Debate contribution: Tobacco and Vapes Bill: Legislative Consent Motion
Debate contribution by Mr Colin McGrath on .
- MLA
- Mr Colin McGrath
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 21 May 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Tobacco and Vapes Bill: Legislative Consent Motion
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4491437
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank my colleague for those remarks. They highlight, again, the complexities with this and the fact that the Bill is probably one of those that is easier on paper than it will be in action. It will cause significant issues on the high street. It will cause problems, even flashpoints, at points of sale. Thankfully, the rigorous consultation, which was implemented across the UK and to which the Minister suggested that people in the North made significant contributions, showed that an overwhelming majority, nearly 80%, wanted to see the ban. When we get that sort of feedback from people, it is incumbent upon us to act. The dangers posed by direct and indirect smoking have been well known for some time. The industry has thrived on and been the source of addiction, which is a key driver of health inequalities. We cannot underscore that enough. It is really obvious. The facts and figures absolutely show that there is inequality when it comes to the socio-economic backgrounds of those who smoke, and we therefore know exactly what the impact is on those people's health. It is really important that we do all that we can to remove the scourge of the impact of smoking. It has been the cause of untold numbers of deaths around the world as a result of cancer, cardiovascular disease, stroke and, indeed, diabetes. Here in Northern Ireland, over 2,300 people lose their lives as the result of smoking-related illnesses each year. I make these comments as a former smoker. I know how hard it is to quit. It is incredibly difficult to give up smoking, but I did so because I wanted to enjoy a long and full life. I wanted to be able to go for a run and not have to stop halfway to try to catch my breath. I wanted to be able to go out to eat a meal and enjoy the taste of the food. This is for anybody who has never smoked: smoking robs you of that. You cannot taste the food that you eat, nor do you have the full range of your sense of smell. You are not able to smell the smells around you. When you give up smoking, within a very short period, those are some of the things that come back to you quite quickly. Fundamentally, however, I did not want to die of a smoking-related illness that I knew that I could have helped to prevent. What would all of that have been for? Simply to line the pockets of some tobacco corporation in an industry that made £10 billion in revenue last year. I know that the health benefits that I have enjoyed for the past 20-plus years since I stopped smoking far outweigh any pleasure that I got from smoking. When it comes to vaping, the issues are somewhat more complex. E-cigarettes appeared only in the past decade or so, and the research into the health impacts of vapes is somewhat sketchy. We know that many of them contain nicotine, however. While they may help to reduce the number of cigarettes smoked, they still contain an addictive compound. It is in dealing with the e-cigarette side that I have a few concerns about the motion, and I ask the Minister to comment on those in his winding-up speech. First, if we want people to successfully transition from smoking, one of the easiest ways is for them to "step down" by moving to vapes. The problem is that, if we make it socially unacceptable to vape — it becomes stigmatised; you go into a shop where the products have no packaging, and there is nothing to attract a person who smokes to them — I fear that it may actually prevent us from getting people off smoking. At the same time, I appreciate that we cannot have an industry that abuses that and makes vaping very attractive to children and young people. The second concern, which my colleague mentioned earlier, is around the workability of the Bill and its enforceability. How do the Government expect this to be enforced? Will every person, regardless of age, now be asked to produce identification? If we fast-forward 30 or 40 years, will we be in a scenario where a 16-year-old working in a shop has to ask a 70-year-old to produce ID to tell them whether they are 70 or 71? There could be some problems there, and, as I said, it could create a flashpoint at the point of sale. I acknowledge and thank the Youth Assembly for the role that its members played in the Committee's consideration of the Bill when we met them. Fundamentally, given that there is that age restriction in the Bill, those young people will be the generation most impacted by it, and it was an excellent opportunity to go along, listen to their views and be assured that their views were considerable. They were almost unanimous in saying that they agree with the outworkings of the Bill. In some instances, they wanted to see restrictions going further than those in the Bill. It was an excellent example of youth participation in decision-making in this Building, which is something that I want to acknowledge and welcome. I remind Members that we cannot debate this legislative consent motion as if it is some sort of panacea that will deliver the best possible health outcomes. Rather, it has to be seen as one of a suite of options for how we improve the health of our society. I know that the Minister is here today to fulfil his duty as Health Minister, but there are other issues, such as encouraging active travel, ensuring nitrate-free school meals and establishing greener and cleaner spaces for communities, that all Executive Ministers must live up to. I hope that some of those other initiatives can be brought forward so that we can try to improve the overall health of our society. In conclusion, we know that the enjoyability of smoking or vaping is outweighed by the health benefits of not doing so. For that reason, I am content to support the motion.
1,027 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
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 (0.94).
- 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 | 0.04 | 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 | 0.94 | 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 | 0.48 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.38 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.09 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.04 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:31 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.