Motion or amendment: Raising Awareness of the Dangers of Vaping Amongst Children - Amendment 2
Motion or amendment by Mr David Brooks on .
- MLA
- Mr David Brooks
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 16 October 2024
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “Raising Awareness of the Dangers of Vaping Amongst Children”
- Heading
- Raising Awareness of the Dangers of Vaping Amongst Children - Amendment 2
- Assembly identifier
- Document 414891
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Raising Awareness of the Dangers of Vaping Amongst Children - Amendment 2
Leave out all after ‘calls on the Minister of Education’ and insert:
‘to ensure that every school is fulfilling its statutory requirement to provide learning opportunities in relation to the risks of substance misuse; and further calls on the Minister to work in conjunction with Executive colleagues, other stakeholders, and on the basis of guidance from the Public Health Agency, to support a plan to end vaping in school grounds and to reduce the number of young people vaping.’
91 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Also tabled by
Each MLA who tabled or co-signed this item has their own record:
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.95).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.76 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.15 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.06 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.03 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 08:58 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.