Michelle McIlveen
Strangford · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“Public confidence depends not only on effective enforcement but on enforcement being exercised fairly and consistently. <BR /> <BR />There is widespread concern across Northern Ireland about the condition of many of our lakes and rivers, and there are a vast number of factors that contribute to water quality challenges.”
“Although we support the overall direction of travel, I think that is appropriate to reflect on the concerns that have been raised and ensure that the legislation is proportionate, practical and capable of delivering its intended outcomes.”
“If we are therefore serious about improving our aquatic environment, every source of pollution must be addressed. New legislative powers are meaningful only if the Department has the resources, the expertise and the personnel necessary to implement them effectively.”
“There is, however, a need for accompanying clear guidance and support and for regulatory consistency and prompt decision-making. Delays, uncertainty and excessive bureaucracy will undoubtedly discourage investment and undermine confidence in the sector.”
“Subordinate legislation should not become a substitute for proper democratic accountability. Consultation and engagement must be undertaken before regulations are introduced, and I cannot overstate the need for stakeholder engagement. <BR /> <BR />I will now talk about the Bill's proposed enforcement powers.”
“The DUP broadly welcomes the Bill. As has been said, it provides an opportunity to modernise legislation that, in some areas, has remained largely unchanged for decades. The Bill strengthens the protection of our fisheries, improves the regulatory framework for aquaculture and enhances the management of our water environment.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,597 lines we hold for Michelle McIlveen, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 52.
“It sustains livelihoods and builds communities. However, it appears that women remain disproportionately excluded from key decision-making roles and leadership positions. As a party, we recognise that imbalance and believe that encouraging more women to have a career in the sector whilst promoting those who are already forging ahead in the industry is absolutely critical. Traditionally, agriculture is seen as a male-dominated industry, but women have always been at the heart of our rural communities, farming families and businesses. I am always delighted when I speak to farmers to hear them talk about their daughters, the role that they play and their desire to take over the farm business. It really does my heart good when I hear that. However, structural and historical barriers exist, and we heard about them today.”
“I thank the Members for tabling the motion. Despite the critical role that women play in farm businesses, rural communities and the wider agri-food sector, their contributions are often overlooked and undervalued. Often when farmers are depicted, we think of the stereotypical male farmers, which does a huge disservice to the incredible role of women in the sector. While they may not be the head of holding, women are often the glue that keeps the family business together. They are often the driving force behind the success of the business: the bankers; the accountant; the organiser; the cleaner; the cook; the carer; and, as the mover of the motion said, the extra pair of hands at lambing, calving or milking. <BR /> <BR />The agriculture sector is one of the key drivers of the Northern Ireland economy, as we know.”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. It is important to reinforce the message about the threat to our farming sector. It is clear that biosecurity is key. There is a requirement for vigilance and a belt-and-braces approach from the Department and farm businesses. There will, however, be those who could spread disease unintentionally. Minister, has there been any increase in the number of inspections of what is being brought into Northern Ireland by visitors and holidaymakers, particularly through our airports?”
“I thank the Minister for his response. I appreciate that this is a DFI issue, which has cross-cutting consequences that impact on all other Departments. What further action is the Minister taking to ensure that DFI addresses the waste water infrastructure challenges that we are facing?”
“If it does, the difference between 14 and 20 days will provide very little benefit in tackling the additional red tape and costs to farms across the UK. <BR /> <BR />This is very much a matter of principle, and I commend the motion to the House.”
“It is unsurprising, therefore, that farmers have questioned the impact on access to existing and premium GB markets. While I appreciate that the SR does not mandate the new tags, it gives the Department the ability to enforce them, and, by virtue of agreeing to that power, we are endorsing the introduction and use of the tags. The SR also extends the timescale for retagging sheep and goats that are imported from third countries from 14 days to 20 days. It is worth noting that, up until the middle of last year, movements of livestock from GB to NI were captured by that onerous requirement. Indeed, the EU and the UK finally agreed to waive the retagging requirements between GB and NI only because there was an outcry about the impact on farm-to-fork traceability. However, how can we be sure that the agreement will not eventually break down?”
“<BR /> <BR />Not only has the distinction inflicted unnecessary additional costs on farmers, as they have to purchase new tags and will potentially be left with a glut of redundant tags, but it is a manifestation of how Northern Ireland has been annexed into the EU. The Minister has placed much emphasis on the fact that the switchover date from UK to XI tags for newborn livestock has been extended to 30 June 2025, yet he and his colleagues in the Alliance Party initially called for the rigorous implementation of the protocol, which would have enacted the disruption even earlier and in a way that would be entirely out of kilter with the farming calendar. <BR /> <BR />Ultimately, the XI prefix dilutes the UK branding that is renowned throughout the world for its high quality and excellent welfare.”
“<BR /> <BR />We all accept the arguments that are put forward about the single epidemiological unit and disease control. However, prior to Brexit, even when there were controls over live animals being moved across the Irish Sea, Northern Ireland was not required to have a unique prefix code for cattle and sheep tags. The bottom line is that there should be no circumstances in which exports into the EU from Northern Ireland are distinguished from those that are entering the EU from other parts of the United Kingdom. We are part of the United Kingdom and its trading block. The regulations sustain the fundamental obscenity of Northern Ireland's being annexed into the EU in over 300 areas of law.”
“Local representatives had no say in making those changes to EU law or in their application in Northern Ireland courtesy of annex 2 of the protocol, which rides roughshod over the principle of cross-community consent. <BR /> <BR />The Department has been keen to stress the technical nature of the regulations. Yet the Minister clearly deemed the contents to be of such legal and political significance that it warranted discussion by the Committee in a closed session, which was a request that the Committee ultimately denied. It is not credible for the Minister or his officials to claim that the regulations do not represent a significant policy change whilst, in the same breath, denouncing the potential negative impacts on trade and animal welfare if they are not introduced.”
“Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The Democratic Unionist Party has a mandate to continue the fight to fully restore Northern Ireland's place within the United Kingdom, including removing the application of EU law in our country and the internal Irish Sea border that it creates. By implementing the changes to EU animal health law and drawing a distinction, both in law and in practice, between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, in the identification, registration, movement and enforcement of livestock, the regulations before us conflict with our fundamental objectives. As unionists, we will not, in good conscience, accept the undermining of the United Kingdom's internal market in that way.”
“With that being the case — indeed, fact — it is vital that Committee members are given the space, if required, to satisfy themselves of the merits or otherwise of the statutory rule. In the absence of that, I feel that the Department is taking advantage of the rules associated with this type of legislation. <BR /> <BR />As I said at the start of my remarks, by doing the right thing for some in the farming community and by virtue of the timeline determined by the Minister in respect of these regulations, 24,000 other businesses will be impacted on, which is an unfair position to be placed in.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. <BR /> <BR />I fully appreciate that the Executive's decision to formally treat resource DEL as earmarked for 2025-26 may put pressure on the Department to show taxpayers and the Executive that it can deliver change and value for money against the commitment to funding. However, the issue is whether we deliver that change and, if so, how we deliver it. <BR /> <BR />Correspondence received from the Minister's private office, dated 14 February, following concerns raised by the Committee that there had been no change to the draft SR, stated:”
“<BR /> <BR />As a party, the DUP shares the concerns of other Members who have spoken: issues of access to entitlements for those wishing to start out on their own; and the challenge being placed on the 2,400 businesses that will be deemed ineligible for the new sustainability payment under the "active farmer" definition. The rationale for using 2020 and 2021, the COVID years, as was highlighted by a member of the Committee —.”
“<BR /> <BR />I have digressed slightly, but I will go back to the issue of young farmers. It is my understanding that young farmers form part of a subgroup of the APSG and that they were last consulted in April 2023. At that time, they were advised that the land mobility scheme was to end in August 2023, with an assurance that a new scheme would be operational in December 2023. That did not happen. We are told that Farming for the Generations will address many of the concerns that we have raised. However, without having a legislative basis at this stage, no one should be alarmed that we are sceptical. Too many times, promises are made and expectations are raised, only to remain unfulfilled.”
“Whilst I was grateful for the clarification from officials that the policy was still under development, I am concerned that there appears to be no intention for those standards to be consulted on. Is that because the Department is satisfied that its managed discussions with the APSG and a select group of others is sufficient? In fact, in a later briefing, the RSPB voiced its concerns about the Department's view of what co-design was and what its experience had been. Further to that, will the Minister advise whether, if a member of the APSG has an alternative view — not necessarily on this issue but even in the future — they are permitted to articulate that view outside the APSG? If not, that is another major concern, given that the members are representative bodies in their own right.”
“It is interesting that Mr Aston stated that extending the schemes beyond 2025 was "not an option". In our briefing on 30 January, the Committee was told that not every stakeholder organisation gets what it wants but that we reach a consensus. At the Committee on Monday, the consensus was that we could not reach a consensus. It certainly makes me question the role of the APSG. Is it a co-design group? Does it debate the issues? Does it really consider options, or are final proposals placed before its members and it is merely a tick-box exercise on behalf of the Department? If the latter is the case, that worries me greatly. <BR /> <BR />I say that given the discussions that we had at last week's Committee on the update that we received on the new farm sustainability standards.”
“We have a reliance on the agriculture sector, and, cumulatively, those numbers become important for sustainability. Also, the Department has to take some responsibility for the level of uptake, given the hurdles that it placed on the scheme, leading to those who may have had an interest not engaging. <BR /> <BR />At the Committee, I was bold enough to ask that the Committee hear from young farmers and the UFU as stakeholders who will be impacted on directly by the change. It was not an unreasonable request given the significance of the legislation. There was, however, resistance to that. I am not sure whether there was a fear of hearing from those who would, potentially, be impacted on. Instead, we received an email from Wesley Aston, CEO of the UFU, on behalf of DAERA's agricultural policy stakeholder group. The email stated:”
“In its briefing paper to the Committee, the Department flagged that, in its equality-screening assessment, the closure of the young farmers' programme and the regional reserve would have an impact related to age, so the SR should be screened out with mitigations. However, given that the average age of a farmer in Northern Ireland is 59 and that 67% of farm businesses have a head of holding who is over the age of 55, it is imperative that a programme with an associated financial incentive be in place. Similarly, that should be the case for those coming into farming with no experience. <BR /> <BR />Whilst the Minister will, of course, cite low numbers and the value-for-money argument, we have to remember that Northern Ireland is relatively small.”
“Mr Blair will, of course, contradict others in the Committee on that and insist that we were briefed back in May 2024. At that time, we had a high-level discussion, but we certainly did not have sight of the regulations that we are discussing today. As we all know, the devil is in the detail. <BR /> <BR />On 30 January 2025, as the Chairman explained, we received a briefing on the sustainable agriculture programme and the details of the regulations. The highlights were the reinstatement of the "active farmer" definition into law and that 2025 would be the last year that new entrants and young farmers can obtain entitlements from the regional reserve. The new approach to generational renewal will be through the Farming for the Generations scheme, which will not have the financial incentive associated with the previous scheme.”
“From a Committee member's perspective, what we have is the Minister taking the date for the launch of the FSTP — 3 March 2025 — and working backwards, allowing the minimum amount of time for consideration. <BR /> <BR />We were told in correspondence dated 14 February 2025 that, if the regulations were not approved, the opening of the basic payment scheme would be delayed and payments, which would normally be scheduled for September 2025, might not issue until late November. Therefore, ultimately, if, as a House, we want to do the right thing by some in the farming community, the rest — 24,000 farm businesses — will be penalised by those actions, all because the Minister provided an unrealistic timescale for scrutiny. That is if you consider a briefing and a few questions as scrutiny, and I do not.”
“<BR /> <BR />There is an assumption on the Minister's behalf and that of the Department that the Committee will just nod the SR through, and, no doubt, that will be the case for other Committees — I speak as someone who has worn many hats in this place. I made similar points during the debate on the prayer of annulment of the Direct Payments to Farmers (Cross-Compliance) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024. Surely on the basis that the Committee successfully overturned the Minister's decision to lay those in the Assembly Chamber, he would take more cognisance of the Committee's concerns. However, again, despite the Committee articulating concerns, there has been no such movement by the Minister on this legislation.”
“I rise to speak on the SR that is before us. I am on the record in the Chamber highlighting — I have stood on my soapbox on a near-weekly basis in the Committee highlighting — how poorly we deal with scrutiny of statutory rules in this place. Subordinate — or secondary — legislation is hugely important in the delivery of measures that are permitted under primary legislation. However, the time given between the Department presenting to the Committee and the rules being laid in the Assembly does not permit the Committee the opportunity to call witnesses or stakeholders to inform them of the consequences of what the Committee is being asked to agree to.”
“As I have said before — it is worth repeating — that means addressing policies that restrict development and betterment on farms; eradicating and preventing disease in livestock; and a workable future generations scheme to keep future generations in the sector. It means supporting farms and farmers and recognising them for what they are: our primary industry, employing over 51,000 people and contributing £6 billion to the economy. They are the custodians of our countryside, so it means not using the farmer as the bogeyman when pushing an environmentalist agenda.”
“The analysis showed an increase in land values from £15,000 to £21,000 per acre. That dramatic change raises the number of farms that will face financial difficulties under the new inheritance tax regime, pushing many family farms to the brink of collapse. <BR /> <BR />Despite the rallies, protests and debates, letters from the Executive and from other Chambers, we see no movement from the UK Government. It is essential that the issue is kept alive, and I will support the motion. I appreciate that it is a Westminster issue and that inheritance tax changes are not in the gift of the Minister or the Executive. However, the Minister can do more to help the farmer.”
“<BR /> <BR />The analysis provided shows that using the UK Government's estimate of 500 farming taxpayers affected in the first year, Northern Ireland, on its own, would have 200 or 40% of the total that the UK Government expect for the whole of the UK. The report broke down into real terms what farms would have to do to meet the additional burden. For example, a 67-head lowland suckler herd would need to increase in size by 90%, with an increase in the associated labour hours and costs and no improvements to the business. A 100-head dairy farm would need to increase by a further 41 dairy cows, again with increased hours and costs. <BR /> <BR />The report, identifying those trapped by the tax change, states:”
“<BR /> <BR />Just last week, the Northern Ireland Rural Valuers Association (NIRVA), in conjunction with the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers (CAAV), produced a report on the impact of the changes. It found that at least 6,000 Northern Irish farming taxpayers would be affected by the tax change over a generation. Northern Ireland farms will be more significantly impacted by the changes than farms in any other part of the United Kingdom. That is a result of high land values, the age demographic, greater prevalence of the sole-owner model and farming here being more livestock-based. Where there was a second owner, they were typically a spouse.”
“Those farms contribute significantly to our agricultural output, ensuring the continuation of local food production, maintaining rural landscapes and preserving traditional family practices. To undermine their sustainability is to risk losing not only the future of our agriculture but the livelihoods of countless families who have invested their lives in that vital industry. Yet now, as we have debated previously in the Chamber, they are confronting another financial hurdle due to recent changes in inheritance tax policies. The changes introduced in the Chancellor's autumn 2024 Budget have the potential to deeply affect the long-term viability of family-run farms throughout our country.”
“Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. If you will bear with me, I was just moving on to that. <BR /> <BR />As the proposer of the motion outlined, we must acknowledge the immense pressure that is already being placed on family farms. Inflation, rising living costs and widespread economic uncertainty on top of additional regulatory burdens and reductions in government subsidies in real terms mean that farmers are battling not only to keep their businesses afloat but to continue to provide the essential food and resources that sustain our nation. That is a tough reality for those who work tirelessly, often with little recognition, to maintain the land that has been passed down for generations. <BR /> <BR />Family farms are not just businesses; they are part of the fabric of our agricultural heritage and economy.”
“While any debate that highlights the chronic problems that farmers face in light of the Chancellor's autumn Budget is welcome, key debates on the issue have been taking place in Westminster, where the decisions are made. Sinn Féin is conspicuous by its absence, and, by continuing to distance itself from Westminster, it effectively forfeits its ability to directly influence the decisions that impact on us most. Instead of fighting for the reversal of harmful changes in the place where real change can happen, Sinn Féin opts to raise the matter here, knowing full well that we do not have the power to affect the outcome.”
“Farmers do not need to be beaten by a bigger stick. The legislation seeks to reimpose what was a flawed and problematic scheme that was in place previously. The Assembly should not be gaslighted into believing that the purpose of the legislation is to address the problems in Lough Neagh. By that logic, we will punish 613 farms for the sins of three. I support the motion.”
“It comes at a time when the Assembly has recognised the pressures faced by farmers: the inheritance tax raid by the Labour Government; the impact of weather conditions; the targets set by the Assembly under the Climate Change Act, which need to be met from within existing budgets; the failure of subsidies to keep pace with inflation over the past 10 years; the failure to address bovine TB; the risks around maedi visna (MV), bluetongue and disease control; and the constraints of the Department's ammonia policy in stymieing the modernisation of farm buildings.”
“This is a clear choice by the Minister. He had the option to address compliance as it would directly affect the environment. He says that it is about protecting Lough Neagh, but that is not what the legislation is really about. The Minister's colleague on the Committee made the point that we have not reduced fines for any other polluters. However, this legislation applies only to farm businesses. Those farm businesses are also subject to investigation and prosecution by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA). Other polluters are subject only to investigation and prosecution by the NIEA. With this legislation, the Minister seeks, in effect, to make farmers potentially doubly liable for negligence rather than intentional actions.”
“The legislation gives the Department power to treat as intentional cases in which there are more than three incidents of negligent breaches by farm businesses. That gives the Department power to reduce a farmer's subsidy by up to 100%. I asked the officials a series of questions about how many farms that would have affected and was advised that it would have affected about 613 farms in 2023, which is about 5·7%. I then asked, if we set this in the context of Lough Neagh, how many cases would have related to the protection of waters: the answer was three. <BR /> <BR />The officials were clear that the Minister wanted the legislation to apply to all compliance cases, not just those that related to environmental protection. That would have included cases of animals that had lost their ear tags. The Chair gave a real example of that.”
“I find that deeply strange, coming from a party that persistently calls for openness and transparency. It is almost as if that is a slogan, rather than party policy. The Committee's role is to provide challenge and scrutiny, and, while we will all work constructively with the Minister and the Department, it is vital that we perform that role openly and effectively. <BR /> <BR />The secondary legislation that we are debating today is hugely significant. When officials came to the Committee, it was hugely informative. The Minister would have us believe that the legislation is needed to tackle the problems in Lough Neagh and that failure to pass the legislation would be failure to address those problems. His colleague who sits on the Committee will, no doubt, castigate the rest of us for being anti-environment, which is not true.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. Obviously, that was the process that we worked with at that time. <BR /> <BR />Subordinate or secondary legislation is hugely important as a delivery mechanism for a range of measures that are permitted under primary legislation. Such measures can be delivered and changed quickly without the need for new primary legislation. Given that, however — I accept what the Member said — there is a real onus on the Committee and the Department to be open in working on this type of legislation. That is the only mechanism that we have for scrutiny of the legislation, and the relevant Committee has a perfectly viable role to play in that. Recently, however, in relation to another SR, the Minister had the audacity to ask the Committee to consider legislation in private session.”
“I often hear the comment, particularly from the Opposition, that there is a lack of legislation being discussed and passed by the Assembly. While that may be true of primary legislation — not all legislation is good legislation — there is plenty of secondary legislation regularly going through our Committees, and this is one such piece of legislation. I do not know whether it is a result of periods of suspension or the hastily rushed-through COVID rules, but my experience in Committees and during my time as a Minister was that Committees carried out a vital role of scrutiny and holding Ministers and officials to account.”
“I thank the Member for his comments. Will he accept that non-statutory guidance is not the same as developing a co-design strategy to address the issue?”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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. <BR /> <BR />I look forward to the debate and the Minister's response.”
“<BR /> <BR />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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />In tandem with that, more needs to be done to encourage the use of reusable nappies as an alternative.”
“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.”
“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? <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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.”
“I thank the Minister for his response. The overall reform of adult social care is essential to the transformation of the health service. I accept that it will take considerable time. Equally essential is taking measures to ensure the flow of patients in hospitals. What we are seeing currently is unacceptable. I appreciate that the Minister has outlined some of the things that he is doing. Can he give us some confidence that what is happening now will have an immediate consequence?”