(The document Arlene Foster refers to can be found here. Here comments regarding the conclusions of the document are completely at odds with what is actually written in it.)

NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY

Tuesday 3 June 2008

Proposed Chicken Waste Plant at Glenavy

Mr Deputy Speaker: The proposer of the topic for debate will have 15 minutes in which to speak, and all other Members who wish to speak will have approximately five minutes.

Mr Butler: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue in the Assembly. There has been quite a bit of concern in Glenavy and Lagan Valley and in the adjoining constituency of South Antrim about this proposed chicken waste incinerator plant, which will be located close to an existing Glenfarm Holdings incinerator plant that deals with offal.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Molloy] in the Chair)

The plant is proposed by a consortium of Rose Energy, Moy Park and O’Kane’s Poultry and Glenfarm Holdings to try to deal with chicken waste litter, which, under the EC Nitrates Directive, cannot be spread on land.

I was looking at a question that was asked of the present Environment Minister’s uncle-in-law, Sam Foster, in 2000, by Ivan Davis, a former MLA for Lagan Valley, about Glenfarm Holdings when the existing incinerator plant received approval. The present Minister of the Environment wrote to me about, I believe, some 24 investigations of pollution of local rivers; there have also been numerous complaints about odours emanating from the plant. I spoke today to residents who were complaining about the plant and who had been visited by officials from the Environment and Heritage Service.

Despite measures that have been taken and approvals received under planning regulations, there has been widespread concern throughout Glenavy and as far away as Crumlin about how the plant has been operating.

There will be concerns that the new plant intends to bring some quarter of a million tons of chicken waste into the area to incinerate — I know that the modern-day term is “energy from waste”, but it is incineration nevertheless. I share those concerns about health and the environment and about the damage that this project, which will be on the banks of Lough Neagh, will do to local tourism.

It is an area of outstanding natural beauty and is one of the most scenic areas in Ireland. Therefore, it would blight the landscape if an incineration plant were to be built there. I met representatives from Rose Energy, who told me that the plant would take two years to construct, which gives Members some idea of its potential size. Rose Energy never ruled out using water from Lough Neagh and discharging effluent into it, and no one mentioned that issue in today’s debate. Therefore, there are concerns about the location of the plant. Some people will say that the plant will generate electricity and contribute to renewable energy in the area, but residual ash will have to be removed from the site.

There are also concerns about the impact that the plant will have on the road network. For some years, the volume of traffic on those roads has been a major issue. I sit on Lisburn City Council, and I know that numerous meetings have been held to discuss the traffic problem. The issue of the chicken waste plant has also been discussed numerous times at Lisburn City Council’s environmental services committee. Council officials visited the existing plant before the Environment and Heritage Service assumed responsibility for such matters. Therefore, the impact that the new plant would have on the local road network would result in a 10-fold increase in traffic.

There are concerns among residents in the Crumlin area that the plant will be granted planning permission. Therefore, the Minister of the Environment is here this evening to give her view on residents’ concerns about the erection of such a large plant in the area of Lough Neagh. Indeed, most MLAs in the area share those concerns. Some parties have different stances on the issue of incineration. We have to deal with the nitrates directive, but Glenavy is not the location for such a plant.

There are alternatives to the type of plant that Rose Energy is proposing. Representatives from Rose Energy held public meetings in Glenavy, and it seemed that they had come up with their proposal at the last minute because of concerns about the nitrates directive. They had not even considered alternative proposals to deal with chicken waste. We have debated some of those alternative proposals over the past year. For example, anaerobic digestion in particular could be an alternative to an incineration plant. The Assembly and the Minister must consider alternatives to deal with the problem of chicken waste.

I share the residents’ concerns, and I know that people will say that there are 7,000 jobs in the poultry industry. Not all of those jobs are based in the North of Ireland, but Moy Park Foodservice and O’Kane Poultry, and the farmers who are associated with them, are concerned about the matter. Nevertheless, we must consider alternatives to Rose Energy’s proposals for the site.

I hope that the Minister will take my concerns on board, and I am sure that other Members will voice similar concerns. However, the issue is really whether we should site an incineration plant on the shores of Lough Neagh, blighting the landscape and causing pollution to the local area.

Mr T Clarke: After listening to the Member for Lagan Valley’s speech, I am amazed that we are discussing an application that is not yet in the system. He placed great responsibility on the Minister of the Environment. However, his entire presentation overlooked the failure by the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development and her Department to suggest an alternative to get rid of that by-product in Northern Ireland. The Member’s assertion that there is 250,000 tons of the by-product in Northern Ireland is correct. However, by December 2008, a system must be in place. It is not a new phenomenon; the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development has known of the impending problem for some time, and her Department has failed to act.

Although there will always be concerns about the location of such proposals, we must recognise the need for the plant. The Member suggested alternatives; however, the Department has considered, and rejected, those measures. No Member could suggest an alternative that has not already been considered. Moy Park and O’Kane Poultry — through Rose Energy — have outlined a viable option that has worked on the mainland and in other parts of Europe, and the Member’s outright dismissal of that proposal is poor form.

6.15 pm

There is a pressing need for the plant, and, as the Member said, thousands of jobs are at risk. The farming community lobbies us daily on the matter. Although I understand the concerns about the plant’s proposed location — the Nimby factor — we must recognise that the industry in Northern Ireland needs some sort of chicken waste plant. Similar plants have worked, and continue to work, in Great Britain. The Minister can speak for herself, but she needs time to consider the application when it is submitted. We are projecting fear and negativity, and, therefore, I urge Members to be cautious when discussing the application and to remember that thousands of people are depending on a system to protect their jobs.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Armstrong: The debate highlights an important issue facing society in the twenty-first century. From what source do people want to obtain energy? What type of food do they want to eat? How do they want to dispose of waste products? We need to neutralise all waste to create power. Everyone wants access to energy and power. We want to boil kettles, watch televisions, switch on cookers, make food and heat our homes. People are less likely to venture an opinion on whether coal, oil or gas-fired power stations is their preferred source of energy. Westminster and Whitehall appear to favour nuclear power — is that an option?

Most people claim to support renewable energy. However, suggestions to erect a wind farm — one of the cleanest and most renewable energy forms — are usually met with opposition. Hard choices must be made. As with food, people want power; they do not, however, want to be involved in its creation. People do not support lignite mining, nuclear power or even wind farms.

The Glenavy proposal relates to recycling animal waste — specifically chicken waste — to create power and reduce pollution on waterways and land. Our society creates vast amounts of waste that must be disposed of somewhere. Although people do not want to live near landfill sites, we have been, for too long, content to send all waste to landfill. We have now learnt that we cannot continue to bury all waste in a hole in the ground, and, therefore, we have an increased amount of waste to recycle.

As with all planning applications, the Minister and her officials must assess available evidence and decide whether certain types of waste-disposal facility, including landfill, recycling and waste-to-power units pose any health risks. I understand that the proposal is for a state-of-the-art facility of the kind that already exists throughout Western Europe, and, therefore, I consider it perfectly safe. If the Minister decides that the Glenavy location poses no risks, it should be included in Northern Ireland’s efforts to recycle and create energy.

I am a farmer so I know how important it is to find ways to dispose of farm waste and by-products. The site at Glenavy has been in operation for about 55 years. No one would seek to implement a system that was dangerous or that posed a high health risk. People have been living near the proposed plant site for over half a century.

We are now living in the twenty-first century, and we must utilise modern methods of farming, waste management and energy creation. Rose Energy’s proposal for the Glenavy site does all three. That is better than digging big holes in the ground and filling them with waste.

Mr Burns: This is a very important issue. The proposed chicken waste incinerator plant affects the constituencies of Lagan Valley, South Antrim and Upper Bann. There is tremendous concern in the local community about what is involved in the establishment of the plant and the extent of the buildings associated with it. Will the incinerator operate at a level that is efficient enough to produce electricity, or is its main purpose the disposal of chicken waste? That is the big question.

There is no doubt that the proposed incinerator plant is sited in a rural area. Neither is there any doubt that such a plant belongs in an industrial estate.

There are several reasons why the Glenavy site is the wrong location for the incinerator. The banks of Lough Neagh are an important wildlife sanctuary. We are trying to create a tourist industry, and to develop areas that tourists can visit, such as Lough Neagh, which is an important natural resource. Ram’s Island, which is situated in Antrim borough, is a location that the council would like to promote as a tourist attraction.

Mr T Clarke: The Member has mentioned Ram’s Island. I do not know whether he attended last week’s meeting of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, at which the representatives of Rose Energy gave a presentation about the proposed plant. They showed a picture of Ram’s Island, and gave a synopsis of how the plant would look from there. The plant can hardly be seen on the mainland from the view on Ram’s Island. Will the Member clarify that he saw that presentation last week?

Mr Burns: The Member should know that the chimneys and the water-cooling tower will be as high as the Belfast City Hospital tower.

Mr T Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burns: No. There is no question that the plant will be seen clearly from Ram’s Island.

Mr T Clarke: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Member is trying to mislead this Chamber. The information that was given at the presentation was that the height of the proposed building was 43 metres. If the Member had attended the Committee meeting, he would have known that. He is trying to make out that the buildings will be 100 metres high, so he is trying to mislead Members in this Chamber.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I warn the Member about what he has said, and I ask him to refine his language. Mr Burns is entitled to say whatever he wants in his description.

Mr T Clarke: Even if he is misleading?

Mr Deputy Speaker: That is your description, and I ask you to be careful about saying that anyone is misleading the House. I ask you to withdraw your statement.

Mr T Clarke: I refuse to withdraw it.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I ask the Member again to withdraw the remark, on reflection. Otherwise, I must ask him to leave the House.

Mr T Clarke: I will withdraw the remark, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I still believe the information to be inaccurate.

Mr Burns: I was at the Agriculture Committee meeting last week, and I heard that presentation. The Committee had to be suspended when it became inquorate, because Members left to attend Question Time. However, I was present.

We are trying to build a tourism industry in a rural location on the banks of Lough Neagh. One of the greatest benefits of Lough Neagh is that it provides us with drinking water. The two main pumping stations of Castor Bay and Dunore Point are within six miles of the proposed plant, and millions of gallons of water are pumped out of Lough Neagh there.

Both the Lisburn Area Plan and the draft BMAP designate the area around Glenavy as an area of high scenic value and special scientific interest. People who have applied to build houses in the area have been refused planning permission, as it is an area of scenic beauty.

For years, the people of Crumlin and Glenavy have heard the arguments about modern technology, and they have been reassured that there will be no smell from the plant. However, the people who live close to Ulster Farm By-Products know that there is a smell from that plant. No-one will be fooled by the argument that chicken litter can be moved without creating a smell — there will be a smell.

The Glenavy site, being in a rural location, is totally the wrong site for this plant.

Mr Deputy Speaker: The Member must draw his remarks to a close.

Mr Burns: I urge the Minister to ensure that there is no piggybacking in respect of this plant. The proposal should be put to a public inquiry.

Mr Ford: I thank Paul Butler for securing time for this matter, which is of significant interest to many people, not only those who live in, and around, Glenavy, but further afield. As Thomas Burns said, the area extends into three constituencies.

First, we should sympathise with the farmers who are caught up in the problems caused by the nitrates directive. The major issue is that farmers must have some sort of plan in place by the end of this year, and many are still trying to deal with it at this late stage. It is clear that farmers in Northern Ireland have severe problems, as nitrates and phosphates can no longer be spread on the land. That will create difficulties, no matter what we say in the Chamber this evening.

We should have sympathy for those who are caught in that predicament and for those who work in poultry plants and other poultry businesses, which contribute hugely to our economy. Several thousand jobs depend on the poultry sector, so we should not take it lightly.

Having said that, we must examine the best option. Part of the problem with the application from Rose Energy is that two of its three partners are respected for their role in the Northern Ireland economy. O’Kane Poultry and Moy Park make significant contributions, provide significant employment and contribute to Northern Ireland plc.

6.30 pm

However, the third partner has a jaded reputation among local people. Having had the misfortune of cycling past its plant a couple of summers ago, I sympathise with the people who live closer to it than I do.

Is incineration the most suitable process? I recently had a visit from someone who is assessing the viability of anaerobic digestion wastes from farms and similar businesses. One of the key advantages of anaerobic digestion is that it works on a much smaller and dispersed scale than incineration. That would create an opportunity to develop several smaller plants; it would also benefit from transport savings.

Chicken litter is drier than other wastes. However, a co-operative process that dealt with more than merely chicken litter could mix in other agricultural wastes, such as those from creameries and other food producers. That possibility should be explored.

However, the final decision on the matter may be confirmed before the full facts about energy from waste have been uncovered. “Energy from waste” is a polite term for incineration — it may not be the best practical or environmental option.

If incineration is deemed to be the best option, what is the best location, or locations, for such a plant? Lough Neagh is not just protected at a domestic or UK level; it is a Ramsar site and should enjoy the highest level of environmental protection. Therefore, the shores of Lough Neagh are not the most suitable location for a chicken waste plant. Furthermore, the surrounding roads would not cope well with a large number of lorries coming into the area every day and week.

Paul Butler asked whether water from the lough will be used in the cooling process; that question has not been answered. It has been claimed that one of the advantages of the Glenavy site is that it is remote from poultry farms. Unfortunately, it is also remote from the industry and housing concentration that would make real use of the waste heap that will be produced. Under the current proposals, material of calorific value will be carted long distances to a plant that will yield approximately only 25% energy efficiency.

Mr T Clarke: The Member is not on the Committee for Agricultural and Rural Development. Therefore, he would not have heard Rose Energy’s presentation in which they gave valid reasons for locating the plant at Glenavy. The first of those reasons is the existence of Glenfarm.

The second reason was that the Glenavy site would have a three-mile exclusion zone in the event of an outbreak of avian flu, for example. If the plant was located in an area of industrial contentration, such an outbreak would close down other plants, too.

Mr Ford: I am not a member of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, but I heard a similar point being made at the Committee for the Environment. I thank the Member for his intervention anyway.

We must maximise energy value and achieve more than the proposed 25% energy efficiency. Indeed, given the amount of energy that will be expended on carting waste, energy efficiency will probably be less than 25%. We should assess the viability of an industrial site that could yield 70% or 80% energy efficiency.

Given that EHS is granted the lead role in the management of domestic waste, the Department of the Environment should consider giving it a role — in conjunction with DARD and DETI — in the better management of agricultural waste. That would be preferable to leaving it for private businesses to submit their best proposals. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some kind of a lead on that.

Mr Donaldson: I am not speaking in a ministerial capacity but as a Member for the constituency of Lagan Valley, in which the proposed biomass plant will be located.

I recognise the need for such a facility in Northern Ireland; I am not unsympathetic to the requirements of the poultry industry in that regard. I also echo the comments made by Mr Ford and Mr Trevor Clarke, which identified the requirements and targets placed upon us by the European Union.

We have a limited time to resolve this issue, and I question whether this is the right proposal and the right location. I am not convinced that Rose Energy’s proposal is the only option that is available to enable Northern Ireland to meet our targets and to comply with the requirements laid down by the European Union. At the moment, I am in discussion with a Northern Ireland-based company that uses a more environmentally friendly process, will recycle the chicken waste, and will create a fertiliser by-product that the agriculture industry can use. That is therefore a much more efficient and effective process that will have the same advantages as Rose Energy claims for its process. The company that I refer to is in discussion with DARD, DETI and DOE about this matter. I seek to advance that option, because I believe that it is a better alternative.

I recognise the needs of the poultry industry and poultry farmers, as well as our targets and obligations, but I am not convinced that Rose Energy’s process is the best technology for achieving those objectives.

I am far from convinced that this is the right location. For years, I have been aware of the concerns of local residents about the impact that the existing plant, which is on the Ballyvannon Road, has on the quality of their daily lives. The road network in that area has been badly damaged by the heavy vehicles that travel daily to and from that plant. The lives of local residents have been made miserable, and I mean miserable. Residents have come to me in tears as a result of this matter, and others have had to sell up and move out of the area because of the impact that the existing plant has had on the quality of their lives. If we factor into that the additional, heavy traffic that will be generated by the transportation of chicken waste to the new plant, I cannot understand how the quality of life for residents will be improved. Indeed, it will have the opposite effect.

The environmental impact must also be considered. Mr Ford is correct: this is an environmentally sensitive area that is close to Lough Neagh. Not just the visual impact is in question; the impact on the environment as a whole must also be considered. The issue is location sensitive. If one were searching for somewhere in Northern Ireland to locate a plant of this sort, one certainly would not put it beside Lough Neagh, which is one of our greatest natural resources. That must be taken into account.

The impact on tourism is also a factor, but the environmental impact is the major factor that the Department should consider when a planning application is made. The impact on the roads will also have to be considered. These are narrow country roads — it is a rural area, and the roads were not built to take the heavy traffic that is to be anticipated. At the very least, Rose Energy needs to look for an alternative site if it is serious about the proposal. This environmentally sensitive area is the wrong site for the plant, which will have a detrimental impact on the lives of local residents.

I have spoken to poultry farmers who have lobbied me on this issue. When the impact that the plant will have on the local community is explained to them, they have shown themselves not insensitive to it. They are prepared to consider alternative locations, and they are also open to considering other processes.

If a planning application is made, the Planning Service will have to consider it in due course. However, in those circumstances, the Department will be within its rights to exercise its authority to hold a public local inquiry on the matter. The issues are of such a nature and of such importance that, at the very least, a public inquiry will become necessary if the plan goes ahead.

Mr B McCrea: Much has been said about the plant, but it boils down to five key issues: whether such a plant is needed; the appropriateness of the Glenavy/Crumlin location; if that location is chosen, the appropriateness of the technology; how trust may be built with the local community and its legitimate concerns addressed; and perhaps most appropriately, whether there is anything that the Minister can do to resolve this pressing issue.

Is the proposed chicken waste plant required? Members are aware that the chicken processing industry is under severe pressure. It must fulfil its obligations under the nitrates directive, and time is of the essence. Even if the plant were built today, it would not be completed and commissioned in time for the industry to avoid significant fines; that will happen regardless. Therefore, part of the reason for the tabling of the Adjournment debate is to try to see whether we can move with some alacrity.

Members have spoken about the scenic beauty around Glenavy and the fresh water in Lough Neagh; however, I can see only two compelling reasons for the choice of the Glenavy/Crumlin area as the location for the plant: either planning permission was granted previously, or a site is there already. We have heard the difficulties associated with that, and such a decision should not be made simply because it is the easy option. The Assembly should be able to take a more strategic view, and weigh up the options before deciding where in Northern Ireland is the best place for the chicken waste plant to be located.

Although some Members have argued in favour of the technology, areas in the Republic of Ireland and in the United Kingdom have rejected that technology, because they are unhappy with it. We should, at the very least, investigate those issues and discover the truth. Until we know that, how can we recommend that route to anyone? There are issues, not only associated with the transport of the waste into the area, but with the toxins that are pushed back.

Many Members will have joined the debate about smoking and the causes and difficulties associated with passive smoking. The emission of toxins from a plume is a similar issue, as are the low levels of asbestos. The quantities involved are minute, but people will have legitimate concerns if they are not assured that their concerns are being tackled. Not only the surrounding area of Glenavy will be affected, but, depending on the wind direction, the whole of Northern Ireland.

Furthermore, there is the matter of trust. I attended a meeting with the Minister of the Environment about another state-of-the-art facility at Mullaghglass. We were assured that it was state-of-the-art; that there would be no smells from it; that it would not attract rats; and that there would not be any fall-out. However, the local residents have had their difficulties. The Minister told me that if those issues were not sorted out, we could not expect to build plants anywhere else. There is an issue of public confidence and trust.

Several concerns must be addressed. The roads infrastructure is incapable of handling the loads that will be brought to the plant. There is also an issue with smell; with that come other hazards that do not smell but which are more deadly — carcinogenic products, such as odourless gases and toxins. It has been suggested — and the Royal Commission agreed — that if plants such as the one proposed for Glenavy are considered safe, they should be built in industrial plants where the water and electricity that is produced can be used.

The companies concerned recognise the need to draw water from Lough Neagh and put it back for cooling, and that will have an environmental impact. My request to the Minister is similar to Mr Donaldson’s: can she intervene on that issue before a planning application is made, or can she instigate an appropriate review? When we discussed the environmental protection agency, the Minister assured us that she would make decisions and could tackle related issues. I call upon her to do so. As Mr Ford said, it is not fair to ask industry to undertake the burden of this issue, or to tackle a problem that belongs to the whole of Northern Ireland. Not only is the Minister of the Environment responsible, she has the ability to influence. I call upon her to institute a review.

Mr McLaughlin: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the residents of Glenavy and the Lough Neagh area in their call to the Minister of the Environment either to reject the proposal outright or to initiate a local public inquiry to consider the full environmental impact of building the proposed chicken-litter waste incinerator in an area that is designated as being of high scenic value.

6.45 pm

I accept that, as a society, we must devise a sustainable means of disposing the waste that we generate. We can, and should, do so without resorting to incineration or landfill, as neither of those options can be honestly described as sustainable. The impression being given by those in favour of the incinerator-based proposition is that there are no alternatives, but the simple fact is that there is more than one solution to meeting the terms of the nitrates directive. I hope that common sense will prevail and that other processes will be given full and open-minded consideration.

Mr T Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Mr McLaughlin: I will not give way now, but I understand that the Member is particularly exercised by this issue, so I may give way later if I have time.

I share the residents’ justifiable concerns about the long-term environmental impact and the health implic­ations for the community, among other issues, particularly in light of the fact that viable alternative solutions to the waste issue — such as anaerobic digestion, linked to a combined heat and power installation — are available, and are tried and tested technologies.

If necessary, anaerobic digestion can be done on a smaller scale and in closer proximity to where the chicken litter is generated. That would eliminate the need for transportation, in contrast to the present proposal, which would necessitate the wholesale importation of chicken waste into the Glenavy area to facilitate and support the incineration option. That would generate additional pollution through the increased heavy vehicular traffic. As other Members have said, the proposed development also involves the very real potential of causing serious water pollution in the Lough Neagh area — an area which, in addition to being hugely important from an environmental perspective, is a major source of drinking water. Therefore, in the long term, the proposal involves an unnecessary risk to public health.

This is not a case of people arguing “not in my back yard” — at least, not by the residents of Glenavy. However, considering that there is no significant poultry production in the proposed location, it would be a legitimate argument for them to make.

I fully acknowledge Trevor Clarke’s point about avian flu, but, if a calamitous outbreak were to occur, presumably the generation of chicken waste would also cease. Therefore, I do not believe that he has given a legitimate alternative to the point that Mr Ford was making at the time. We must question the motivation for building such a facility in a location to which it would be necessary to transport the waste. There is little or no production of poultry — or of poultry waste — in that area. That is, unless those who are engaged in this industry are themselves subscribers to the Nimby concept and would prefer to export their problem to Glenavy.

I call on the Minister to listen to the concerns of the local population and to use her powers to reject this proposal, and I call on the promoters of this ill-considered project to abandon it.

The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster): Although it is always good to hear Members’ views — and I have listened with great interest to the support for, and opposition to, the proposed development at Glenavy — it is unfortunate that the debate is taking place in something of a vacuum. By that I mean that the Department has not yet received any planning application for the development. It is therefore very difficult for me to respond to some of the comments made by Mr Burns about the height of different installations. I do understand that there have been several engagements between the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee for the Environment on the matter.

Members are right to point to the origin of the issue, which is the nitrates directive that was introduced by Europe in 1991. Since then, our own nitrates action programme has come into effect, and the practice of spreading poultry litter and bedding on agricultural land has effectively ceased. In that context, Mr Burns’s comment about the issue affecting three constituencies is incorrect — the problem affects the whole of Northern Ireland, and a solution must be found for the whole of Northern Ireland.

During the development of the Nitrate Action Programme Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006, it became evident that off-farm solutions for the pig and poultry sectors needed to be advanced. Therefore, in 2005, a working group called — and this is a very good title, Mr Deputy Speaker — the expert group on alternative uses for manure was established, with representatives from DARD, DOE, DETI, the pig and poultry sectors, and the environmental non-governmental organisations, under DARD’s chairmanship.

The technical approach that is being proposed by Rose Energy Ltd was endorsed by that expert group. I listened to the points that my friend, the Rt Hon Member for Lagan Valley Mr Donaldson, the Member for Lagan Valley Mr Basil McCrea and Mr Ford made about alternative ways to deal with the issue. However, the expert group, which was — correctly — established under the chairmanship of DARD, and includes officials from DOE and DETI, has identified that the waste plant is the correct technology to use. On many occasions, I have asked myself if there is an alternative. The answer has always been that the experts have examined the issue, and this is the only way forward.

If there are alternatives, my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development would be only too happy to examine them. As Members know, at present EHS is responsible for regulation and will be succeeded by the new Northern Ireland environment agency. Therefore, I will be the regulator, and the DARD Minister and the DETI Minister will be seeking an answer to the problem.

When this topic was proposed for the Adjournment debate, there was much discussion about which Minister would answer the debate because it is not only a problem for DARD and DETI because of jobs or for my Department because of the planning application and a permitting viewpoint, it also concerns OFMDFM with regard to sustainable development. Therefore, the Minister from any of those Departments could have responded.

The expert group on alternative uses of manures was assigned to investigate technical solutions for uses other than land spreading. As I said, it recommended that poultry litter be dealt with in a fire generator for the poultry sector. That recommendation helped to persuade the European Commission to allow a temporary measure in the Nitrates Action Programme Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 for the storage and application of poultry litter in field heaps until 31 December 2008. As the derogation finishes at the end of this year, there is a great deal of urgency to find a solution to the emerging nitrates problem. The difficulties that face the farming sector, particularly poultry processors, have been recognised by all the Members who spoke in the debate.

Moy Park Ltd and O’Kane Poultry Ltd came together as a consortium to pursue a solution to the emerging nitrates problem, and — as the House has heard — they were joined by Glenfarm Holdings Ltd. The consortium is called Rose Energy Ltd and proposes to construct a biomass plant on a site adjacent to an existing Glenfarm Holdings Ltd facility at Glenavy. I listened to the various concerns that Members raised about the Ulster Farm By-Products plant at Glenavy, and I have answered several questions about that plant from two of the Members opposite. There have been difficulties: the company was regulated by Lisburn City Council until November 2005, after which the Environment and Heritage Service permitted the installation under the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003.

Since November 2005, departmental officials have regularly inspected the operations at the site and have responded to and investigated complaints from many of the local residents. They also attempt to keep residents informed of the work ongoing to minimise further the environmental impact of the site, particularly the odour, which was referred to in the debate.

Over several years, Rose Energy Ltd has worked closely with Invest NI and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to confirm the feasibility of its proposal and investigate potential ways of aligning the necessary funding to support the project — it was a feasibility plan that was part-funded by Invest NI that suggested the site at Glenavy. It is envisaged that the proposal would reduce not only the nitrate input, but also the phosphorous input, to which Mr Ford referred, from agriculture that contributes to eutrophication, which is the most widespread pollution problem facing Northern Ireland’s water environment.

In addition, the proposed burning of poultry litter, and meat-and-bone meal would produce 30 MW of electricity, which would help Northern Ireland achieve its obligation to generate 12% of its electricity from indigenous renewable resources by 2012. It is in that context that Members should take Billy Armstrong’s well-made comments about the need for renewable energy.

Mr Burns wondered whether the plant would be used for waste disposal or for electricity generation. Such uses are not mutually exclusive, and part of its benefit, if the plant were to be built, would be the provision of electricity generation.

Although departmental officials have held pre-application discussions with agents, the planning application and the necessary environmental statement have not yet been submitted. I am sure that when they are submitted, they will be given intense consideration.

I realise that the proposal has already generated considerable opposition, and there has been much public debate about the impacts of the proposal, and, indeed, the manner in which I might deal with the planning application. I must also acknowledge that I have received substantial support from others in the community who feel that there is a need for such a plant. Therefore, there are two sides to the debate.

The planning application will be dealt with under the procedures for the handling of major applications, as laid out in article 31 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991. Under those provisions, a final decision on such an application rests with me, as Minister. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for me to express any view that suggests that I have already adopted a position on the matter before it has been given full consideration through the formal planning process.

I look forward to the planning application being submitted, because the debate has been going on for some time, and there is a need for focus. When the planning application is received, with its environmental statement, I hope that Members who are concerned about the issue will take the time to read the entire application and statement. That may take the entire summer, but I know that they will take the time to do that.

The article 31 process that I referred to will allow me, if necessary, to ask the Planning Appeals Commission to hold a local public inquiry to consider any other procedural issues. That is one option that will be available to me at the end of my deliberations.

Much has been said about alternatives. When Mr Butler — who secured the debate — talked about alternatives, I thought that his colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development would be delighted to hear of them, because I know that she is exercised about the issue, as, indeed, am I. I have no current knowledge of any technology that can deal with poultry litter in the required manner. If alternatives exist, we will be glad to hear about them.

Members will be interested to know that, as well as planning permission, Rose Energy will also be subject to the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003. Furthermore, the issuing of any permit is currently a matter for the Environment and Heritage Service.

The permit process requires the submission of an application that details how the plant will use the best available techniques to ensure that all measures are taken to prevent pollution. The application would have to demonstrate that the installation will be designed, constructed and operated in accordance with best available techniques. In particular, it would have to be in line with the requirements of the European directive on waste incineration, which would entail the provision of rigorous and transparent information on the process and technology proposed for the installation.

I note the calls from colleagues about the importance of intervention and the requirement to resolve the issue. Mr Ford, in particular, addressed that issue.

I hope that, by now, I have made it clear that this is a cross-cutting issue. DARD takes the lead role because it is trying to find a solution to the issue of agricultural waste. I clearly have an interest in the issue, not simply from a planning-permission point of view, but as a regulator. Therefore, the Department of the Environment will continue to be engaged. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment will also continue to be involved, because of the fact that so many jobs are involved. I hope that OFMDFM become involved in respect of sustainable development. Very many issues need to be resolved, and I look forward to receiving the planning application.

Adjourned at 6.59 pm.