Debate contribution: Disposable Nappies: Collection and Recycling Scheme
Debate contribution by Ms Sian Mulholland on .
- MLA
- Ms Sian Mulholland
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 27 January 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Disposable Nappies: Collection and Recycling Scheme
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4759374
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I feel as though we were having a nappy-off between Miss Brownlee, Mr O'Toole and Mr Carroll about who has changed more nappies. I can confirm to Mr Butler, however, that there are no safety pins and there is no more yellowing terry towelling; they are all quite funky and velcroed these days. We might have to update your knowledge of the reusable nappy. I acknowledge Miss McIlveen for highlighting the important issue of disposable nappies — I am really interested in this — and absorbent hygiene products. As we heard, they make up 4% of our residual waste. Addressing that issue is crucial in our efforts to reduce our waste, combat climate change and meet our statutory recycling targets. The motion claims that DAERA failed to address disposable nappies and absorbent hygiene products in the recent consultation, 'Rethinking Our Resources'. That is not quite accurate: proposal 12 in the consultation explicitly references absorbent hygiene products, including nappies, and proposes guidance for councils. The Alliance Party's amendment not only corrects that but reinforces the need for effective, forward-thinking solutions to reduce waste and increase recycling, which, I think, we all want to see. As my colleague John Blair pointed out, there is no direct reference to statutory guidance, although I hear what Miss McIlveen is saying in the motion. Otherwise, we are mostly aligned in our desire to see those targets met and our waste reduced. One of the most promising approaches to tackling the issue outlined in the motion is the promotion of reusable nappy schemes. They offer undeniable benefits. As a councillor, I sought to extend and promote them further, and I was successful in Belfast City Council in being able to offer that opportunity to more families. There is a saving for councils as well, because reusable nappies can significantly reduce the volume of disposable nappies entering the waste stream, which, in turn, lowers our waste processing and landfill costs. They also reduce waste pressures on families with young children, who often face challenges with bin overflow. I am not saying that I am often found jumping on the bin on a Thursday night, but there are definitely challenges.
Yes, of course. Go ahead. Is it about me jumping on a bin?
As a councillor, I received more complaints about the inconsistency of the approach. I was lucky enough to be a councillor on two councils, and I saw different approaches to recycling and waste. Consistency is an issue. It is about a behavioural change. It is also about education with constituents; that was a key point. I will move on. Gerry, you mentioned the poverty premium and said that, at times, reusable nappies can be not as cost-effective for some families. People can save up to £1,000 with reusable nappies over the time that a baby uses them, but I hear what you say: what if you do not have access to a washing machine or adequate facilities? Another thing that I am interested in is innovative solutions, whether that is in roads, plant pots or garden furniture, which Cheryl Brownlee mentioned. One of the other benefits of reusable nappies, which I can confirm, is that they are better medically and can help prevent nappy rash if they are used and maintained properly. There are lots of advantages.
On environmental advantages, my colleague John Blair mentioned the fact that they produce over 25% less CO2 over their life cycle than single-use nappies and that 98% fewer resources are used in their manufacture compared with disposables. A fact that I was really shocked by is that, if every child in the UK were to switch from disposable nappies to reusable nappies, it would save the equivalent of 700 million car miles in CO2 emissions. That is nearly 3,000 car journeys to the moon. I thought that was an interesting statistic; I am not sure that it is very helpful to this debate, but there you go. Those figures demonstrate how transformative reusable nappies can be when it comes to reducing our carbon footprint. As Gerry pointed out, however, we have to acknowledge that reusable nappies may not be suitable for every family. I urge Members to support the amendment. My hope is that, by working together and learning from best practice, we can move forward.
723 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 (0.93).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | 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 | 0.76 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.16 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.07 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
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.