Debate contribution: Vaping: Dangers to Children
Debate contribution by Mr Danny Donnelly on .
- MLA
- Mr Danny Donnelly
- 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 4608588
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise to wind up on the amendment tabled by me and Alliance Party colleagues. I thank the Sinn Féin Members for proposing the motion and the DUP Members for their amendment. We are content to support all three. Our amendment introduces a single change to the motion. In addition to the Minister of Education bringing forward a plan to end vaping in school grounds and reducing the numbers of young people vaping more broadly, we want the Minister of Education working with the Minister of Health and local councils on the development of such a plan. The dangers of vaping have been well heard today, and they are becoming increasingly apparent, particularly among young people. There is a role for vaping as part of a smoking cessation plan to help long-term smokers to quit, but that should not be relevant for children and young people. As was mentioned earlier, there is an emerging evidence base to suggest that vaping can serve as an introduction to nicotine and that vape users are more likely to take up smoking than non-vapers. Research conducted by Asthma and Lung UK highlighted that over 80% of young people in Northern Ireland are concerned about the growing use of vaping products and their use in their schools. Other issues raised by young people included environmental waste, which is a consequence of disposable vapes, and which my party colleague the AERA Minister is addressing; the marketing and promotion of vaping products to young people; and the lack of knowledge about the long-term effects of vaping. Some of those concerns were supposed to be addressed by the UK Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which, I am hopeful, will be reintroduced in the new parliamentary term. I have had the privilege of working with the Youth Assembly and I attended one of its events in the Building on this issue. I applaud its work on the matter. I also had the opportunity to ask some young people — Aaron and Olivia — who were doing work experience with me this week about their experiences. They said that they know of young people who had been hospitalised because their vapes had been laced with other substances. Again, that is incredibly concerning. They have seen students who cannot concentrate in class and students who become agitated and even violent when they do not have access to vapes. They have seen pupils leaving classes to go and vape in the toilets multiple times throughout the day and sometimes multiple times in the same class. That is bad for those children, who are harming their own health and losing their time in classes, but it also makes the bathrooms full of clouds of vape, which will have an impact on other students. They also reported shops selling vapes to young people without checks, even when they were in school uniform, which, again, I was very concerned to hear. While it is understandable that Sinn Féin brought the motion to the Assembly and addressed it to the Department of Education due to its focus on children and young people, tobacco and vapes are the responsibility of the Department of Health. In fact, we have discussed this in the Health Committee, and we believe that a collaborative approach between the Departments is necessary. That has been referred to multiple times today. As was highlighted by my former council colleague, Michelle Guy, we have also included councils on the basis that they have a responsibility for environmental health. In the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, councils were to be given additional enforcement authority. It is therefore important that our 11 councils and their representatives are also involved in the decision-making. For those reasons, I encourage all Members to support our amendment. I will now discuss a few of the comments from other Members in relation to our amendment. Cathy Mason spoke about the lack of regulation in vape selling. Again, that was something that was mentioned by the young people. Colin Crawford spoke of the health implications of vaping for those under the age of 18 and those under the age of 25, which are concerning. Justin McNulty spoke of the proliferation of vapes and vape shops and said, particularly memorably, that vapes are marketed as a confectionary product rather than a nicotine product. That is a strong point. Deirdre Hargey highlighted the fact that vaping is a cross-departmental issue and that there are pressures on schools and communities alike. She highlighted the Amplify project in her area as being a good example of a project that works against vaping My colleague Kellie Armstrong highlighted the prominence of vapes in shops that also sell sweets and even sunbed sessions. She said that she would like to see a ban on vaping at school gates. I agree, because vaping at school gates normalises the behaviour. Minister Givan highlighted the unacceptable rates of vaping amongst young people and committed to working with the Minister of Health, the Minister of Justice, the PHA and the PSNI to address vaping in schools. He also highlighted the proposed restrictions on vapes in the 2024 Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which will, hopefully, yet come to pass. I hope that Members can support our amendment.
876 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 (0.96).
- 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 | 0.03 | 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 | 0.96 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.68 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.25 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.02 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
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.