The Initial Presiding Officer:

One needs to be a little careful in raising points of order about matters which were spoken of in the Chamber if one was not watching or listening to what was said. The Member did not mention the party of which you are a member. It was your colleague who raised that question, and therefore the matter which you raise does not apply in respect of a limited number of Members. That is absolutely clear.

Mr Ervine:

Further to that point of order. I must point out that there is a continuous cacophony of language used in this Chamber mostly, I would have to say, directed at Sinn Féin. Others have drawn in the Progressive Unionist Party at various times and lumped it in with Sinn Féin, the perception being that it is associated with paramilitary organisations. I challenge your suggestion that I do not have the right to comment even though I saw the proceedings in my office as they were played out.

Having said that, one needs to consider the fact that the perception from some Benches is that there is more than one party associated with paramilitary organisations. Mr Wilson did not say "group" or "party"; he said "parties". He therefore included the Progressive Unionist Party. I require, either on your part, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, or in consultation with Mr Wilson, some definition of the word "fronting".

The Initial Presiding Officer:

You have raised a number of matters. One matter which I must raise is the question of challenging rulings. Secondly, as far as observing the proceedings from outside is concerned, that is justifiable. It is the convention in other places that Members who wish to participate in debates listen to the speeches coming before and after; in some places it is the convention that Members sit through the whole debate if they wish to intervene. While the latter is a very restrictive convention the former convention is not an entirely unreasonable one.

I will study Hansard, as I always do. If there are matters which need to be brought to the attention of the Assembly I will bring them, with due conscientiousness. However, I have to point out that there are times when Members themselves put matters on the record. They put matters into Hansard by raising them, responding to them, or objecting to them. On a number of occasions remarks would not have been on the record if they had not been responded to.

I will look at this particular matter, and I will study it. I have looked at it already in terms of the relevance of various speeches to what is being said, and I am persuaded that within certain bounds the speeches have been relevant. I will address the matter which the Member raises. However, I must say that at this point I am not convinced by the point of order that he raises, and has raised reasonably extensively.

Mr Ervine:

Further to that point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. I must defend myself. Nowhere in the Standing Orders is there mention of another place. We operate under the rules and procedures which we have created here. Continuously reminding Members of conventions in other places may be perfectly reasonable for those who understand the workings of other places, but it is a one-liner put-down to tell people who do not understand the workings of those other places that they should behave in a different way.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

The Member appears to have forgotten that, from the beginning, I have repeatedly referred to the use of 'Erskine May' in situations where the Initial Standing Orders are not adequate. No Member has challenged that. 'Erskine May' is available for all Members to read and when the Assembly's Standing Orders are brought forward in full, I suspect there will still be a need to refer to it.

These are not obscure matters; they are not restricted to those who are Members in other places. They are available for Members to read, and there has been no objection to their being used. They have been used by a number of Members - not just myself.

Mr J Kelly:

Further to that point of order, a Chathaoirligh - and this concerns organisations fronting paramilitary organisations. A couple of weeks ago David Ervine challenged the Members of the DUP when he said that he had been in their homes, not as a PUP member but as a member of the UVF - an organisation which was and still is illegal. Not one of them challenged him; not one of them had the courage to stand up and deny what he was saying; not one of them ever said that he was wrong.

I would like you to give a ruling on organisations that front paramilitary organisations. How are such organisations to be defined? Where does it begin, and where does it end? Does it begin with the DUP and end with Sinn Féin or the PUP?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Let me make it clear, lest I did not refer specifically and sufficiently clearly to the point raised by Mr Ervine, that it is not for me to produce definitions of what Members are saying. If Members do not wish to spell something out - for whatever reason - that is a matter for them. It is not for me to challenge them to be more clear in their speech. I do have to say, however, that in referring back to one of the things that was said earlier, I am not sure that you have strengthened the point of order that the Member you referred to has raised - in fact, quite the opposite, I suspect.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley:

Further to that point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. Is it not out of order for a Member who has not heard the remarks made to raise them as a point of order? He has, of course, the right to read Hansard and then draw your attention to the matter, but he cannot raise it on hearsay. Surely that ruling has to be adhered to.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I do not believe that the Member raised the matter on hearsay; he advised the Chamber that he had observed this on the annunciator.

Mr P Robinson:

No, he did not. He said the press. Look at Hansard.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Order. On the first occasion he advised that he had heard it from the media, but on clarification he made it clear that he had seen it on the annunciator. I can amplify further. On the specific point that the Member raises, I believe that it is not unreasonable that when Members are participating in debate, they should be prepared, if at all possible, to wait for the person speaking before them and the person speaking after them. I am advised that there may be some Members who may not wish to do that, and the Committee on Standing Orders or other Committees of the Assembly may wish to address such matters. However, I do not think that it is an improper thing to expect; it is certainly something that is expected in other places.

Two Members want to raise points of orders - Mr Ervine and Dr Paisley.

Mr Ervine:

Mr Ervine does not operate on the basis of hearsay. Mr Ervine saw it on the media - on the internal television system in his room.

A Member:

Not the media.

Mr Ervine:

Of course it is the media.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Order.

Mr Ervine:

Of course it is the media, with a semantic -

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Order. Is this a point of order?

Mr Ervine:

It is.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

If it is answering what another Member has raised, it is not a point of order. I have already ruled in that regard. If it is a point of order, I will take it.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley:

Surely, Sir, you need to look at that again. No annunciator is accepted in the House of Commons. A Member there cannot get up and say that while he was sitting in his room watching the debate, he heard a Member make such-and-such a comment and he wants to challenge it. If that Member was not at the meeting, the only way he can challenge a point is to check the Hansard Report. Even the media that records proceedings in the House of Commons is not accepted as a means of checking the contents of people's speeches, as we found out when we raised certain matters in the House of Commons.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I may find it necessary - and I have not done so up until now - to invoke the practice of taking points of order at a time of the Speaker's choosing, otherwise the poor joint Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee will have expired before he has had the opportunity of winding up.

There is clearly a matter of dispute between Members here. At least it is better that the Member saw it on the screen rather than his relying on hearsay, which was the accusation previously made against him. He has made it clear that he saw it; he brought it here; the matter has been spoken of, and it has been ruled upon. I propose that we leave there and give the joint Chairman the opportunity of winding up the debate.

Mr Ervine:

I would like to have one final point of clarification.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I cannot accept a point of clarification; I can accept points of order only.

Mr Ervine:

I will fit it in somewhere, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, you can be assured of that.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I have no doubt about your ingenuity and creativity in that regard, Mr Ervine.

Mr Haughey:

I am very glad to say that the reports of my expiring are decidedly premature. And my wife and children are delighted.

A number of matters have been raised, and I would like to refer to them in order.

First, I want to thank Mr Nigel Dodds for his remarks. He points out that the report does not make any recommendation in regard to the appointment of a Commissioner. That may well be the case, but it was our view that this issue was best left to the Committee of Standards and Privileges, and they may recommend the appointment of a Commissioner.

Mr Dodds also raised the matter of when the Committee would be appointed. It should be appointed immediately devolution takes place, but it is a matter for the Assembly to decide whether it wishes to act prior to that. It would be difficult for a Committee of Standards and Privileges to act in a proper way unless a Clerk of Standards and a Commissioner were appointed at about the same time. There might be some difficulty about that, but it is something that we could, perhaps, look at again.

In addition, Mr Dodds raised the issue of the Committee's having the power to tweak and adjust the rules as time goes on; he welcomed that, as do I.

I thank my Colleague Mr Eamonn ONeill for his kind remarks.

Whether district council payments are registrable interests is an interesting question, one that I have not considered. The Committee on Standards and Privileges should look at that in detail. By and large the registration of interests relates to areas where a Member may derive a pecuniary or other valuable interest from his advocacy in the Assembly, and it is not clear whether or not that would be the case.

Mr P Robinson:

As a general principle, if someone is elected to a public position, and, therefore, is in the public domain, the registration of interests is intended to overcome the difficulty of people not knowing Member's interests, so I think it should be included, along with membership of the House of Commons, or any other public position.

12.00

Mr Haughey:

Mr Robinson is obviously a much more experienced parliamentarian than I am, and I defer to his judgement in this matter, but I still think that the matter is best left to the Committee on Standards and Privileges, which can work out an exact protocol for it.

My Colleague Mr Eamonn ONeill also raised the matter of the Clerk of Standards and the degree of power that he will have. The Clerk of Standards will be the chief administrator in this area: he will act as Clerk to the new Committee and maintain the Register. However, on the other hand, the Commissioner will be an independent appointee who will advise Members on standards and oversee the system of registration. Some of these matters will be presented in more detail when the Standing Orders become available, and I ask my Colleague Mr ONeill to wait until then.

Mr ONeill also raised the matter of an appeals procedure. I will require some time to look into this, but I will come back to him.

Mr ONeill, Mr Molloy and Mr Dallat raised, in turn, the question of membership of various Orders and organisations, whether open, semi-secret or oath-bound. There is a very particular Northern Ireland angle to this, and it will need to be looked at in some detail. The Westminster model does not require registration of the membership of such bodies. I am given to understand that the Welsh are considering a requirement for members of the New Welsh Assembly to register if they are members of the Masonic Order. The Committee on Standards and Privileges will need to look very carefully at the Northern Ireland angle to this - it is not a matter that I am prepared to give an off-the-cuff judgement on at the moment.

Mr Sammy Wilson raised a number of issues, and I hope he will agree that none of them requires any specific or direct answer from me. [Laughter]

Mr Neeson questioned whether it was appropriate that Mr Haughey should present this report. I have got into the habit of saying "no relation", and I will say it again.

Mr Cedric Wilson raised a number of issues in relation to the law. I can only point out that the obligation to abide by the law rests upon all citizens, and not just on Members of the Assembly - it does not derive from the Good Friday Agreement or from any other political Act.

Mr Initial Presiding Officer, I do not know whether or not you will indulge me and permit me to reply in a few sentences to the issues raised that concern the Standing Orders Committee meeting last Friday. If you prefer that I do not proceed, I will not, but there are one or two issues which could give rise to misunderstanding, and I believe I should clarify them. I await your ruling.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I am grateful to the Member and joint Chairman for putting it in that way. There may be misunderstandings with regard to the matter - there is plenty of evidence of that. However, it might be wiser for those matters to be addressed, if it is necessary to address them, when you present the report from the Committee on Standing Orders, which may not be too far away.

Mr Haughey:

I accept your ruling, Mr Initial Presiding Officer.

Mr Dodds:

Before this matter is concluded I want to raise the Initial Standing Orders which, I understand, are being delivered by the Secretary of State today to all of the parties in the House. I seek an assurance from one of the joint Chairmen that the Standing Orders Committee will have an opportunity at its next meeting to look at those Initial Standing Orders, as it did on a previous occasion, make recommendations and send them back to the Secretary of State. This is something that a Committee of the House should have an opportunity to do before the Secretary of State proceeds.

Mr Haughey:

As I understand it, the Secretary of State is making the draft Standing Orders available to all parties so that each party can respond in detail from its point of view. I can see no reason for the Standing Orders not going before the Committee on Standing Orders so that it too can have a look at them.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

This Assembly agrees the resolution set out in Annex A to Paper No NIA 1 "The Code of Conduct", together with the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members.

Resolved accordingly:

a. Approval is given to:

(i) The Code of Conduct contained in Assembly Paper NIA1;

(ii) the Guide to the Rules relating to the conduct of Members contained in Assembly Paper NIA1; and

(iii) The Committee on Standards and Privileges to make such minor amendments to the Guide to the Rules as appear to it to be justified by experience or necessarily reflect decisions of the Assembly; and to report such amended versions of the Guide to the Assembly.

Registration and Declaration of Members' Interests

b. Every Member of the Assembly shall furnish to the Clerk of Standards such particulars of his or her registrable interests as shall be required, and shall notify to the Clerk of Standards any alterations which may occur therein, and the Clerk of Standards shall cause these particulars to be entered in a Register of Members' Interests which shall be available for inspection by the public.

c. In any debate or proceedings of the Assembly or its Committees or transactions or communications which a Member may have with other Members, Ministers or servants of the Crown, he or she shall disclose any relevant interest or benefit, of whatever nature, whether direct or indirect, that he or she may have had, may have or may be expecting to have. For these purposes:

(i) any interest disclosed in a copy of the Register of Members' Interests shall be regarded as sufficient disclosure for the purpose of taking part in any division in the Assembly or in any of its Committees;

(ii) the term "proceeding" shall be deemed not to include the asking of a supplementary question.

d. It is the personal responsibility of each Member to have regard to his or her public position and the good name of the Northern Ireland Assembly in any work he or she undertakes or any interests he or she acquires. The scope of the requirement to register remunerated trades, professions or vocations includes any remunerated activity in the fields of public relations and political and Assembly advice and consultancy; in particular, in regard to the registration and declaring of clients, the services which require such registration and, where appropriate, declaration include, as well as any action connected with any proceedings in the Assembly or its Committees, the sponsoring of functions in Parliament Buildings, making representations to Ministers, civil servants and other Members, accompanying delegations to Ministers and the like.

e. No difficulty should arise in any proceeding of the Assembly or its Committees in which the Member has an opportunity to speak. Such proceedings, in addition to debates in the Assembly, include debates in Committees, the presentation of a public petition, and meetings of Committees at which evidence is heard. On all such occasions the Member will declare his or her interest at the beginning of his or her remarks. It will be a matter for the Member's judgement, if the interest is already recorded in the Register, whether he or she simply draws attention to this or makes a rather fuller disclosure. Declarations of interest made in Committees shall be recorded in their Minutes of Proceedings.

f. Any Member proposing to enter into an agreement which involves the provision of services in his or her capacity as a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly shall conclude such an agreement only if it conforms to the Code of Conduct for Members; and a full copy of any such agreement, including the fees or benefits payable in bands of up to £1,000, £1,000-£5,000, £5,000-£10,000, and thereafter in bands of £5,000, shall be deposited with the Clerk of Standards at the same time as it is registered in the Register of Members' interests and made available for inspection by the public.

g. Any Member who has an existing agreement involving the provision of services in his or her capacity as a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly which confirms to the Code of Conduct for Members, but which is not in written form, shall take steps to put the agreement in written form; and within three months of the date of this resolution a full copy of any such agreement, including the fees or benefits payable in bands of up to £1,000, £1,000-£5,000, £5,000-£10,000, and thereafter in bands of £5,000, shall be deposited with the Clerk of Standards and registered in the Register of Members' Interests and made available for inspection by the public.

Advocacy

h. It is inconsistent with the dignity of the Assembly, with the duty of a Member to his or her constituents, and with the maintenance of the privilege of freedom of speech, for any Member of the Assembly to enter into any contractual agreement with an outside body, controlling or limiting the Member's complete independence and freedom of action in the Northern Ireland Assembly or stipulating that he shall act in any way as the representative of such outside body in regard to any matters to be transacted in the Northern Ireland Assembly; the duty of a Member being to his or her constituents and to Northern Ireland as a whole, rather than to any particular section thereof and that, in particular, no Member of the Assembly shall, in consideration of any remuneration, fee, payment, reward or benefit in kind, direct or indirect, which the Member or any member of his or her family has received, is receiving, or expects to receive:

(i) advocate or initiate any cause or matter on behalf of any outside body or individual; or

(ii) urge any other Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, including Ministers, to do so,

by means of any speech, question, motion, introduction of a Bill or amendment to a motion or Bill.

i. A Member with a paid interest should not initiate or participate in, including attendance, a delegation where the problem affects only the body from which he has a paid interest.

Assembly: Adjournment Debates

 

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I remind Members that applications for Adjournment debate should be in by noon on the Thursday preceding any following sitting. I also remind Members that requests to speak in Adjournment debates can be accepted only up to the start of the sitting, as distinct from requests to speak on other motions which are generally forthcoming throughout the sitting.

For the first time, the topic for the Adjournment debate - landfill in the Belfast area, particularly concerning problems at Mallusk - is included on the Order Paper. That is the reason for the earlier time for requesting applications. The topics for Adjournment debates will be included on future Order Papers.

Motion made:

That the Assembly do now adjourn. - [The Initial Presiding Officer]

Landfill (Belfast Area)

 

Mr Ford:

I have been caught unawares. I did not think that we would reach this point until after lunchtime. I will do my best, and I am sure that the DUP will keep me right.

Mr Dodds:

May we have a ruling that this is one occasion on which it would be appropriate to have cries of "Rubbish" directed at the Initial Presiding Officer?

Mr Ford:

This debate has been requested by five of the six Members for South Antrim. Unfortunately, the DUP Member is the exception. It has been inspired by two factors. First, there is the nuisance that is suffered by many of our constituents in the Mallusk area; secondly, there is a desperate need for a regional strategy for disposal of waste, especially in the Greater Belfast area.

It is not just a Mallusk problem. Members from East Antrim will be well aware of the problems around Magheramourne and the threats to the environment in that area. At this stage Mallusk is clearly suffering most, and we shall outline the problems and suggest some solutions.

The saga began in 1988 at Cottonmount when part of Boyd's quarry, which some Members may remember for motor trials, was suggested as a possible site for landfill. A detailed public inquiry was held at that stage, and planning permission was granted for a small part of the quarry for four or five years. Immediately after planning permission was granted, UK Waste became the operators.

Residents say that many problems, such as smell, birds and flies, litter blow and the inevitable traffic, started at that time. In fairness, UK Waste has made some efforts to reduce those problems, but it has failed to satisfy the concerns of residents.

Mallusk is not an area with a few residents, as it was some years ago. It is becoming more and more built up. Even in the past seven years, since the boundary review, Mallusk ward clearly has the highest population in Newtownabbey. It is now more than 50% over the average for Newtownabbey wards, and that was in advance of the most recent approval of planning permission for a major greenfield housing site in the area.

It is quite clear that the area is becoming less suitable for the operation of a landfill site though it may have been acceptable for a few years. I need to be careful here because of the sub judice rule, but I can say that there has been a new application for a massive extension that would carry four million tonnes of waste - a huge proportion of the total waste that is generated in Northern Ireland - for 20 years.

In a judicial review, the courts have instructed the Department of the Environment to grant planning permission, although the Minister is appealing that decision. Without prejudice to that judicial review, it is my opinion that to grant permission for a single landfill site on such a scale at a time when we are about to approve a waste management strategy for Northern Ireland, would make such a strategy unviable if that were not predicated upon this site being the major dump.

A second major landfill site is about to come back into operation, and doubtless the Members for Belfast can tell us about that. It is my understanding that Belfast City Council intends to keep to itself the four or five years' lifetime that it has on the foreshore.

The strategy document that we need to consider was produced in draft form in June last year. We do not know when the Department is going to produce the final version. The document makes it clear that Northern Ireland's waste management is well behind European practice.

It sets out four principal objectives: the need to reduce the amount of waste generated in the first place - and we all know the problems of packaging and so on; the need to make best use of that waste which is generated; the need to encourage practices which minimise damage and nuisance; and the need to move waste handling up the hierarchy of waste management. That means that reduction of waste is to be preferred to reuse of waste, which is to be preferred to recycling of waste, which is to be preferred to recovery of waste, which is to be preferred to landfill.

The document says that there will be a planning policy statement from the Department which, at least in draft, is likely to favour co-ordinated plans and strategic facilities to avoid environmental impact and nuisance, moving waste up the hierarchy and regarding landfill as an option only when it is possible under the best practice guidelines. Targets are laid out within that, based on European targets which suggest that landfill should be cut to 75% of its 1995 levels by 2006 and to 35% of those levels by 2016. Those are optimistic targets and, perhaps, unrealistic. It will be interesting to see if they survive in the final version. We will require a massive initiative to get anywhere near the 75% target, never mind the 35% one.

We need that kind of strategy at regional level, but it will run into major problems if what the residents would describe as a "superdump" at Mallusk is allowed to proceed with a lifetime of 20 years and taking virtually all the waste produced in Greater Belfast. Such a landfill site, if it goes ahead on a traditional basis with mixed domestic and industrial waste of every kind, including the organic waste that leads to problems with methane and run-off, will bring about a major conflict in the area between the increasing population and the difficulties with the kind of waste which will be dumped.

I have some sympathy with UK Waste. The delays that it is suffering from are the same delays as those of us on councils that are using its dumps are suffering from and that the residents are suffering from. Antrim Council, of which I am a member, applied five-and-a-half years ago for planning permission for a relatively modest operation, a single landfill site to serve Antrim and possibly Ballymena. The Department has still not given us a response, just as it has failed to give a response to UK Waste.

If an operation on that scale has been held up by the need for a strategic plan, there is clearly a failure within the Department to sort out its business. Clearly, when the Assembly gets powers, and when a Minister accountable to the Assembly is responsible for the Department of the Environment as it is at present, the matter of regional strategic planning for waste management must be a major priority.

We must create a cultural change to promote waste reduction, reuse, recycling and recovery. At the moment, the strategy in the draft plan is extremely vague. It is totally unclear how this cultural change will come about. There are great problems, given the scale of operations in Northern Ireland, and even at regional level, with creating the critical mass necessary to promote recycling. Even with cross-border co-operation, that critical mass may be difficult to attain, in comparison with what happens in Great Britain or on the European mainland.

12.15 pm

It is clear that there are limits about what we can do here and that there is a great need for an initiative to be taken by Westminster and Brussels of which we can be a part. But there are some things that we can do, and there is going to be a major change, we need to start to consider those things seriously.

In particular, we have to be prepared to examine the issue of energy recovery by way of an energy-from-waste scheme. We need to deal with that which cannot be reused or recycled. I know there are major concerns - we all probably received mail from Friends of the Earth, Belfast, about the dangers of dioxins. I am also aware that energy-from-waste schemes are working well in other parts of Europe, including inner south London, so there are options which we need to examine to ascertain the facts and see what is possible.

In years to come Cottonmount may prove to be an acceptable site for the disposal of predominantly inert waste from an energy plant, but we need to have a strategic plan in place. We needed one three years ago, not just this year, and it must be a priority in fairness to all concerned, whether they be the councils that use the facility or the companies which run the facility, or the residents in Mallusk, and they are the most important of all.

Mr Boyd:

This issue has come before the House because of errors made by the Department of the Environment as a result of which many residents in the Mallusk area of Newtownabbey have had to endure a direct, negative impact.

In 1988 a local quarryman applied to turn a redundant part of his quarry complex at Mallusk into a landfill site for municipal and other wastes that would take 30,000 tonnes of waste per annum. There were strong local objections to that including objections from Newtownabbey Borough Council. A public inquiry was called at which objectors gave evidence for their belief that a landfill site was incompatible with the surrounding residential, recreational and agricultural lands and waters. It was also pointed out that landfill was not regarded in Europe as the best method of waste disposal, and it was revealed at the public meeting that the proposed tonnage had been increased to 250,000 tonnes per annum.

Under EC regulations an environmental impact assessment (EIA) should have been prepared. This latter point was acknowledged by the Department of the Environment representative, but he then admitted that the Department had failed to give notice to the applicant within the specified period and could not therefore request an EIA.

A range of consultants for the applicant and the so-called experts for the Department of the Environment gave evidence to the effect that with modern landfill techniques you could put a landfill site anywhere with none of the problems of smell, birds, litter and dirt associated with old-style landfills. The inquiry was told on a number of occasions that there was no intention to extend landfilling beyond the area of redundant quarry known as Cottonmount Quarry and that the increased tonnage to be put into the site would mean that the full amenity of the area would be restored in four to five years. The inquiry found for the applicant and planning permission was granted.

In 1995 it was revealed that UK Waste had leased the Cottonmount Quarry and intended taking the City of Belfast waste to Mallusk up to the year 2000. It was also revealed that it had applied for planning permission for the remainder of the quarry complex, which would extend dumping by another 20 years. UK Waste stated that within six months of starting operations, the residents would not know that the company was there. Dumping began at the end of February 1996, and the impact on the area began to be felt.

All the fears of the residents who had opposed the planning application were now realised. There was the smell, the birds and the litter, both wind-blown and that falling off lorries, and the roads and footpaths became hazardous because of the dirt and volume and speed of traffic.

A number of meetings were held between the residents and UK Waste, but the problems were not resolved. Indeed, they have increased.

A public meeting was held on 6 February this year. It was attended by 300 residents. Their plight was heard in detail, and numerous public-health issues were raised. Many residents are unable to enjoy time in their garden because of the strong smell, which makes some people ill; the problems for asthma sufferers are increasing because of the poor quality of the air, but they are unable to open any windows (Sunday appears to be the day when the smell is worst); large numbers of birds generate a huge amount of droppings on the area and on nearby farmland; the rockets used to deter the birds are very loud and frighten pets; there is increased litter on the Bernice Road and in surrounding areas; there is an unacceptable volume of traffic that has resulted in increased congestion, speeding and dirt.

There are several instances of mice and rats in the residential area, and there are numerous flies, which means people cannot open their windows. Food has to be covered while being eaten. As an example of the problem, 60 bluebottles were found in a kitchen in one week. These cases are not isolated and are clearly unacceptable.

The problem has been exacerbated by a recent High Court judgement issuing an order to compel the Department of the Environment to provide planning permission for the second phase of the landfill development operated by UK Waste Management Limited. This ruling would enable waste from Belfast and surrounding areas to be taken to Cottonmount for the next 20 years.

In 1997 the residents wrote to the Planning Service to object to phase two as so many problems were still unresolved from phase one. The Planning Service's opinion failed to take account of EC legislation, which requires areas of separation between landfills and residential and recreational areas. The Planning Service's opinion also gives a competitive advantage by placing 50% of all waste management in Northern Ireland in one company.

In February 1998 Newtownabbey Borough Council commissioned an independent survey of odour problems in the area of Baird's Brae landfill site at Mallusk Road, Newtownabbey. The report stated that the site is situated in an area of mixed development with light industrial, commercial and extensive residential developments all located within 200 metres of the site boundary.

The summary of the report states that odour levels at Baird's Brae were encountered at offensive levels on all four site visits and that these were due mainly to operational practice, principally to a combination of a large active area and landfill gas venting into the atmosphere. The current position is that Lord Dubs, Minister for the Environment, has lodged an appeal against the recent court ruling.

Waste management practice in Northern Ireland is lagging behind some other parts of Europe. There is an obligation on the Government to ensure that waste management here develops closely in line with the rest of the United Kingdom and European directives. One of those objectives is to reduce considerably the volume of municipal waste, and therefore phase two at Mallusk would be in direct contravention of European Community directives.

It is clear, therefore, that alternatives to landfill in Northern Ireland must be implemented as a waste strategy, including the reuse of waste and increased recycling. The question of waste management schemes must be studied in detail and should be left to locally elected representatives in the Assembly to formulate and implement.

There must be no further development of landfill sites at Mallusk or elsewhere in Northern Ireland, and any such proposals must be rejected. Resolutions to the current problems must be speedily achieved. High standards of public life and protection of the environment are key responsibilities of elected representatives and fundamental requirements of responsible government.

Mr J Wilson:

Belfast City, Larne, North Down, Ards, Carrickfergus, Antrim and Newtownabbey dump their rubbish at Baird's Brae in Mallusk. I hope that these local government districts have other plans for the future because the residents of Mallusk are not planning to be everybody's backyard indefinitely. "Not in my backyard, but it is OK in yours" has been the solution offered by Northern Ireland administrators for far too long.

Perhaps I should not admit being able to remember the pit at the back of my grandfather's terrace house. Rubbish was shovelled out of it and transported by tractor and trailer to a nearby tip head or hole in the ground- a haven for gulls, rats and scavenging dogs. That was in the late '40s. Fifty years later, approaching a new millennium, the pit has become a wheelie bin, the tractor has become a labour-saving bin lorry and the hole in the ground is still a hole in the ground with a liner, and we call it land reclamation.

This debate is timely and necessary. It is timely because it will point up the need to look objectively and, indeed, subjectively at the real issues associated with landfill, and it is necessary because Northern Ireland is fast approaching a crossroads and will have to confront head-on what is to happen to its rubbish and waste in the years to come.

We all acknowledge that landfill is an emotive subject and that we would not like to live near such a site. Yet, as a community, we generate waste - one tonne of it per household each year. It is collected from outside our houses, taken to a place that is well away from where most of us live and then forgotten about.

It is not as simple as that for some 300 residents in Mallusk who are directly affected by a landfill site. These residents live near a landfill site, a facility that, quite understandably, causes them to be angry. They are opposed to the operation; they complain about what it does to their area; and they are demanding action. And why not? It is right that this debate should reflect their feelings, and it is also right that we, as elected representatives, should look at the wider picture: what would happen to the 350,000 to 400,000 tonnes of waste from seven district council areas that is deposited annually if there were not a Baird's Brae landfill site?

I want to be as fair and objective as possible. First, the residents have raised objections to what could be termed as a spin-off from the UK Waste's management site. They say that there is a smell - and there is - and that birds, flies, rodents and litter are major problems.

UK Waste, for its part, insists that it is the best and most professionally managed landfill site in Northern Ireland, if not on the entire island of Ireland. The company, regarded nationally as an industry leader, has invested £0.25 million in installing a range of measures designed to reduce the nuisance caused to the local community. These measures have operating running costs of £60,000 per year.

The company states that 70 nozzles are used to spray natural oils on to the site to suppress the smell. This system, which is unique in Northern Ireland, works 24 hours a day, 365 days per year, and the company claims that it also serves to eliminate ash and other fine particles from the air.

UK Waste operates the largest gas system in the Province, burning off 2,000 cubic metres of gas per hour. Plans are in place to use this gas to generate electricity - enough power to meet the needs of a large village or a small town. Green energy from waste has certain attractions: it reduces dependence on coal; cuts levels of methane; and minimises the damaging greenhouse effect. An ambitious plan such as this should be welcomed.

The condition of the approach road to the landfill site is a major issue. UK Waste says that mechanical sweepers sweep the main road daily, while on the site a wheel-wash system cleans every vehicle as it leaves. Still the road is a mess. It is not designed for the volume of heavy vehicles which travel to and from the dump.

At the perimeter of the landfill site there is a 30-foot litter fence. The fence is backed up by mobile litter screens which are placed beside a refuse vehicle while it is tipping. An enclosed storm area, built at a cost of £50,000, is used in inclement weather. Yet the residents say that there is a litter problem in the district.

A range of measures is used to counter nuisance from birds. They minimise any inconvenience to residents while, at the same time, serve as a deterrent to birds. The residents give a graphic description about living under the flight paths of these birds. I will not go into the detail.

What about rats and other vermin? According to the company and the environmental health body Northern Group Systems, which acts for Newtownabbey, Larne and Ballymena councils, there is no evidence of infestation above the level associated with a semi-rural location. The residents strongly disagree.

Stringent controls are also in place to deal with flies. The Department of Agriculture audited the landfill site and said that there was no fly problem on the site. Again the residents strongly disagree.

UK Waste insists that it is doing all that it can to address the concerns of the local residents. Many of their comments have been taken on board, and the company was instrumental in setting up a liaison group as a means of creating two-way dialogue.

12.30 pm

In short, it tries to adopt the good-neighbour approach. The residents do not want a major landfill site operator to be their neighbour. What about the future? The landfill will reach the end of its useful life in 14 months or so. One third of the area has been restored to a greenfield site and another third will be completed by the end of the year.

Four years ago the firm applied to extend its operations, phase two at Boyd's quarry, and recently it applied successfully for a judicial review in the High Court to get the Department of the Environment to make a decision. The Department is now appealing this decision in the Court of Appeal, so further delay is inevitable. Time, of course, is of the essence.

The company needs to know what is going to happen from the points of view of both investment and forward planning. We are running out of landfill, and that presents an enormous headache for the seven councils which currently use UK Waste facilities. But it is not just a problem for councils. About 150 companies, which between them employ 20,000 people, depend on UK Waste to handle their dry, commercial, non-hazardous waste. They too are looking on with a degree of uncertainty and trepidation. If they cannot dispose of their waste material, what impact will it have on their operations? It is easy to stand here and criticise, but UK Waste performs a vital function without which there would be total chaos.

Properly managed landfill is needed, even though it is not the ideal solution. The company acknowledges the difficulties and would much prefer to see an integrated solution to our refuse problem. It is also worth noting the extent to which UK Waste operations have benefited the wide range of schemes in the region.

Over the past two years UK Waste has facilitated over £650,000 for environmental programmes through the landfill tax credit scheme. Four hundred thousand pounds of this has been earmarked for projects in the Newtownabbey area, many of which are in the immediate vicinity of the site.

UK Waste is a reputable company - a good corporate citizen doing a difficult job as best it can. It knows that there are problems and no easy answers. It says itself that it does not produce waste - it manages the community's waste. It is our problem and a problem that will not be solved by dumping our rubbish in a hole in the ground some place not near our homes. The residents of Mallusk do not want a dump near their homes.

Mr Dalton:

We are here today to discuss an issue which is of concern not only to my constituents in Mallusk but to the wider community in Belfast and throughout Northern Ireland. Mr Boyd has outlined a good deal of the background in relation to this site, but I will go over some of it again.

The site was created in 1988 when Derek Boyd, a local quarry man, applied to turn a redundant part of his quarry into a landfill site. The original estimate was that the site would contain 30,000 tonnes of waste. A public inquiry was called, and during the inquiry it was discovered that 250,000 tonnes of waste would be put into the site per annum - a lot more than the 30,000 tonnes originally envisaged.

As a consequence of that, an environmental impact assessment should have been carried out, but because of the Department of the Environment's failure to ask the applicant to fulfil such an obligation within the requisite time period, no impact assessment was ever conducted. The public inquiry heard from the local residents; it heard from various experts; it heard from people who said that the landfill site would not be a nuisance and would not cause any major concern to the local residents; and it also heard from people who said that it would all be finished within four or five years.

In 1995 the site was leased from James Boyd & Sons by UK Waste, which has leased the site until the year 2000. It started running it in February 1996, and since then my constituents and the people who live in and around the site in Mallusk have had to suffer the smell that emanates constantly from this dump, a smell that is so unpleasant that during the summer months the children do not want to play in their back gardens. People do not want to go outside, and they cannot hold barbecues, as many of us like to do, during the summer months. That is an unacceptable burden on the residents, and it is just the tip of the iceberg.

Thousands of birds regularly scavenge on the site and then fly across the residential areas leaving waste deposits. Local residents have to endure bird waste covering houses, cars and clothes. Some residents recently complained that they had seen rats around their homes and in the area. There seems to be a development of rats and mice about the site, and that is a major public health issue.

UK Waste recently applied to extend the site in what it calls phase II of the operation to develop a larger site that will have a capacity of more than 300,000 tonnes. It will be used for approximately 20 to 25 years. There has been no public inquiry in relation to that site because the Department relied on the fact that there had been a public inquiry into phase I - a smaller site. As that public inquiry had determined that that had been a suitable area for landfill, the Department decided that there would be no problem over allowing a further site there. The Department duly issued a notice of opinion to the applicants - UK Waste - stating that full planning permission would be granted for the application for phase II.

Since that notice was issued, the Department has started to develop, as my Colleague Mr Ford has said, a waste management strategy for Northern Ireland. It had realised that if it sited at Mallusk an enormous landfill with the capacity to take nearly one third of the Province's entire waste, it would skew any possible consideration of a properly developed waste management strategy for the entire Province. Fortunately, it told the company that the application would not be approved at that stage, and it has been withholding a decision.

Colleagues have said that the company has successfully applied for judicial review to get the Department to make a decision. The Department has now gone to the Court of Appeal. If it were not sub judice I could go into some of the issues relating to the High Court judgement. I question the judgement of some of the lawyers in deciding to appeal. The Department has an opportunity to make a decision now; it does not need to appeal.

Mr Weir:

Is the Member aware that this is part of a wider problem of delayed decisions by the Department of the Environment? In my constituency, there is the possibility of a sewerage works in either north Down or Ards. The report recommending the site for the works was submitted to the Department before Christmas, but there have been many delays in announcing the site, and the Department seems to be dragging its feet over similar decisions.

Mr Dalton:

I cannot add to my Colleague's comments about that site. The Department may be dragging its feet, but perhaps it has a good reason. I suspect that other Members share my view that the development of a proper waste management strategy for Northern Ireland should not be decided by Lord Dubs, by any other Minister from across the water, or by civil servants in the Department of the Environment. It will affect the development of this Province for the next 20 to 25 years or more, and it should be decided by Assembly Members and Ministers. We were elected by local people and are accountable to them and not to people in middle England.

At the earliest opportunity, the Assembly should take upon itself the role of determining a future strategy for waste management. As soon as we have ministerial responsibility, the statutory committee on the environment should urgently look at this issue and work with the Department to develop a proper waste management strategy for the entire Province. Only after such a strategy has been developed can the relevant Minister make a decision on the Baird's Brae site.

If we are going to develop a proper strategy for Northern Ireland, we will have to take account of some of the issues raised by Mr Ford. We produce an enormous quantity of rubbish from our houses every year, so it is important that we try to deal with that rubbish, and not just bury it in a hole in the ground.

We should seriously consider the use of recycling facilities and the possibility of creating facilities that could generate electricity from this waste. Rubbish is not just something that we should bury in a hole in the ground - it is an asset that can be used for the benefit of the whole community. If we just bury it, we are storing up problems for future generations and wasting a valuable asset.

I would also suggest that Belfast City Council, as it considers the development of the waste management strategy for the Belfast area, should consider how the waste generated in the Greater Belfast area - 150,000 to 200,000 tonnes of waste - affects other areas. Belfast City Council has the opportunity to lead the way in this field and to assist the rest of us in the development of a waste management strategy for the Province as a whole.

I hope that the development of the Cottonmount site does not go ahead because Mallusk is a residential area. It may not have been when the site was first developed, but it is an area of considerable population growth now. There are 1,000 houses to be built in that area in the near future. It is unreasonable to expect so many people to live so close to a landfill site, and I hope that this development does not go ahead.

Mr McClelland:

It is worthy of note that five of the six Members for South Antrim put their names down to speak in this debate, and that they attended a public meeting on this subject in Mallusk a couple of weeks ago.

Mr Clyde:

I have been accused of not putting my name to this motion. I was not approached about this matter. As Mr Ford and Mr McClelland know, I am opposed to landfill sites and have given more support to residents of the areas around landfill sites than anyone. It is odd that neither Mr McClelland nor Mr Ford has attended any meetings of the Ladyhill Residents' Association about the development of a landfill site there.

Mr Ford:

Could Mr McClelland confirm that I left a note about this debate in his pigeon-hole and those of all the other Members for South Antrim last week?

Mr McClelland:

Yes, I can confirm that.

I was going to say before Mr Clyde intervened that I was sure that, given his previous interest in matters relating to waste management on Antrim Borough Council, Mr Clyde would be afforded the opportunity to take part in this debate. Because of his interruption I was not able to make that point, but I have no doubt that Mr Clyde will want to contribute to this debate, given his past interest in the matter.

I would like to begin by thanking Mr Ford. His comments on the waste-management strategy consultation document were very helpful and incisive. I would like also to thank Mr Boyd, who took us so eloquently through the chronological events relating to the landfill site at Mallusk, and Mr J Wilson, who spent some time on the problems relating to the site at Cottonmount and who, like myself, believes this to be a wider problem, affecting not just the people in the Cottonmount area.

I also agree with much of what Mr Dalton said. He also stated that this was not just a problem for the south Antrim and Greater Belfast areas - it is a problem for the entire community. Quite rightly, he said that, the sooner the Assembly assumes responsibility for these matters, the sooner we will be able to resolve these problems.

The word "crisis" has been overused in our debates, but I believe that we do face a crisis in waste management. There is a major problem with waste disposal throughout Northern Ireland, and particularly in the south Antrim/Greater Belfast area. We are still waiting for the Government's final statement on a waste-management strategy.

12.45 pm

The Department of the Environment has quite rightly attracted very strong criticism for its failure to deal with the problem and to implement the waste-management strategy following consultation, which will facilitate, among other things, planning decisions on landfill sites.

While everyone agrees that a strategy is required sooner rather than later, the reality is that decisions must be made. Any delay in agreeing this document will create further problems. Urgent action is required.

The responsible Department has always responded to planning applications in the past by saying

"The priority is not to predetermine the balance, nature and number of waste disposal methods and facilities in advance of the waste management strategy".

That is a cop-out. It fails to respond to the growing needs of the community in dealing with a very serious environmental problem.

Because of this ongoing crisis the Department of the Environment has sometimes turned policy on its head. With planning logjams and other problems it has been forced to facilitate Belfast City Council. It was originally required to close the Dargan Road foreshore site by the year 2000. Because of the impending crisis the Department has, at a stroke, given Belfast City Council a five-year extension to the site. Consequently there will be a continuing environmental impact on a partially contained foreshore site. This site is the source of many problems as it is not fully contained and leaks into Belfast Lough. It has been criticised by environmental observers over the years.

Therefore the Department of the Environment, in recognising the crisis faced by Belfast and Belfast alone, is applying double standards. It tells other councils that planning must await a regional strategy document, yet it has given Belfast City Council permission to extend a low-grade, high-impact site for another five years. It makes a nonsense -

The Initial Presiding Officer:

The Member is obviously wishing to make an intervention. Two Members cannot be on their feet at one time.

Mr McClelland:

I am sorry. I did not realise that I was being asked to give way. Go ahead.

Mr Gibson:

I note with great concern the areas mentioned, but I wonder if Members have considered that the Government and its legislators have a greater role in this area than anyone else. The consensus in Europe is to make the polluter pay - those who originally produce the rubbish. I am thinking in particular of those who produce the non-biodegradable polystyrene trays and the cubic tonnage of non-degradable plastic. Has any Department yet made an effort to encourage the manufacturers to recycle? There was nothing wrong with the old idea that those who returned the bottles were rewarded.

Mr McClelland:

I thank the Member for his comments. The concept of the polluter paying is in the document.

I was making the point that the Department of the Environment has employed double standards in allowing Belfast City Council to extend the Dargan Road site. I, as other Members have done, welcome the draft consultant document on a waste-management strategy. It contains a commitment to sustainable development, to the polluter paying, and it combines environmental, economic and social objectives. I also welcome its commitment to the effective protection of the environment and the prudent use of natural resources.

I understand that there are about seven and a half years of remaining landfill capacity for the whole of Northern Ireland. It is costly to the ratepayer. Transporting waste is costly and it attracts considerable public opposition due to the environmental problems.

I am aware, as are other Members, of the problems of pollution, the environmental problems and, as Mr Boyd and others have rightly pointed out, the tremendous problems caused to the ratepayers of Newtownabbey. I am also aware that even if we have a new Waste To Energy plant in Belfast and ambitious new recycling plans, we will still need landfill sites as an outlet for industrial waste and ash residue.

The reality is that the pace of development by the Department of the Environment in the waste-management sector did not keep pace with the requirements of the community. We have a crisis on our hands which is already presenting itself in the environmental impact in south Antrim and Greater Belfast and will do so in the other areas.

As other Members have said, this region requires a sound waste-management strategy. It is crucial to our social, economic and environmental well-being. The problems which face Newtownabbey and Greater Belfast are there because of the failures of Government Departments. We need this Assembly to start to make decisions and, if I may paraphrase another Member, this problem is not going to go away, you know.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Mr Clyde, another Member for South Antrim, whom you mentioned in your comments, and a number of other Members wanted to speak in this debate. However, the requests were made after the sitting had commenced. That is why it has not been possible for Mr Clyde and other Members to take part. I think it is only fair, from his point of view, that I put the record straight.

Adjourned at 12.52 pm.

<< Prev