Debate contribution: Vaping: Dangers to Children
Debate contribution by Mr Peter Martin on .
- MLA
- Mr Peter Martin
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 22 October 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Vaping: Dangers to Children
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4608584
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The greatest struggle that I will have is to read through this handwriting for the next five minutes, but I will certainly do my best. In summarising the debate, for which I, like my colleague has just done, thank Cathy Mason for bringing, I think that it has been an interesting and informative debate for everyone in the Chamber, and it has been useful to highlight the matter in the Assembly. I shall summarise a few of the arguments and make some closing remarks. The proposer of the motion highlighted that a licensing regime for the selling of vape products could be useful and went on to highlight the measures that principals are having to take to reduce vaping in schools. The proposer of amendment No 1, Michelle Guy, stated the fact, which we heard quite a few times this afternoon, that nearly one in five 11- to 16-year-olds has used a vape, and she went on to suggest that vaping could, indeed, be a gateway to smoking cigarettes. My colleague David Brooks, who proposed amendment No 2, stated that reducing vaping in schools required a multifaceted approach and that parents, teachers and the PHA all have a role to play in trying to bring a solution to the motion that we are debating today. Colin Crawford highlighted a number of the dangers of smoke-related illnesses and called on the Assembly — this has been done today — to raise awareness on that particular issue. Justin McNulty said that schools were at crisis point and that there was incredible demand on teachers to meet the challenges of vaping in schools. Deirdre Hargey said that the research on vaping is still out and, as such, we do not know how safe, I suppose, or dangerous it actually is and that, now, there is evidence that shows that children who have never smoked are going straight to vaping. Kellie Armstrong highlighted a shop and made an important point about the proximity of the normal products that kids would want to buy, such as ice cream and sweets — that is certainly what my kids buy a lot of — to vapes and the dangers that that legitimately presents to children who are going there for other products. The Member also highlighted that the Department for the Economy has a role to play and that this is, indeed, a cross-departmental issue. In his response, the Minister said that vaping can act as a gateway to other drugs and other drug use. He said that all schools should be smoke-free and vape-free and that that is an important matter of public health; that all schools should already have — I imagine that they do — a drug policy in place; and that this is an issue that goes well outside the school gates. That has been reflected on by other contributors to the debate. He said that any approach to this issue should be collective and comprehensive. In summarising the arguments for amendment No 2, I commend it to the House. I believe that amendment No 2 not only covers off and respects everything in the motion — as has been stated, it is a very important motion — but covers and includes the cross-departmental model about which we have heard so much in the Chamber this afternoon. Very importantly, it also includes the clear DOH and PHA responsibilities. My view is that this is not really just a matter for the Department of Education. That was reflected on by Members throughout the House. We use the phrase "cross-departmental", and nearly every Department has been mentioned at some point this afternoon. I commend amendment No 2 to the House.
620 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: 0.02 (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 (0.88).
- 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 | 0.02 | 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 | 0.88 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 | 0.87 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.06 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.04 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.03 |
| 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.