Debate contribution: Tobacco and Vapes Bill: Legislative Consent Motion
Debate contribution by Mr Alan Chambers on .
- MLA
- Mr Alan Chambers
- Party at the time
- Ulster 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 4491446
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I and my party very much welcome today's LCM. As has been said, tobacco is the largest cause of cancer in Northern Ireland and accounts for over 2,000 deaths locally every year. It is a fact that nothing would have a bigger impact on reducing the number of preventable deaths across the United Kingdom than ending smoking. It is also a huge contributing factor to the persistently high levels of health inequality in Northern Ireland. The vast majority of people who smoke become addicted to smoking as a child. Therefore, it is clear that, if we as a society are to truly tackle the problem, we need to focus most efforts on limiting the number of young people taking up smoking in the first place. Whilst I acknowledge the initiatives and measures already in place, as well as applauding the huge beneficial work being achieved by our smoking cessation teams, it is clear, regrettably, that children and young people continue to start smoking. It has been more widely accepted over recent years, and I heard our local Chief Medical Officer recently state that tobacco is the only consumer product that kills up to two thirds of its users. We need to do something different, and, this time, we need to be even more ambitious. That is why I welcome the UK Government's consultation on a smoke-free generation and their decision to include Northern Ireland in that. The timing of the restoration of the institutions in early February was apt, as it came just in time for the Minister and his officials to move swiftly to work with the UK Government to secure Northern Ireland's inclusion in the Bill. I congratulate the Minister and his team on achieving that. Today's LCM is a key stage in the process. From the previous public consultation, it is clear that what the UK Bill and today's LCM will do has strong public support here; in fact, it is even greater than the UK average. In addition, it is clear that the proposals have clear public health and clinician support. I am, however, aware of some dispute about how the Bill sits alongside the Windsor framework. On that point, I will follow the advice of the local Departmental Solicitor's Office (DSO), the UK Government's legal teams and the UK Government, all of which are clear that this provides for an age restriction, not a ban. I can understand why the tobacco and vaping industries have a vested interest in trying to spin that line. Ultimately, it should come as a surprise to no one that the Bill will be challenged in whatever way possible. Despite that, the Bill is the right thing to do, and today's LCM is the right thing to do. I therefore fully support today's motion and again pay tribute to all the departmental staff and organisations that have been so critical in getting us to this point.
486 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 (0.83).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.03 | 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 | 0.83 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.55 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.38 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.06 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
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.