Debate contribution: Tobacco and Vapes Bill: Legislative Consent Motion
Debate contribution by Mrs Diane Dodds on .
- MLA
- Mrs Diane Dodds
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist 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 4491439
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I offer my support and that of my party for the extension of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill to Northern Ireland. It is important that we are part of the UK-wide legislation. All of us in the Chamber today will unite around the aim of having a smoke-free society in Northern Ireland, but, as the Member who spoke previously just illustrated, it is vital that the legislation that is brought forward to tackle what is a very great harm in society is properly assessed and is fair, deliverable and workable. We all know the harm that is caused by smoking. The report published by the Northern Ireland Audit Office in January this year reiterated that smoking is the main cause of illness and early death in Northern Ireland, contributing to around 2,200 deaths each year and one in four of all deaths from cancer. Those are very stark statistics for us to reflect upon. Research also suggests that the life expectancy of each smoker is shortened for each cigarette smoked. Smoking also affects others, whether it is an unborn child or those who inhale second-hand smoke through passive smoking. Yesterday, it was a delight to welcome to the Assembly Cathy Brokenshire, who is visiting us in Northern Ireland. Cathy is the wife of the late James Brokenshire, who died from lung cancer despite never having smoked in his life. I look forward to the autumn, when we will bring an event to the Assembly to discuss the harms of smoking, lung cancer and, indeed, passive smoking. It was a real honour to be able to facilitate that visit yesterday. Smoking also results in high costs to the health and social services sector. We are indebted to around 600 smoking cessation specialist services that provide their services free of charge to people across Northern Ireland, because it is a difficult addiction to break. We need to help people to do so and work in that particular area. The Bill as drafted has significant challenges. I hope that, as it progresses through Parliament, some of the issues will be dealt with in the scrutiny of the Bill. Our parliamentary team will work to try to use their influence in relation to that. As I have previously said, a generational smoking ban is well intentioned, but its success will ultimately rely on implementation and enforcement arrangements that can work and that do not unduly restrict the rights of retailers and consumers. There are some doubts at the moment as to whether the Bill as drafted meets those requirements. Concerns have been raised by retailers and shopkeepers that they could be criminalised under the new smoking ban and unfairly deemed to have permitted sales to those covered by this generational problem. Given that the overwhelming majority of cigarettes are bought from local shops, we need to be clear on enforcement, and we need to make sure that we do not criminalise the retailer. I am glad to hear that some work has been done on clause 53 of the Bill, because I think that that is very important. Age verification is another issue that will have to be looked at. As Colin McGrath said, if the Bill is successful, we need to understand how we will work out in years to come whether a person is 29 or 30, or that 30-year-old is asking a 29-year-old to buy cigarettes for them. That is really important, because legislation is only useful if it is workable, and we need to work out that conundrum. We also need to remember that asking for proof of age is one of the greatest triggers for violence and abuse of retailers. Often, young people work in local shops, and they will have to take that abuse. We really need to work on that element of the Bill. The other element of the Bill that gives us some concern is the issue around vapes. This is a new industry, and it needs to be regulated. That is very important. So far, the Bill does not really lend itself to a great deal in that respect. We need to know the content, we need to know the flavours, and we need to know how this will come forward. We do not want, in 20 years' time, to be talking about the harms of vaping in the same way that we talk about the harms of tobacco. That is very important. It is also particularly important that we get some sense of those regulations. I suspect that they are some way down the line, so we will be passing something that deals with smoking but does not really deal with vaping, in the hope that those regulations will come forward. In closing, I ask the Minister whether he and his officials have considered the applicability of the Bill in Northern Ireland, given the fact that the Windsor framework has stopped legislation on Rwanda and on aspects of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. It is important that we are honest with people in Northern Ireland and that we understand that as well. I pay tribute to the Youth Assembly for its conversations around the Bill. It is really important that the voice of young people is heard in all these things. It is really concerning that some schools that I visit report such an increase in vaping among young people.
Our young people have to deal with those harms. It was brilliant to hear their voices and understand that. I look forward to working with them as we move forward. I confirm our support for Northern Ireland's inclusion in the Bill. I would like to hear the Minister address in his response some of the issues that are pertinent to the working of the Bill.
965 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: 0.05 (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 (0.99).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.34 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.32 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.20 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.10 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
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.