The UK is the second-largest producer of construction and demolition waste in the EU. The EU produces 180 million tonnes of construction waste a year. That is a massive amount. Reusing even a fraction of that would help. Europe-wide, 30% of construction waste is recycled: 70% goes to landfill. Some 40% of the waste comprises bricks, concrete, et cetera, 50% is stone and soil, and the remainder comprises small amounts of metal, asphalt and tar.

Northern Ireland produces 1·8 million tonnes of construction waste each year. Southern Ireland produces 2·7 million tonnes. All the waste in the South goes to landfill initially, but they manage to recycle 40% of that. Those figures need to rise up to 75% or 80%. Mobile crushing machinery is now available that can go onto a demolition site, grind the concrete and dispose of the waste as fill for somewhere else. I stand to be corrected on this matter, but I understand that some of the demolition waste removed from the M3 flyover was used in the Odyssey project.

Other demolition waste was used for some of the developments around the Titanic Quarter. The UK uses around 420 million tonnes of aggregates each year. Northern Ireland uses about 15 million or 20 million tonnes. One million tonnes of that could be derived from recycled materials.

Other Members may wish to comment on domestic waste, but I wish to refer briefly to opportunities for recycling industrial waste. Iron and scrap metals, as well as other materials, can be recycled rather than dumped in landfill sites.

I am grateful to the Minister for attending the debate. It is not enough to cry about recycling and the problem of waste management. Markets must be created as an outlet for recycled products and by-products, so that recovered metals can be reused and gain some added value. However, that will not happen if there are no markets.

I do not wish to bore Members with the variety of opportunities -

It would be helpful if the Member would draw his speech to a close, as many other Members wish to speak.

I shall summarise the main points.

Members must take waste management seriously. It is a major industrial and domestic issue. Let us set meaningful targets for the reuse of so-called waste, whether it be concrete, wood, paper, iron or other metals. Let us consider seriously the possibilities of incinerating pre-selected, suitable waste and generating cheap electricity - God knows our electricity is expensive enough. It may be possible to distribute the waste heat from that process to heat water or to provide central heating for people in the neighbourhood.

We must try to ensure that departmental contracts specify that a percentage of recycled products would be desirable. My understanding is that, unless the contracts specify such requirements at the outset, nothing will be done.

Given that the Business Committee has allocated 90 minutes for the debate and many Members wish to contribute, I ask Members to limit their speeches to six minutes.

I support the ideas behind the motion. Throughout the life of the Assembly, the Environment Committee has been proactive in encouraging everyone in Northern Ireland - industry, commerce, the public and Government - to play an active role in waste minimisation and recycling.

Last month, the Committee hosted a reception for the chairperson and members of the UK Sustainable Development Commission, whose task it is to alert society to the challenges of sustainable development. Sustainable development is about returning to the most basic assumptions about the working of the economy and about learning to live within ecological and social limits. Innovative policy-making and departmental co-operation will be required to meet such challenges. The Committee for the Environment has taken, and will maintain, a keen interest in sustainable development through its encouragement of local councils to develop and implement effective waste management plans, which, when adopted finally, will underpin the Department of the Environment's waste management strategy.

The Committee for the Environment welcomes moves by the Department to increase public awareness of waste minimisation and recycling through the Wake Up to Waste campaign, which promotes partnership with local authorities to achieve the key objectives and to bring about an important change in the public's attitude to waste.

However, the determination and dedication of the Committee for the Environment has been a significant factor in progressing the Wake Up to Waste campaign. The Department launched its waste management strategy in March 2000, yet there was little or no progress on plans for waste reduction, recycling and education until September 2001. In July 2001, the Committee pressed the Department, not only on the slow progress of waste management plans but on the need to develop urgently a parallel programme of waste-recycling education for householders, businesses and schools. A key role in waste reduction lies with manufacturers, whose products and production systems must be modified urgently to minimise waste and maximise recycling opportunities.

The Committee encouraged the Department to extend the Great Britain waste and resources action programme to Northern Ireland. The GB programme promotes sustainable waste management. Its role, through the Waste Management Advisory Board, is to remove barriers to waste minimisation, to reuse and recycle, and to create stable and efficient markets for recycled materials and products. Such activities, and good waste data studies, if efficiently implemented, fulfil the role of a recycling agency that is envisaged in the motion.

With regard to regional waste management plans, which are essential to the development of Northern Ireland's long-term strategy to deal with waste, the Committee was most concerned to learn that in the September 2001 monitoring round, the Department was forced to surrender £1 million of the £3·5 million that was allocated to waste management for 2001-02. Indeed, until the Committee intervened, there was a real danger that even more of the £3·5 million would have been lost. The Committee was so concerned with the lack of progress that it twice met - in September 2001 and in January 2002 - representatives of the three regional waste management district council partnerships and officials from the Department's Environment and Heritage Service to urge progress on the development of the waste management plans.

The Committee also monitored progress through regular correspondence with the three regional partnerships and with the Department, especially on the Department's scheme to distribute waste management funds to district councils. Members will, therefore, understand the Committee's pleasure when the Minister announced the launch of the Wake Up to Waste campaign on 7 February 2002. It welcomes that campaign. However, I must emphasise that it is simply an important starting point. Much remains to be done, and I assure the House that the Committee for the Environment will continue to monitor progress and will actively intervene if progress is not evident.

I shall leave Members with this thought: it is not enough for Government to educate industry and the public on the importance of waste minimisation and recycling. Government Departments and all public bodies, such as health boards and education boards, must lead the way by giving practical support, by improving their own waste management performance and by developing sustainable procurement policies. Imagine the effect of that one act on the market for recycled and recovered materials in Northern Ireland. I support the thought behind the motion.

Waste is an enormous issue for everyone in Northern Ireland - a relatively small country that produces its fair share of industrial, commercial and domestic waste in every corner of the region. Failure to utilise waste successfully could result in the diminution of Northern Ireland as a tourist attraction, a place of economic opportunity and, most importantly, a natural and healthy place to live. Therefore, it is of great importance to find effective methods to recycle waste.

There is no point in creating mountains of plastic, aluminium, paper, metal or glass. We do not need any more mountains in Europe. We remember the great push for paper, plastic and glass recycling in the 1970s and the resultant bankruptcies of firms that were left with stockpiles of products that had no commercial outlets. The initial concentration on efforts to recycle paper and aluminium was a mistake.

The raw material of paper production, if properly utilised from forests where planting is in balance with felling, is a sustainable resource. Moreover, if correctly processed, paper is a biodegradable and necessary ingredient in making compost. Aluminium, on the other hand, is most plentiful and there is no excuse for wasting it.

One needs only to look at our river banks to see the environmental deficit as a result of the use of plastic. Many fast-flowing rivers whose levels rise rapidly during heavy rainfall almost have clothes lines of plastic sticking to the bushes that line the river banks. That is the more obvious and unsightly downside of the misuse of plastic. What impression does that picture leave with tourists, who are another scarce commodity in our area? There must be complete awareness of the problem, and we must start with the youth.

Legislation that lays out a definite timetable must be put in place. Plastic carrier bags, used extensively in the retail sector, should be phased out. Woven paper products are now available that rival plastic for strength. Paper, as I have already said, comes from an infinitely renewable source. Plastic designed for use in industry and agriculture should be totally biodegradable.

Legislation will concentrate minds, as it did when leaded petrol was phased out. Business and industry will come up with an alternative when faced with an imperative. All valued or troublesome waste should be categorised. The important question should be: "Is there a destination? Is there a market?" If not, one should be developed. Plants could be set up across Northern Ireland to categorise waste and incinerate it to produce energy and heat. Different filters for each different type of waste could be used to eradicate toxic waste.

There is surely a ready market for compost - horticultural outlets and garden centres are only two examples. District councils have their part to play through the use of compost in parks and flower beds.

There is a high level of waste on farms and other agricultural establishments because of modern farming methods. Biogas plants, such as that proposed at Fivemiletown, are to be commended, but funding for that type of system is a big problem. The operation of biogas plants, as seen in Sweden and Denmark, makes a significant contribution to solving several environmental problems in agriculture, waste recycling and greenhouse gas emissions. The use of anaerobic digesters on farms, in agriculture industries and in sewage treatment works should be promoted and encouraged.

It is of the utmost importance that all waste be made into a product. Where there is a product, there is no waste. People with small minds create much waste. The Assembly should take up the issue of utilising all waste to make a profit and to make Northern Ireland a healthier and more environmentally friendly place to live. The public should be left in no doubt that recycling will cost money, but it also costs money when waste is not recycled. It will be a cost worth paying if generations to come are to have a future.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome Dr McDonnell's important initiative and the opportunity to discuss waste management. Sinn Féin recognises, and is pleased that others recognise, the importance of recycling as part of a co-ordinated waste management strategy. However, Sinn Féin believes that our sights must be set higher and that the highest possible standards must be met. On 24 October 2000, Mitchel McLaughlin and I tabled a motion calling on the Minister of the Environment to work progressively towards zero waste targets.

As political leaders and activists, many in the Assembly have worked closely with local communities on environmental and planning issues. Two important lessons have been learnt. The first is that collective action by communities, with support from the public, can achieve real and positive change and solve environmental problems. That leads to an overall heightening of public awareness of the importance of environmental issues. The second lesson is that environmental problems are not only local or national matters, but have global implications. Waste management must encompass not only recycling, as seen in the very good advertisements by the Department of the Environment, but we must also consider reducing the amount of waste produced, and a means of dealing with waste material that cannot be recycled.

Last week I asked the Minister of the Environment, Mr Nesbitt, if he had any plans to implement the Waste Framework Directive (75/442/EEC), which relates to packaging waste. I also asked him what he proposed to do about plastic bags from retail grocery outlets. Each week thousands of plastic bags end up in landfill sites, and I called on him to introduce the Regulations, introduced by Noel Dempsey TD, that apply on the rest of the island. The charge levied on plastic bags to encourage their reuse and to reduce the amount going into landfill sites has had a significant effect across the Twenty-six Counties. Unfortunately, I was not too happy with the Minister's reply.

Unless we address the gap that persists between the rapid development in smart technology and the new economics of resource efficiency, Ireland will inherit a waste management infrastructure that was originally designed for the nineteenth century. Over the coming decades, our society will have to adapt. Zero waste represents a new planning approach and defines the discipline required to create a more viable pattern of interaction with our natural world, including the principles of conserving resources, minimising pollution, maximising employment opportunities and providing more local economic self-reliance.

The guiding principles on zero waste must be translated into practical policies and measures. Responsibility for waste management must pass from the taxpayer and local authorities to the manufacturers and producers of goods, who can ensure that the design and packaging of their products include plans for the recovery of the material waste. Incineration is not the answer. Yesterday we debated the risks of mobile phones to health. We must be very careful. People do not want further health problems or fears of the unknown.

Local authority engineers and other officers must be retrained to depart progressively from the landfill and incineration approaches to waste disposal and led to adopt a modernised procedure. These techniques aim to create enabling frameworks for producers and consumers to increase the resource productivity and reduce hazards through the design of products and processes. Manufacturers could close the loop by using materials collected through recycling programmes to produce new material and packaging; there could be initiatives to encourage households and businesses to reduce waste and to recycle, and a scheme could be introduced to bring about changes in waste disposal and recovery of material.

I do not have time to complete my speech, but we must establish an effective recycling agency to assess, develop and promote recycling -

Order. Will the Member bring his contribution to a conclusion.

I make one final point - we need to involve communities in recycling. Go raibh míle maith agat.

The responsibility for waste management has been split between the Department of the Environment and district councils for many years. There is undoubtedly a view among district councils that the Department dumps the problems on councils and takes credit for the easy bits. Fortunately that position has changed a little in recent years. The waste management strategy published two years ago is undoubtedly good. The problem is that it took too long to prepare and is perhaps too much of an overview of the situation rather than getting down to the practicalities.

Northern Ireland district councils are, by and large, too small to carry out the full range of waste management responsibilities, which is why we have three regional groups preparing plans. However, they are creating several problems for themselves because of the simple lack of co-ordination. There are up to a dozen district councils, with different political agendas and individual problems. That is why, as highlighted by the Committee Chairperson, the arc21 group in the eastern region effectively lost £1 million from last year's budget because it was taking time to prepare a detailed plan rather than rushing into expenditure. We must learn from that. In the shire counties of England, it is a district council's responsibility to collect waste and a county council's responsibility to dispose of it; there has to be that application of scale. I am not yet convinced that we are starting to deal with those waste problems, although we are moving in the right direction.

Our recycling rates are dreadful when compared to many other parts of the UK. District councils such as Sutton and Eastleigh in England are setting us a good example with recycling rates of three or four times those of councils in Northern Ireland. Of course, we have had problems. When I was elected to Antrim Borough Council nine years ago, the council was developing a plan for a new landfill site, which would have included a recycling facility. The council is still waiting for the Department - because of the regional development strategy - to take a decision on that plan. We must learn some of those lessons and get away from the environmentally and financially unfriendly situation of having waste transported. I thought that the distance between Toome and Ballyclare was long until I heard of waste being transported from Ballymena to Scotland. That issue is of concern to several councils.

The Department of the Environment has limited areas of responsibility and it has, therefore, limited ability to influence decisions on the reuse and recycling of waste. If we had joined-up government in its fullest sense other Departments and Government agencies would use their influence to improve things.

Dr McDonnell gave examples of things that should be done. With the exception of his apparent enthusiasm for incineration, I would not disagree with many of them - the jury is still out on the validity of incineration. Undoubtedly, as regards the markets that need to provide outlets for recycled material, Departments such as Enterprise, Trade and Investment and Agriculture and Rural Development need to be involved.

We must ensure that the spirit of recycling pervades the Government and is not confined merely to the Department of the Environment. If we do not, we will return to the situation from which we hope we are moving away. Mr Deputy Speaker, you know Mallusk as well as I do, and areas such as that will continue to be blighted not only by past dumping but by the threat of future dumping if the matter is not dealt with properly.

Although the primary responsibility rests with the Department of the Environment and the district councils, we must look at other uses of waste by other Departments and public agencies, and that is why I am slightly concerned by the wording of Dr McDonnell's motion. We have all more or less agreed with his sentiments so far, and, as I have said, there is no doubt that matters are moving better than they were. Indeed, Dr McCrea highlighted that point in his formal response on behalf of the Committee for the Environment. However, the precise wording of Dr McDonnell's motion calls for

and that suggests to me that he has given up hope of the district councils and the Department of the Environment solving anything. It also suggests the potential for the problems associated with using another quango rather than our current structures.

Looking back over recent years, I can see why an active district councillor might have given up hope that the Department of the Environment would respond appropriately. However, from my perspective on the Committee for the Environment, it seems that the Minister and the civil servants appear to understand the problems and are attempting to work in a better partnership with district councils than they were previously. I hope that the Minister will confirm that in the debate. If he gives assurances that the Department will take its responsibilities seriously, I hope that we can join in supporting the sentiments of the Member who moved the motion. At the same time, however, it would be valuable if Dr McDonnell accepted those sentiments, banked them and did not push the motion to a vote. If he does push for a vote, the debate will become more divisive than it needs to be.

Many of my constituents in South Antrim and indeed people throughout Northern Ireland, as Mr Ford said, have had to endure untold problems caused by landfill. Real alternatives for managing waste are long overdue. With recent European Union Directives on alternatives to landfill waste, we must prioritise an effective strategy as well as a co-ordinated response by the Department to manage all aspects of waste recycling.

I am disappointed that the SDLP Member who moved the motion brought a wider political aspect to the debate by suggesting an all-Ireland agency. That is unnecessary, and we should focus on resolving our own waste management problems here. Establishing a Northern Ireland agency is what would be appropriate.

I welcome the Wake Up to Waste campaign, but we must provide practical solutions so that a recycling culture is created. I welcome the practical steps that my council in Newtownabbey has taken in recent years in creating a site at Bruslee for different types of rubbish to be recycled, including grass cuttings, electrical goods, metal, timber, paper and bottles. Each household in Newtownabbey has also been provided with a recycling bin for newspapers.

However, not all council areas here have taken those steps. For example, in the north-west, only 3% of waste is recycled and only 1% in the council area in Londonderry. The Northern Ireland average for waste recycling is 7%. Contrast that with the Netherlands, for example, where 45% of waste is recycled. We clearly have much work to do to create a climate of recycling.

Each household in Northern Ireland produces 1·4 tonnes of waste each year. It was stated recently in the 'Belfast Telegraph' that our discarded domestic rubbish could fill the Waterfront Hall every two weeks. At present 95% of rubbish is buried in landfill sites. With all the hazards associated with landfill, there must be alternatives. We need an agency that can co-ordinate the network of waste recycling and recovery facilities and reduce the dependency on landfill. A healthy environment is essential for the quality of our own lives and our children's lives. We have an obligation to protect our environment.

I commend Mr Boyd, because he has taken many words out of my mouth. It is important to highlight the recycling culture.

I welcome the recent shocking television advertisement, which drives home the dangers that we face if we continue to stuff our bins, landfill sites and countryside with the ugly legacy of our consumer-driven society. I thank Dr McDonnell for tabling the motion, because it puts a new focus on an important issue and educates us about the dreadful facts and figures that are associated with waste products.

The Women's Coalition supports the spirit of the motion, which focuses on recycling and a recycling agency. Members know that three elements in the waste management package must operate in tandem: reduce, reuse and recycle. We cannot simply focus on recycling. In order to solve the massive waste management problem, we must go further back in the process.

Members have mentioned many different ways in which we could tackle the waste management problem. Other proposals could include an incentive scheme, whereby industry is given rewards, such as a green tick or a stamp or an official recognition, for the operation of waste reduction policies. Supermarkets, many of which should be commended for their work, could be rewarded for either a reduction in the amount of packaging or for the use of biodegradable packaging.

Billy Armstrong mentioned the importance of a greater focus on the use of energy supplies from agricultural waste, which is an important issue that the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment has considered in detail. Norman Boyd quoted huge domestic waste figures.

Should the new agency focus only on recycling? Should the Assembly create a new agency, given that it is trying to reduce the number of agencies? Would it be better to co-ordinate the activities of the existing agencies? A joined-up government approach is necessary. There may be a role for a senior cross-departmental group. Whatever the correct approach is decided to be, and we are not saying yea or nay, it is important that bodies such as the advisory board of the Environment and Heritage Service's waste management strategy be consulted.

The most important area to consider is best practice. I have nothing but praise for the work of non-governmental organisations. For example, in pilot schemes, Bryson House's kerbside recycling project has been excellent. Given that such non-governmental organisations lead the field, they must be given solid support. The valuable work of Friends of the Earth and Conservation Volunteers must also be recognised. The councils that lead the way in recycling and waste management must be rewarded.

On the other hand, we must spur on those councils that are dragging their heels. It is unfortunate that several councils in Northern Ireland have not got their act together on this issue. We need co-operation. David Ford mentioned that we need co-operation between non-governmental organisations (NGOs), local councils, Departments and, importantly, the private sector. We must involve the private sector so that recycling and waste management can become real issues on which work is co-ordinated. We need to change the culture that surrounds the issue, and treat waste properly - as a dirty word.

I fell out of bed during the early hours of last Thursday. It may disappoint you to know that, when I was abruptly awoken, my first thought was not "What can be done about waste recycling?" My thoughts were more along the lines of "Where am I, and what am I doing here?" When I got back into bed, I drifted back into philosophical musings, as one does at three in the morning. Those are very profound questions. Even more profound is the seminal question "What am I?" As I nursed my damaged head, the answer came to me - not in a flash, but I finally got there - that I am a product, wrapped in a package. I am - we all are - potential waste material. Having established a link with the motion, and before going on to the nitty-gritty, I shall develop that thought.

Our product is our intelligence, our sensory perception, our emotions, our capacity to create or destroy; in short, it is our spirit, our soul, our life - wonderful and terrifying. When our souls depart, as they will, although I will not speculate about where, what is left is technically, in today's terms, waste. As waste, it must be disposed of. Most traditional methods involve a landfill site or incineration; there is some recycling. Anthropophagy was one early form, and there have been some other gruesome practices. However, I will hurry on from that to mention the wonders of preserving life and restoring health through the transplantation of human organs.

I hope that no one feels that my comments are crude or tasteless. I am trying to deal with a sensitive subject in a way that I hope will spur people into a new mode of thinking and that will change the widely held idea that much, perhaps most, of what we produce from our ever-decreasing treasure house of natural resources is waste. We must stop regarding as waste all that packaging, paper and cardboard, all those plastic bottles and bags, all that expanded polystyrene and bubble wrap, and all those tins, bottles, leftovers and "worn-outs", scrapings, cuttings and clippings - all that stuff - that is left lying about when we finally get to the, sometimes tatty, product. It is not waste. It, too, is a product, waiting for a producer or a reproducer.

Having got that off my too-feeble chest, I turn again to the motion, which calls for the establishment of an effective recycling agency. I am all for that. Thousands of statistics could be quoted, detailing the vast amount of waste created, how much of it is shovelled into holes in the ground to fester and turn poisonous, and how little of it is recycled. I will not go into the details of subjects about which other Members know more. I will give only one titbit. Aluminium is the most plentiful metal in the earth's crust. It is a wonderfully useful material, but it is difficult and expensive in energy terms to mine and process. However, there are so many thousands of tonnes of aluminium - or should I say aluminum? - in the form of cans and containers in US landfill sites that it might be more economically viable, technologically simpler, and at least as environmentally friendly to mine the dumps for aluminium to reprocess than it is to rip more bauxite from the earth. Isn't that a thought?

The need for an effective agency to direct recycling is blindingly obvious. This is not a local, regional or national issue; it is a world issue, and if the world gets it wrong the consequences will be dire. Despite the worthwhile proposals being developed by district councils and council groups in their waste management plans, and, despite the good work being done regionally, it is essential that the organisations and machinery be in place and the resources made available to ensure that the united and co-operative energies and expertise are combined to respond quickly and effectively to a world emergency. I fully support Dr McDonnell's excellent motion.

Much has been said and, I suppose, recycled in this debate, and I do not intend to repeat what others have expressed, perhaps more eloquently than I could. I assure you that this is not a party political point, but it is important to develop a strategy that involves both parts of the island. The problems that affect Northern Ireland affect people in the Republic - there is no doubt about that. A joint strategy between the two parts of the island, as envisaged in the North/South Ministerial Council meetings, is to be welcomed, and I know that valuable work is being done on that. I want to emphasise this in a non-partisan way.

We face the common problem of the accumulation of waste. That accumulation arises from our own success - we are a successful economy and are becoming more successful. Our economic success means more production, and more production means more waste. That is the reality. The industrial and agricultural sectors account for a great deal of the waste going into our watercourses, lakes, rivers and streams. That is a considerable problem, North and South. We must use, reuse and recycle that waste. For example, mushroom farming in the border counties is affected by a problem with waste disposal. That problem is common to both sides of the border. It would be common sense for us to pursue a cross-border, all-Ireland strategy on waste. [Interruption].

I see that the Minister of the Environment has just wasted a glass of water, but we will not allow that to distract us too much.

I welcome this thoughtful motion, which calls for an effective recycling agency. I endorse that, as would most, if not all, Members. We do require a cultural change - a cultural revolution - on waste. Unless we re-educate our citizens we will continue to add to the waste mountain that is the result of our affluence.

We must become self-disciplining and educate our children in that regard. We must also put into operation ways and means of restricting the creation of waste at the point of production. In other words, we must look carefully at what we produce to see whether we can minimise waste and, particularly, packaging. We must break the link between economic production and waste. If we are ingenious enough to create a vibrant economy - which we have done and will continue to do - we are ingenious enough to tackle the problem at source.

We need a cultural revolution. We must consider how to minimise waste. As Dr McDonnell has suggested, we must be sensitive about recycling. That can be done through an agency, such as Dr McDonnell suggested, and through the strategy that the Department of the Environment is developing. If there is anything that one can compliment the Department of the Environment on - and I am not loathe to compliment the Department of the Environment - it is its progressive approach to waste management. We must all give it our united support to free us from the mountain of waste.

The Minister of the Environment (Mr Nesbitt): I thank all who contributed to the debate. It was a debate full of nuance, and I choose that word deliberately. I was wrestling with the opening words that I would use in responding to the debate. The words that I intended to use were: "I agree with the sentiments". I noted that the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment said that he supported the thoughts behind the motion. I do likewise. That is a better way of phrasing it. Mr Ford used the word "sentiments", and Jane Morrice spoke of the "spirit" of the motion. Alban Maginness referred to the "progressive approach" of the Department. There is much to think about. Judging from all the comments made, we empathise - if that can be an embracing word - with the thrust of the motion.

However, I am concerned that it calls for the "immediate" establishment of an agency. We all want to assess, develop and promote every aspect of recycling waste. I am sure that it was not the proposer's intention, but Jane Morrice commented that the motion refers only to recycling. That is correct, but there is more involved than recycling; there is reduction, recovery and recycling. One can see that there is support for the sentiments and the thrust of the motion, but I say genuinely to the proposer that I am not so sure that there is a totality of support for every element of it. I ask the proposer to think about that before he comes to his winding-up speech.

We have an agency that deals with waste - the Environment and Heritage Service. It has a waste management unit, which has recently been expanded.

We also have the waste management board looking at that. It is an independent body that was set up recently to bring together all the stakeholders, and its function is to assess and promote waste management.

We must ensure that we are outcome-focused, as has already been said, and we must ensure that what needs to be done is done. I note the comments of support and the contribution made by the Environment Committee in the development of what needs to be done. We have in place the framework by which we can develop and bring to fruition the outcomes. If, therefore, after wide consultation, and, if we have a process that can potentially deliver, it would not be timely to interject with some new independent agency that would be established immediately. That does not reflect the tenor of the debate, and I note sentiments of support from Dr McDonnell.

The framework is very clear. It could be argued that it took a long time to prepare and deliver, but we have it now, and I concur with that. It wants to see waste management fully developed. Mr Mick Murphy said that reduction was the key element. Reduction, recovery, recycling, and - as has been mentioned by many Members - the market for recycled waste is the key element.

I agree with Dr McDonnell that markets are the big problem, and we must find ways and means to create the markets to allow recycling to proceed. He appealed to the Minister to create the markets - and not just cry about recycling. I endorse every sentiment expressed in those words. The markets are the fundamental fulcrums around which all of this will work or not work.

Key stakeholders must be involved. A founding principle is that those who produce the waste should be involved in the solution. That may sound trite, but we are all part of the problem, and therefore we must all be part of the solution.

I do not tell councils that waste is their problem. It is a problem for us all, and we must all work together. Mr Ford wanted an assurance about working together, and I give him that assurance. We are taking the lead in implementing that aspect through the waste management unit in Environment and Heritage Service.

Some Members referred to key targets. We must have a recovery of 25% of household waste by 2005. We must recover 25% of the waste from landfill and reuse it, and we must recover 40% by 2010. We must reduce landfill of industrial and commercial waste to 85% of 1998 levels, and we must bring the biodegradable aspect to 75% of 1995 levels.

Mr Boyd said that we need an agency to reduce landfill. I totally accept that landfill must be reduced, but, in taking the sentiments of the debate, I am not sure that immediately creating a new agency would deliver the outcome we want, and we should be focused on outcomes.

There are secondary targets, including end-of-life vehicles. By 2005, 85% of end-of-life vehicles must be recovered. By 2004, 90% of waste electrical and electronic equipment must be recovered. I could go on. For example, 85% of waste tars must be recovered by 2005.

I do not want to bore the House with any more statistics. These are challenging targets for us all - the Assembly and the community that we represent - to fulfil. However, we will not fulfil those targets unless we put in place the mechanisms that will deliver them.

Let us look at the actions that are needed. The first key action is education and awareness, which Alban Maginness mentioned. Dr McCrea told us that the Wake Up to Waste initiative was an important starting point in the campaign to challenge public attitudes and awareness. I thank him for those comments. The worst system will work if people make it work. No matter how good a system we have, it will not work if people are not aware of it. That is a key issue. Education is therefore a key priority, and we have been involved in that.

The second key action is the segregation of materials - the diversification away from landfill and segregating into waste that can be recycled. If segregation is achieved, that will lead to the third key action - the new methods of processing and treatment. Above all, however, the markets must be there. If they are not, it could be argued that it is no good having education or segregating waste. There is no good in having the new processing and treatment facilities if there are no markets to take it. That was a key point made by Dr McDonnell.

One of the most important elements is co-operation. I noted Mr Ford's comments that this approach is now working. I also note that he asked that we do not push the motion to a vote. Perhaps it will work, because that co-operation has to exist not only in the Assembly but among all the key stakeholders. Industry, local authorities, Government and the voluntary sector will all play their part.

Mr Ford stated that the district councils were too small to take on the task. I concur with that assessment. When I first met the members of the Waste Management Advisory Board for Northern Ireland, I put that question to them, and they agreed. We welcome the co-operation among the 26 district councils with the eastern, northwestern and southern regional groups. They are publishing plans, as Dr McCrea and others have said, for working throughout the region to ensure that the outcome is delivered. Those plans are an important part of the strategy. They will inform us about future decisions, the most important of which are about funding.

There are milestones to be set and targets to be achieved. Monitoring and reporting are also important. It is no good having a plan and a target and funding unless the process is monitored to ensure that you are achieving what you want to achieve. The plans are out for consultation. They will be submitted to the Department in June to be deliberated upon. It is hoped that the plans will be published in October 2002. That is the target.

We have already been granting money to assist in that regard, both last year and this year. The Waste Management Advisory Board has been helping us. It has three committees: one concerned with reduction, recycling and recovery, and another dealing with education. The board played an important part in the Wake Up to Waste campaign. I remember going home one day and seeing an advertisement on a bus, which bore the legend "Mountains to Mourne" - the word "of" had been replaced by the word "to". The Mourne Mountains were in the shape of the word "waste". We do not want to be mourning the mountains, the ones that I can see from my home on occasions if certain things do not get in the way. We will leave that for another day.

Other things are happening as well. We are involved in the waste resources action programme, a new UK-wide organisation, in which Whitehall, Wales, the Scottish Executive and Northern Ireland are all involved as partners to provide help in the delivery of markets.

We hope to set up - and more detail will come forward in May - an industry fund through which we will provide money through the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Department of the Environment as a pilot scheme to see if we can develop sustainable markets, which is the key element.

I will briefly mention the North/South Ministerial Council as Alban Maginness referred to it, and it is important. The Belfast Agreement states that we should co-operate where it is to the benefit of both to so do, not for political purposes. I concur with that. I have met with Minister Dempsey several times, and we are trying to see what we can do over the coming months to deal with the fridges that are "frozen", as it were, and waiting to be disposed of.

Mick Murphy mentioned plastic bags. That would involve primary legislation to be decided on by the Treasury in London, so at this stage we cannot do anything about that. However, I note the success elsewhere, and we will monitor that closely. If it proves to be as beneficial as it seems, we will try to introduce it in Northern Ireland. Mr Ford said that the jury is still out. Dr McDonnell made an interesting comment about the large non-toxic incinerator that caused no harm and generated much energy. That was an interesting comment as the word "incinerator" and the other words are emotive and, therefore, must be treated with respect. We must not be emotional, and we must be measured in our tone.

In conclusion, we have a blueprint and we have education. We need to get the segregation, the reprocessing and, above all, the markets. Given the markets, there will be the opportunity, and, given that opportunity, there will be the means. If we have the opportunity and the means, there will be the motive, and that is what we are about.

Sentiments were expressed widely for the content of the motion. Whether it should be put to a vote or not is another thing. I would very much like it if we could note the debate and, in noting it, have the motion withdrawn. However, I empathise with the sentiments of Dr McDonnell, the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment and the other Members who spoke.

Mr Speaker, I am honoured that you have returned to listen to the winding-up speech. I was deeply disappointed when I rose earlier to have only a Deputy Speaker - [Interruption].

Shame.

He was recycled into a Speaker.

All joking aside, I very much valued the Deputy Speaker's efforts and the efforts of those Members who stayed in the Chamber when it might have been easier to disappear elsewhere.

The main reason for tabling the motion - and it has lain on the No Day Named list for about six months - was to move the debate on and to retain a focus on this major issue. I purposely wanted to focus on what needs to be done and the outcomes that the Minister referred to earlier, rather than cry more about what needs to be done. I focused more on the industrial and construction side of things because the vast majority of waste comes from there, yet we tend to focus on the bits that we know best, such as domestic waste. However, I feel that if we deal with the big industrial waste, domestic waste will dovetail in behind.

I have no difficulty with the sentiments expressed by some Members agreeing with the spirit of the motion, and I apologise if my construction of the motion was slightly defective. I was trying to grapple with something, and I suppose it is easy to agree with the spirit of the thing. I am not word-perfect; I am not a lawyer, and I am not an expert at drafting and getting these things in focus. I wanted to get everybody on board, to get everybody focused and for everyone to get a sense of ownership of what is going on out there. There is no real difference between us, although we may have disagreed on minor points.

I agree strongly with the reduction, reuse and recycling sentiments expressed by David Ford and Jane Morrice. I tried to deal with reuse and recycling, and I knew that other Members would deal with reduction. However, there is a recycling bottleneck, and unless there is a back door, we cannot continue to bung in more through the front door.

I understand the frustration over the proposal for the immediate establishment of an agency. However, I accept that changes are taking place, and I do not want to force a vote. I simply want to see some change. I do not want to see another landfill site on the north foreshore, which Belfast City Council closed and had to reopen to dump another 10 ft or 15 ft of waste.

I was fascinated by what has been achieved in Denmark. It has an incinerator where we have the Waterfront Hall. It produces vast amounts of electricity, hot water and central heating, which are available to anyone within a one-mile radius who wants it. That approach probably ameliorated neighbourhood objections. However, it works well, and it is clean.

I thank Dr McCrea for his generally supportive contribution about the minimisation of waste and sustainable development.

Billy Armstrong mentioned aluminium, glass, paper, plastic bags and the threat to health and tourism.

Mick Murphy wanted to set the sights higher, and he referred to the earlier debate and zero waste tolerance. I have no difficulty in agreeing with that.

David Ford mentioned the split between the Department of the Environment and the district councils. That is one of the main points, and we must get beyond that.

Although Norman Boyd disagreed with me on some issues, I do not think that they were terribly important. We are trying to make progress towards something that makes a difference to the lorry-loads of waste that are being gathered on our streets every day. He reiterated one of my points, which was that 95% of our household waste is going into landfills.

Jane Morrice mentioned the spirit of the motion and the incentives to promote waste reduction.

Arthur Doherty supported me well, although I felt threatened somewhat when he started to talk about the human dimension, because I was not sure whether he was going to bury, burn or recycle me. I do not intend to facilitate him for a little while. However, I welcome the fact that Mr Doherty mentioned aluminium, because that presents a major opportunity. It is connected with the high price of electricity, which is too high to recycle the aluminium that we have.

Alban Maginness mentioned an all-island strategy. In reacting to the Minister's summary, I emphasise that I am not making a political point; it is a practical point. It would make good business sense, because Derry may want to work with Donegal, or Newry may want to work with Dundalk. It concerns common purpose, not political points.

The Minister made a grand tour of all the issues, and I shall not mention all the points he made. I thank him for being in attendance and for the detail of his response. However, he is on probation. On this occasion, I shall not push the motion to a vote. We shall revisit the motion next year and shall hold him to account if we do not see results in the meantime. I beg leave to withdraw the motion.

The mover begs leave to withdraw the motion. Is it the will of the House that the motion be withdrawn?

Car Parking Provision at Garryduff Primary School, Ballymoney

TOP

Mr Paisley Jnr:

I want to draw to the attention of the House the issue of car parking provision at Garryduff Primary School in Ballymoney. Car parking provision at this rural primary school is a disaster waiting to happen if it is not addressed urgently by the Minister of Education, the Department of Education and the North Eastern Education and Library Board, where responsibility lies.

Garryduff Primary School is situated between Ballymoney and Dunloy on a stretch of rural country road where the traffic is fast. The school is well established and is expanding steadily; it has an excellent teaching reputation, a healthy enrolment and good examination results. However, in one regard it needs immediate, urgent and expeditious capital expenditure development.

The need for capital investment in car parking provision was identified over three years ago in a departmental focus review report, of which I am sure the Department is aware. The report commended the school's teaching standards, but it also contained a health warning. It stated that there was a serious health and safety issue with regard to car parking arrangements for teaching staff and for parents dropping children off at school and collecting them. If the issue is not addressed, there could be a serious road traffic accident.

I emphasise that it is not the responsibility of the Department of Education to provide car parking facilities for parents. However, the Department has a duty of care and responsibility not only for the children in its care but also for the teaching and auxiliary staff. It is essential that a car parking facility should not only address the health and safety problems of the teaching and auxiliary staff but should also remove a danger that children must face every day. A child may not be knocked down or killed, but he or she could be seriously injured.

Urgent consideration must be given to the provision of minor works to this school, because it would make a major difference to the lives of the pupils, and parents would not have to face the heartache of dropping their children off at a dangerous school.

In June 2000, the North Eastern Education and Library Board made financial provision to purchase a field adjacent to the school to develop a car park. That transaction has still not taken place. In March 2000, the Roads Service stepped in to help the Department with the immediate problems. The Department for Regional Development should be commended for identifying some serious road hazards. I received a letter from the then Minister for Regional Development, Gregory Campbell. It stated:

Unfortunately, no further progress was made. By June 2001 the Department of Education recognised that there was some urgency. A letter that I received from it stated:

That was almost a year ago. Parents and teachers believed that very little was being done. I am pleased to report that, at the beginning of this week, planning permission was given for the car park. The Department now has the choice of acquiring the land, which has been valued by the district valuer. I hope that it will acquire the land immediately. However, acquiring the land and obtaining planning permission is not enough to address the parking problem. The Department must find some £50,000 to deliver on the arrangement.

I hope that the Minister gets his skates on and moves ahead to release the money from his budget for the provision of the school car park.

As in every other constituency, there is a backlog of minor works programmes. In the North Eastern Education and Library Board there are 20 million identified minor works that could be carried out. However, this should be given top priority because of the significant health and safety issues for teachers and school workers, and also the better quality of life for children going to and leaving that school. Parents would also be relieved that their children could be left to school without taking their lives in their hands as they walk across that busy road on the way to school.

I hope that the Minister is able tonight to address the disaster that is waiting to happen if money is not immediately identified to make this car park provision. I hope that the Department is able to respond positively.

As Mr Paisley said, the risks posed by the haphazard parking arrangements at Garryduff Primary School have been a cause of concern for some considerable time. I commend the work that has been done by Ballymoney road safety committee, and also that undertaken by the board of governors of Garryduff Primary School, in the form of intense lobbying that has reached the MLAs. It has certainly hit the main target, which is the North Eastern Education and Library Board. We are on the brink of a resolution, and it will be a source of considerable relief if the car parking facility can be built, now that the planning permission is there, along with the small adjacent play area. That would also be a good thing, as it would focus the children's attention as they are waiting to be picked up.

The road leading to the school from Ballymoney runs straight for some distance and, inevitably, traffic will reach high speeds. Vehicles coming from the opposite direction have to round a bend, and thus tend not to be travelling at such breakneck speed. They are, however, coming from a blind corner. It is an area where vehicles reach high speeds most of the time. I have occasionally complained to the Roads Service about the bumps, potholes and general state of disrepair of the road, although on the whole that does contribute a little to slowing down the traffic, which is probably just as well.

During its inquiry into school transport, the Environment Committee examined the merit of adopting the practice of some US states that, when a school bus has pulled in, there should be no overtaking of that bus until it has moved on again, so that children can alight and cross the road safely. School buses stopping outside Garryduff Primary School would be a perfect case study of the merits of that approach. The argument in favour is clear: that the traffic should be stopped so that children can safely cross the road. The argument against, which was put strongly, is that although children know that they are safe to cross the road from a school bus, the same does not necessarily apply on other occasions when they are crossing the road. The situation is not clear-cut. Nonetheless, there is no question that, where a bus is parked, traffic can be unsighted and the situation is dangerous. We have been fortunate that no serious accident has occurred.

Therefore, I completely endorse Mr Paisley's call to the Department of Education to fund the successful application forthwith. I trust that the Minister will give us such undertakings today.

The Minister of Education (Mr M McGuinness): I thank Mr Paisley Jnr and Mr Leslie for their contributions.

Garryduff is a controlled primary school and its car parking provision is primarily a matter for the North Eastern Education and Library Board. The board has advised that the school is situated on a dangerous stretch of road, and it acknowledges the need for a bus turning-circle and car parking facilities for parents who leave and collect children at the school. I understand that the board consulted the Roads Service about possible options to address the situation, and the only feasible solution was for the board to acquire additional land.

The board has recently concluded negotiations with the owner of a plot of land adjacent to the school, and its purchase has been agreed - subject to certain conditions set down by the Valuation and Lands Agency. In the light of that, and following close consultation with the Roads Service, the board submitted a scheme to the local planning office. The planners requested some amendments, and those were incorporated in a revised scheme to which formal planning approval is pending.

The education committee of the North Eastern Board has approved in principle the inclusion of the scheme in the board's minor works programme for this year. Provided the planning approval is confirmed and the conditions for the purchase of the land are met, the project will be brought to tender. I trust that the matter will be speedily expedited, and the understandable concerns of the local community and its representative will be removed.

Adjourned at 6.07 pm.