Debate contribution: Tobacco and Vapes Bill: Legislative Consent Motion
Debate contribution by Mr Mike Nesbitt on .
- MLA
- Mr Mike Nesbitt
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 10 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Tobacco and Vapes Bill: Legislative Consent Motion
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4790898
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and thanks, of course, to everybody who has taken part in the debate. What I found pleasing was not just that we were almost unanimous, with the exception of People Before Profit, in supporting the legislative consent motion but that people were not prepared to simply let it go through on the nod, and everybody made significant and considered contributions to the debate. That is to be welcomed. I should perhaps touch on a couple of points that Members made. People Before Profit brought up prohibition in the United States — the prohibition of alcohol — as a reason for refusing to support the LCM. If Mr Carroll were here, I would simply point out that, much more recently, when the smoking age in the United Kingdom was increased from 16 to 18, the consumption of illicit cigarettes, which is, I think, more pertinent, fell by 25%.
Smoking rates among 16- and 17-year-olds dropped by almost a third. I would gently suggest to Mr Carroll that that evidence base is perhaps a little more relevant than going back to the speakeasies of the Prohibition era in the United States 100 years ago.
Like Mr Gaston and others, I wish that the European Union did not have any potential to interfere in our legislative process. I accept that, under article 5.4 of the protocol, we have an annex that lists EU provisions that apply, and the European tobacco products directive is one such provision. Article 24.3 of that products directive states:
"A Member State may also prohibit a certain category of tobacco or related products, on grounds relating to the specific situation in that Member State and provided the provisions are justified by the need to protect public health".
In my opening remarks, I made very clear the impact of smoking in particular on public health and the potential impact of vapes. It is not for me to convince the House, however. This is United Kingdom Government legislation, and it is for the UK Government to make sure that the Tobacco and Vapes Bill is compliant with the Windsor framework. Mr Donnelly asked about enforcement. As he knows, age-of-sale restrictions already exist in Northern Ireland, while enforcement is councils' responsibility. My Department, through the Public Health Agency, funds tobacco control officers, who carry out test purchasing activity and engage with retailers to support compliance with tobacco legislation. That will continue. It is worth making one small technical point when we talk about the smoke-free generation, which includes anybody who was born after 1 January 2009. One Member may have said that it will be illegal for them to purchase tobacco. Rather, it will be illegal for anybody to sell them tobacco. The emphasis is on the vendor, not on the purchaser. I make that distinction for the sake of completeness.
I thank the Member for his intervention. It is my intention that we will continue with test purchasing. We will continue to monitor it and ensure that we employ best practice. I am not saying that test purchasing activity will not change, but, if it does, it should be changed on the basis of evidence that shows that we can do it a little bit better than we are doing at the moment. Today is a good day for public health in Northern Ireland. As I said in my opening remarks, smoking is one of the behaviours that makes up 30% of the challenge of addressing health inequalities. I look forward to continuing that work. Finally, it would be remiss of me not to welcome Mr McGuigan to his role as Chair of the Health Committee. I look forward to working with him. He confessed to being a former smoker, as, indeed, did Mr McGrath, Mr Robinson and Mr Donnelly. What can I say, Mr Deputy Speaker? I join that club, having given up smoking in 1998 in the car park of Castle Buildings when I was reporting on the lengthy negotiations — the endless negotiations — that led to the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. I still ask myself whether it should have been where I took up smoking, given the stress of reporting those negotiations, but that is where I quit.
705 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 (0.83).
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.83 | 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 | 0.63 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.19 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.12 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.02 |
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.