Motion or amendment: Raising Awareness of the Dangers of Vaping Amongst Children - Amendment 1
Motion or amendment by Ms Connie Egan on .
- MLA
- Ms Connie Egan
- Party at the time
- Alliance 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 1
- Assembly identifier
- Document 414889
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Raising Awareness of the Dangers of Vaping Amongst Children - Amendment 1
Leave out all after ‘calls on the Minister of Education’ and insert: ‘to work with the Minister of Health and local councils to bring forward a plan to end vaping in school grounds, reduce the number of young people vaping and eradicate the sale of vapes to children’.
60 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | 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 | 0.67 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.26 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.04 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.02 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
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. The text was identical to an already-assessed record, so the same answers were reused.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.