Debate contribution: Tobacco and Vapes Bill: Legislative Consent Motion
Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 10 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Tobacco and Vapes Bill: Legislative Consent Motion
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4790866
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I will talk a little about not only the generalities of the legislative consent motion, which we, obviously, support, but some of the ways that the debate has been used to complain about the Windsor framework/protocol. Clearly, that has been a significant part of the debate. I recognise and agree with many of the comments that have been made about the importance of the provision and of dealing with tobacco regulation and moving towards a smoke-free society and of better regulating and tackling the issue of vapes, given that they particularly affect young people and are, in many ways, a gateway to smoking. Those statistics have been quoted. It is true that, under the protocol, Northern Ireland is bound by certain provisions under the European Union. From listening to some Members, you would think that there is a vast public health risk to Northern Ireland. They have not provided any evidence of there being a public health risk to people in Northern Ireland, and there is no sign that there will be. There have been reports about that and speculation about what might happen, but it is also the case that some of the public health and environmental regulations that we enjoy, such as product safety standards, have come in over the past half century because of EU regulations. They were not delivered by London, let alone Stormont. I will share a bit of personal experience. People might shake their head, but the personal experience that I want to share is true. I remember that, in my old life, when I was still a UK government official, one of the very first things that happened after the Brexit vote was a discussion about what were the Brexit freedoms that people could avail themselves of. The Brexiteers inside the Tory Party could not think of any. One of the most recent —
I am happy to take my seat.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the previous Member to speak gave a long disquisition on public health and tobacco.
So I think that it is reasonable for me to include in my contribution the tobacco products directive that came into force in 2016. As Members have said, we are, as a result of the protocol/Windsor framework, still partly bound by that. The directive also banned menthol cigarettes. The reason why you cannot go into a tobacconist in Northern Ireland and buy menthol cigarettes, which are a bit like vapes in that they are among the products that, people think, are kind of tobacco-light, even though they are as carcinogenic as normal cigarettes, is that one of the public health arguments consistently made was that they were, effectively, a gateway. They allowed people who might not have enjoyed the taste of normal tobacco products to smoke and, therefore, were creating a public health risk. It is the same with vapes, and that is what is in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. How did menthol cigarettes get banned in Northern Ireland? The EU did it. It is important that, in the Chamber, we are accurate and detailed when we talk about the issues. That is all I wanted to do in my remarks today. It is important. I recognise the issues that have been raised, and I am glad that there is consensus, with the possible exception of Mr Carroll, today.
I will draw my remarks to a close. I am happy to acknowledge that difference and will reflect on it in two ways. The Member was a very esteemed Member of the European Parliament; I acknowledge that. Obviously, I deeply regret Brexit, because I think that Northern Ireland and, indeed, the whole UK would be much better off inside the EU debating the issues. I also think that we should have MEPs —
— but I will draw my remarks —
— to a close there, as I feel that I am —.
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.
655 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: 0.18 (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 (0.74).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.96).
- 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 | 0.09 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.08 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.11 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.74 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.18 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.96 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.04 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.79 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.21 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:56 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.