Debate contribution: Disposable Nappies: Collection and Recycling Scheme
Debate contribution by Mr Tom Buchanan on .
- MLA
- Mr Tom Buchanan
- 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 4759394
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Minister. We take encouragement from the fact that you are going to Wales to look at what it has developed and at the success that it has achieved, but you cannot shirk your responsibility. You need to lead on this. Providing guidance rather than a strategy will lead to the 11 councils taking different approaches, which will include doing nothing, and it will not address the issue. Therefore, you cannot shirk your responsibility on the issue. You must bring forward a strategy. It is disappointing that the Alliance Party decided to table an amendment simply because it could. We want a firm, co-designed strategy that will address what is an identified issue. The issue has been identified and must be addressed. Guidance will not address it. The amendment neutralises our proposals and does not go far enough, as we have pointed out time and again in the debate. Although the leader of the Opposition pooh-poohed the debate, I hope that he will support the motion.
To come back to some of the other Members who have spoken today, my colleague, in opening the debate, raised concerns about reducing the size of the grey bin or having fewer collections and the problems that that will create for parents of small children. One child can use up to 6,000 nappies in a lifetime, and reducing the size of the grey bin or the number of times that it is collected, without putting something else in place, is not going to address the issue: it is going to create problems, and it is going to create problems for the Department. She spoke of the Welsh scheme and how it has reached its 66·6% recycling rate, with one of the councils reaching 73·2%. I am glad that the Minister is going to look at that. Hopefully, it will give him some incentive to introduce a similar scheme in Northern Ireland. She then spoke about writing to the 11 councils on issue and said that a number of them have expressed an interest in a scheme being introduced to deal with the issue. John Blair referred to this as an important issue and said that it can take hundreds of years for one of those nappies to disintegrate in a landfill. That is absolutely right. He spoke about the Department introducing a waste management strategy, but I wonder what consultation has taken place with councils on that particular issue. Nicola Brogan spoke of aiming for net zero and the change that must come about. We must change things if we want to reach that, and it is critical to look at best practice around the world. I hope that the Minister and the Department are doing that: looking at best practice around the world. Robbie Butler said that both approaches — the motion and the amendment — point towards urgent action being required and the need to tackle this and do something different. That is the message going around the Chamber today. It requires leadership and innovation. That is key to all of this. It requires leadership from the Minister and it requires innovation. The Minister must lead on the issue. I come back to the question of whether he is prepared to do so. He is very passionate about recycling and setting targets, but, on this issue, is he prepared to take the lead? Matthew O'Toole spoke about the importance of the subject and the importance of recycling such products, but, as is always the case with the leader of the Opposition, there was a "but". He then wandered away from the subject completely. I will leave it at that. My colleague spoke about the successful recycling scheme that has been operating in Wales since 2009. She asked a very important question: why can we not have that here? That is a question for the Minister: why can we not have that same scheme here? It is delivering so effectively in Wales. She also spoke of using —
— of recycled nappies in tarmac, concrete and so forth. Sorry?
What a pity.
680 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: 0.04 (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 (0.91).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.06 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 | 0.97 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 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.