councils are limited in scope and poorly promoted. According to research, reusable nappies laundered in a circular economy model are the most environmentally friendly and cost-effective option. More needs to be done to encourage parents to try reusable nappies and to support them when they use them. That needs to be guided from the centre. Consistency of approach and delivery on a larger scale are key. In Belfast and in Lisburn and Castlereagh, parents are asked to try washable nappies for free for two weeks and are offered a £30 refund on the cost of reusable nappies. In Ards and North Down, 30 people are able to avail themselves of reusable nappy kits on a two-week trial basis. The kit is returned at the end of the trial period and sanitised before being loaned to the next family. In other councils, residents are reimbursed £30 when they spend £50 or more on reusable cloth nappies. In Newry, Mourne and Down, you need to buy £60 worth of reusable cloth nappies. If we are to remove nappy waste, which is, as I said, about 40,000 tons annually, from our residual waste bins, we need action, not guidance. We need cooperation between the Department and local authorities that is controlled centrally. I have raised the issue of a nappy collection and recycling scheme through a Member's statement and questions for written answer to the Minister. I am pleased that the Minister has said that he is open to considering such a scheme, but I was disappointed that he wanted councils to approach him about it. Given that nappy waste represents about 4% of our residual waste, I would consider it to be a key product to target in achieving our recycling goal. Not one to shirk a challenge, I wrote to all the councils about the issue. My colleagues in Ards and North Down Borough Council passed a motion to write to the Minister to express the council's interest in working with him to develop such a scheme and to write to other councils in Northern Ireland to do likewise. While some of the motions are still going through the various stages in council, I understand that a number of councils have written to the Minister expressing their support for such a scheme. I have also discussed the feasibility of local processing with recycling bodies. The message was clear: with a supply of readily available product, it can be done. I express my gratitude to Nicola Watson, a PhD researcher from Ulster University and a nappy waste specialist, for reaching out to me and discussing the issue following my Member's statement on the subject. Since the BBC highlighted the motion at the weekend, I have been approached by other interested parties. The motion presents the AERA Minister with the opportunity to take a massive step towards diverting tens of thousands of tons of recyclable waste away from landfill. It is an opportunity to co-design a coherent scheme with councils. It cannot be left to councils simply to explore options, with the Department producing non-statutory guidance further down the line. There is also an opportunity for the products to be processed in Northern Ireland rather than shipped overseas, which is ultimately what will happen, if it is left to non-statutory guidance. We need firm proposals from the Department. While I am not in total agreement with the Alliance Party's amendment, I welcome the indication that it is supportive of my motion and the actions that need to flow from it. The Members who tabled it need, perhaps, to tell their colleagues in Newry, Mourne and Down that that is the direction of travel when the council reconsiders the matter. I look forward to the debate and the Minister's response.
1,578 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: 0.02 (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 (0.97).
- 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 | 0.97 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 | 0.72 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.22 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.04 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:51 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.