Member's statement: Warrenpoint Port: Waste
Member's statement by Mr Trevor Clarke on .
- MLA
- Mr Trevor Clarke
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 1 July 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Warrenpoint Port: Waste
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5061095
Read the official Assembly record
Text
During yesterday's Members' statements, I listened to the Member opposite from South Down talk about Warrenpoint; indeed, one of my colleagues has talked about Warrenpoint and the waste that is rotting on the quay. Many trucks arrive daily from across the Province to dump waste in Warrenpoint. That brings me back to last week's judgement on the A5, when climate targets were key. The best way to describe those who supported those targets is "environmentally illiterate", because there were options, but they decided to support targets that have made things much more difficult in Northern Ireland. On the one hand, they are climate fanatics, and on the other hand, they are climatically irresponsible.
The SDLP had an opportunity to deal with waste in Northern Ireland, but, on two occasions, it interfered in a planning process that would have allowed a site to be built on this island to deal with waste. That energy-from-waste plant would have dealt with all the waste and would have meant that people from Warrenpoint, Cottonmount and your constituency, Mr Speaker, did not have to suffer the stench from landfill sites, but, no, those representatives chose populism. They chose to take the waste to Warrenpoint and ship it from Northern Irish shores to other parts of the world. They chose to put the waste in a boat, which is environmentally irresponsible given the amount of fuel that is needed to transport it for miles, and dump it at sea, as evidenced by a documentary some months ago. It a case of out of sight, out of mind. They interfered in the planning system because of Nimbyism: not in my back yard. There was a perfectly good solution in Northern Ireland that would have served us all and got the best value out of waste — people would have benefited from the energy from waste — but, no, they chose another option. I say this to people in Warrenpoint, Mullaghglass and Cottonmount: go and rap on the doors of your representatives who, on the one hand, say that they support the climate, but on the other hand, are climate deniers, because they would rather that that waste rot and cause a stench in our areas than deal with it properly.
373 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: 0.20 (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 (0.62).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.89).
- 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 | 0.11 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.15 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.49 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.14 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.62 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.20 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.89 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.11 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.96 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.02 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:57 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.