Debate contribution: Vaping: Dangers to Children
Debate contribution by Mrs Michelle Guy on .
- MLA
- Mrs Michelle Guy
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 22 October 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Vaping: Dangers to Children
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4608545
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I support the motion. Our amendment is intended to complement the motion and acknowledge that this is an issue that, like many others, requires cross-body cooperation. Parents, carers, teachers and young people are concerned about the prevalence of vaping among under-18s. Data shows a huge growth in the number of young people who are vaping. The Northern Ireland young persons’ behaviour and attitude survey 2022 states that 21·3% of 11- to-16-year-olds reported using an e-cigarette; that is one in five. It is illegal to sell vapes to anyone under 18 in Northern Ireland. However, the 2024 Underage Vape Sales report notes that, in Northern Ireland, there was:
"a 65% increase since 2022 in confirmed cases of businesses unlawfully selling vaping products to underage persons"
Enforcement of these laws belongs with local councils, which is why our amendment includes councils as a necessary partner in addressing the issue. Enforcement can play a part, but it is fallible when we consider that young people are getting vapes from older people who are buying them for them. An increasing counterfeit market and buying vapes online are other access points for our young people, who are being enticed by smart marketing, different brands and designs and a huge number of flavours. It is clear that young people are a key demographic, or, arguably, the key demographic being actively targeted by these products. The idea that they exist solely for the purpose of helping smokers to quit is long past credible. In fact, there is an evidence base that vaping is now creating new, young smokers — or rather, new, young, cigarette smokers, which is an important distinction in this debate. The reality is that this is a multimillion-pound industry, prevalent in popular culture, that will look to attract new customers wherever it can and protect its own interests. The thing that I really worry about is that we do not know the long-term health implications. I fear that we are sleepwalking into a health crisis. Last year, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health released a stark statement calling for the outright ban of disposable vapes, given their popularity among young people, which it says is fast becoming an epidemic. One extract from that statement is:
"We have even less evidence on the long-term impacts of these products on young lungs, hearts, and brains. Paediatricians are deeply concerned about what this unprecedented rise in uptake will mean for our future generations. It took experts decades to fully understand the impact of traditional cigarettes, we cannot risk our children’s health in waiting this long again for longer term studies."
Even without such studies, a recent statement from the British Toxicology Society detailed a pretty terrifying list of risk factors, such as nicotine addiction, causing damage to developing brains, anxiety, depression, poor concentration, ingestion of heavy metals and the spiking of vapes with substances such as spice. Turning to the wording of the motion, I support its intention and fully acknowledge that schools should be getting further support to stop vaping happening on school grounds, but I worry about the scale of the issue in schools and outside of schools. Having teachers, parents, youth workers and healthcare professionals all raising awareness about the risks is good, but we need to accept that those interventions will not necessarily persuade kids, many of whom are trying to fit in or are living out some teenage rebelliousness. As policymakers, however, we have the power to do more. Our amendment calls for the Education and Health Ministers, along with local government, to work together to end youth vaping. We should approach this with the same urgency and seriousness as the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. We need to put a ban on disposable vapes, which is something that my colleague Andrew Muir has committed to doing. We need to see what can be done around heavily restricting advertising, flavours, packaging and shop displays. We need a harsh clampdown on shops selling to young people, and I know that that will take funding; the introduction of age-of-sale requirements for non-nicotine vapes, which they already have in Scotland; the potential limiting of where can stock vapes; and, of course, making support available to schools. I thank Sinn Féin for tabling the motion and, as a mother of teenagers, for refocusing my mind on just how important, prevalent and scary this issue is. I hope that our amendment will receive cross-party support.
748 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 (0.97).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- 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 | 0.97 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.62 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.33 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.04 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:28 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.