Debate contribution: Tobacco and Vapes Bill: Legislative Consent Motion

Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on 21 May 2024.

MLA: Mr Gerry Carroll
Party at the time: People Before Profit Alliance
Date: 21 May 2024
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Executive Committee Business
Heading: Tobacco and Vapes Bill: Legislative Consent Motion
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 4491478

Text

I am not sure that the approach laid out in the LCM is necessarily the correct one to tackle vaping and smoking. I say that because it is an initiative that was initially taken by a Tory Government that have underfunded health over the past 14 years and, in this place, for decades. They see enforcement and outlawing as a possible quick and easy way to make some headway on this important issue. The party that has underfunded health tells us that this is a measure that is being taken for health reasons. It is forcing charities to take up the slack to raise awareness of smoking and vaping and the associated health problems. The Minister outlined some of the obvious health problems and complications associated with vaping. These are real and are not disputed by me or anybody else in this House. However, some of those same problems exist with tobacco, alcohol and prescription drugs, and I do not think that anybody who is serious about tackling addiction and substance abuse would advocate for a prohibition model there. Prohibition did not, and does not, work with alcohol, and I am not sure that it will work with vaping. The reason why people vape, smoke or use any other drugs will not be tackled by a ban. We need to tackle the underlying issues of alienation, low pay, poverty and deprivation, which, obviously, are not mentioned in the Bill. I am concerned about the Bill and its LCM leading to an unregulated underground market for vapes and similar products. That could put people at greater risk of taking products that are not ordered or checked in any way as people, be they paramilitaries or criminal gangs, seek to fill the void when the ban comes in. A better way to tackle the issue would be a properly funded public health approach and a campaign that talks aggressively about the dangers of smoking. There are serious questions about the legislation allowing for enforcement. The Minister mentioned powers for councils, which have not been detailed, as far as I am aware. Also, a serious problem in our society is the incredibly high rate of stop-and-search of young people. I remain unconvinced that the LCM will not lead to more harassment and stop-and-search of young people, racial minorities and others. Members talked about the Youth Assembly, but it was split on aspects of the Bill, such as the age restriction for the sale of tobacco. It is important to emphasise that. It is also worth mentioning that this Tory Government cut the NHS programmes specifically designed to stop people smoking, so I do not think that they have much interest in encouraging people not to smoke. In Britain, there has been an uptick among pregnant women not giving up smoking precisely because those programmes were cut. There are holes in the Bill. I remain unconvinced that it will do what it says that it will do, and I would like the Minister to address some of the issues that I raised.

508 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.11 (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 (0.89).
Subject area: Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers.
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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.05	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.05	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.02	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.09	No
Controversy escalation	0.07	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.94	Yes
Overall judgement	0.11	At or below not-flagging threshold

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing (chosen)	0.89
Reports or questions it	0.02
Criticises or condemns it	0.08
Adopts it	0.01

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers	0.76
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups	0.11
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism	0.08
No identity-related subject	0.03
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues	0.02

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.

Challenge this classification