Debate contribution: Disposable Nappies: Collection and Recycling Scheme
Debate contribution by Ms Cheryl Brownlee on .
- MLA
- Ms Cheryl Brownlee
- 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 4759340
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I will speak not only as a Member but as, I feel, a seasoned, professional nappy-changer. My colleague Michelle McIlveen has passionately raised the issue of nappy and hygiene product recycling and reuse several times in the Chamber. Her efforts have shone a light on an incredible opportunity for us to tackle one of the most persistent waste challenges: disposable nappies and hygiene products. Since 2009, Wales has run a very successful nappy collection and recycling scheme. Similar initiatives exist in countries such as Japan, Canada and the Netherlands. The question is this: why not here? The cloth nappy schemes introduced by many councils, including my former council, Mid and East Antrim Borough Council, have been very successful and oversubscribed, but disposable nappies remain the go-to choice for many parents. A nappy collection scheme would allow us to collect and recycle those products and turn waste into opportunity. For example, the fibres from recycled nappies could be used to produce longer-lasting, more cost-effective road surfaces. It even presents the Minister for Infrastructure with an innovative way to address the chronic underinvestment in our roads. Academic research in Japan revealed that concrete that has had up to 10% of its fine aggregates replaced by shredded used nappies can achieve a compressive strength that is appropriate for a three-storey house. Scientists prepared concrete and mortar samples by combining washed, dried and shredded disposable nappy waste with cement, sand, gravel and water, and they then cured that as a sample for 28 days. It is really remarkable what can be done. Furthermore, the AERA Minister has a chance to make a major leap by diverting tens of thousands of tons of recyclable waste from landfill at a time when Northern Ireland is striving to meet its 70% recycling target. As we aim for a circular economy, it is exactly the kind of creative solution that we need. The DUP has consistently advocated for nappy recycling schemes across council areas in Northern Ireland. We are pleased to see that councils, including Ards and North Down Borough Council, Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council and Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council, have passed motions in support of that initiative. The process itself is straightforward: nappies are collected from households or central collection points, transported to recycling facilities, sorted and cleaned so that waste and bacteria are removed, and the material is separated. New products can then be repurposed into construction material, park benches or even plant pots. Given that the direction of travel is a reduction in residual and black-bag waste capacity per household, a nappy collection scheme would offset potential pressures facing families and households with one or more children, those with medical needs or those who use hygiene products.
While the process requires investment, infrastructure and, of course, leadership, the potential benefits are undeniable for families, the councils and our environment. This is the perfect time to seize the opportunity and turn nappies from a burden into a recycling solution.
496 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 (0.93).
- 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 | 0.93 | 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 | 0.82 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.08 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.03 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
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.