Debate contribution: Tobacco and Vapes Bill: Legislative Consent Motion
Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on .
- MLA
- Mr Timothy Gaston
- Party at the time
- Traditional Unionist Voice
- Date
- 10 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Tobacco and Vapes Bill: Legislative Consent Motion
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4790348
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I support the idea behind the legislative consent motion. I imagine that I am not alone in receiving a briefing paper from the British Heart Foundation that highlighted startling stats. From its helpful paper, we learn that smoking increases the risk of developing diseases such as heart disease, cancer and lung disease. We have heard during the debate that around 2,300 people die each year from diseases that can be attributed to smoking. The human cost is staggering, but so are the financial costs. I will put them on record once again. According to the BMA, smoking is estimated to cost the Northern Ireland economy £0·4 billion and the Department of Health an estimated £0·2 billion annually. With around 18,000 admissions to hospitals in our Province each year due to smoking-related problems, action needs to be taken to relieve the stress that that puts on our NHS. However, I fear that the laudable intent of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill will not result in "Northern Ireland's inclusion", as the motion states, regardless of the decision of the House. I say that because we in Northern Ireland, uniquely in the UK, remain subject to the EU's tobacco directive. We are subject to it because it is one of the 289 EU laws listed in annex 2 of the protocol that remain in force in a part of this United Kingdom. Article 24 of the tobacco directive states:
"Member States may not ... prohibit or restrict the placing on the market of tobacco or related products".
The legislative consent motion seems, on the face of it, to run counter to that. Indeed, there is an interesting precedent. In 2022, Denmark tried to do something similar. The legislation had to be withdrawn, because, as the Health Minister told the Danish Parliament on 6 April 2022:
"The ministry ... considers that a ban on the sale of tobacco and nicotine products to people born in 2010 or later would require an amendment of the European Tobacco Products Directive".
What assurances can the Minister give the House that, after today's vote, MLAs will not simply find the democratic will of the elected representatives of Northern Ireland overruled by our EU colonial masters? I have no doubt that there are those with powerful voices in the industry who will seek to challenge the application of the law to Northern Ireland. We know what happened when similar issues arose with the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 and the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. In both cases, the High Court ruled that laws that are not made by our sovereign parliament at Westminster or, indeed, this House are supreme. Rather, the court decided that EU law is supreme in Northern Ireland. If, as I suspect, that proves to be the case with this law, it will be scandalous, because, within our United Kingdom, only the people in Northern Ireland will be denied the protections that the Bill offers. I trust that the Minister will address that when he responds to the debate.
510 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: 0.21 (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 (0.90).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.93).
- 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 | 0.10 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.09 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.28 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.12 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.21 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.93 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.06 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.93 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.06 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:55 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.