Control of Mercury (Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Motion to Approve

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 17 July be approved.

My Lords, this instrument introduces the mechanisms to enforce the EU mercury regulation in Northern Ireland under the Windsor Framework, which maintains Northern Ireland’s dual market access to the EU single market and the UK internal market. I know that questions of democratic legitimacy and the effectiveness of the Windsor Framework’s democratic scrutiny mechanisms are a frequent area of consideration and discussion, and I am sure we will discuss them again today. This affirmative statutory instrument clearly demonstrates the purpose and benefit of the Windsor Framework, but before I set out its scope and objectives, I want to provide some further background on the arrangements applying in Northern Ireland that make this measure necessary.

Dental amalgam is a dental filling material made up of a mixture of mercury and metal alloys including silver, tin and copper. It is a stable, safe filling material that is widely used across the UK to fill cavities caused by tooth decay. Compared to alternative fillings such as composite resins, dental amalgam fillings are typically cheaper and take less time to apply. Last year, the EU introduced amendments to the EU mercury regulation that applies under the Windsor Framework. These amendments introduced a ban on the use and export of dental amalgam from 1 January 2025 and a ban on the manufacture and import of dental amalgam from 1 July 2026.

Here, we saw an issue that would pose particular difficulties for Northern Ireland. We saw Members of the Legislative Assembly scrutinise the issue and voice their concerns because an immediate ban on dental amalgam would have led to longer dental treatment times in Northern Ireland, meaning fewer patients being treated. This could ultimately worsen oral health outcomes in Northern Ireland. The Government acted on these concerns and made representations to the EU. The EU Commission recognised Northern Ireland’s specific circumstances last year, leading to the bespoke arrangements for Northern Ireland that we are discussing today.

Northern Ireland will have a much longer transition period: until 2034, or until an earlier phase-out date is agreed by the Minamata Convention on Mercury, an international treaty to which the UK and the EU are parties. It will mean that the continued use of dental amalgam in Northern Ireland is aligned with the rest of the UK.

The absence of these exemptions would have meant an immediate ban on dental amalgam use and import, which would have negative health and socio-economic impacts in Northern Ireland. For instance, mercury-free alternatives, such as composite fillings, generally require longer treatment times that could strain dental service capacity and may not be suitable for all patients. This could have resulted in longer treatment times and patient waiting lists, potentially harming oral health in Northern Ireland.

A gradual transition to mercury-free alternatives will ensure a managed phase-out, therefore minimising disruptions to Northern Ireland’s dental service provision. During this time, businesses and dentists in Northern Ireland may continue to import and use dental amalgam. Such treatment may be given to UK residents only, and imports need to be proportionate with use. This gradual phase-out of dental amalgam will allow a longer period to transition to alternative fillings. This will give dentists time to improve practice efficiency, gain experience with more complex fillings and adapt to emerging alternatives, and will support the training of dental professionals.

Moved by

At end to insert “but that this House regrets that, while the Regulations will extend the use of amalgam fillings in Northern Ireland, they do so by means of placing their provision, and thus the provision of NHS dental services in Northern Ireland, on an uncertain constitutional foundation.”

My Lords, it is nice to see the noble Baroness answering on this statutory instrument, and I thank her for her outline of what it contains. I reassure noble Lords that, while the Whip’s notice says that today’s rising time will probably be about 7 pm, I have no intention—I do not think any of us have—of continuing this debate until then. That might be helpful.

Dentists in Northern Ireland are obviously relieved that the burden that was hanging over them regarding a date has now been lifted. I have brought this issue to the Floor of the House today as I feel, along with many of my colleagues from Northern Ireland, that it is important and necessary to expose how, drip by drip, the EU is taking more control over what happens in a part of the United Kingdom.

We have talked regularly about the 300 areas of law that are now out of our own Government’s hands, and sometimes it seems that no one understands the practical problems these are causing. We have seen the questions on duty-free, pet travel and the large numbers of GB businesses that are now refusing to send anything to Northern Ireland because of the bureaucracy. Just recently, in the last couple of days, we had the ridiculous situation whereby poppy sellers in Northern Ireland had to get EU leaflets and deal with EU bureaucracy to be able to sell poppies. That is outrageous, and I am sure noble Baroness would agree with me on that point.

So why am I concerned about this SI? The British Dental Association did a great job of alerting dentists in Northern Ireland to the fact that originally, the EU directive was going to ban amalgam filling from 1 January 2025 in Northern Ireland. That became a topic of much concern, and to be fair, His Majesty’s Government sought talks with the EU, which led to a Commission notice—Regulation 2024/1849—saying that instead of Northern Ireland being required to cease using amalgam fillings in June 2026, dentists could continue to December 2034.

There are further causes for concern at this particular Commission notice. First, the notice begins with the heading, in very large capitals, “DISCLAIMER”. This is very unusual: we have only discovered one other time when this happened, and it is designed to underline the tentative nature of this interpretation. Secondly, the nature of the warning itself is blunter. Rather than saying that their reflections are without prejudice to the role of the courts as the ultimate arbiter, the notice says that only the Court of Justice can do authoritatively what it is now going to do: interpret the law. I quote from that:

“While this Notice seeks to assist authorities and operators, only the Court of Justice of the European Union is competent to authoritatively interpret Union law”.

Given that the Commission notice is not law, and is supposed to interpret the EU regulation—something that only the European Court of Justice can do authoritatively—can the Minister tell us how secure these regulations are, if we pass them today?

If the court is called upon to make a judgement, it must confine itself to an interpretation of the wording of the EU legislature of the Council of Ministers in the European Parliament. How could it possibly reach the conclusion that—when the legislature determined that all states should ban the use of amalgam from 1 January 2025, with a derogation until June 2026—the words affecting this requirement also mean that amalgam fillings can continue to be used generally in Northern Ireland until December 2034, when those words actually say no such thing?

We are being subjected to legislation resting on the foundation of a non-legal Commission notice, presented with a big disclaimer in capital letters, which is really quite ridiculous. It is also contemptuous how this is being treated by the EU. Let us be clear: the regulation is here only because of the grace and favour of the European Union. If it expects me and others to be appreciative of a foreign administration giving us a few more years of affordable dentistry, then I am not. I am very ashamed that both the last Government, and I am afraid this Government, too, have allowed this to happen, and now dress it up as a statutory instrument to give authority to what they have allowed. It is a sticking plaster solution with no legal standing, which will cause dentists to be put into very difficult situations. They are not supposed to treat anyone who has come from another jurisdiction. I am not sure what is going to happen when people come over the border in the Republic. If the Republic of Ireland has not got a derogation, people will come over to Northern Ireland—because there is no hard border, as the Government keep wanting to tell us—and are the border guards going to be looking at people’s teeth? The whole thing is ridiculous. So I ask the Minister how it is going to be enforced. How are we going to make this actually happen to make sure it is being complied with?

Let us be clear: this SI is not about whether amalgam should be phased out, as I know many people want, and there are good reasons for that. We really do need a proper debate on the whole dentistry situation in the United Kingdom. The British Dental Association is very clear that a great deal more funding has to go into dentistry if we are to phase out amalgam. If not, we will see the end of any NHS dentistry in Northern Ireland, when it is already so difficult to find an NHS dentist. It is not about the issue of amalgam: it is about equal citizenship and whether we really believe that people in Northern Ireland should have the same opportunities with the National Health Service as anyone else in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is why I move this amendment today, so that at the very least we get a debate, a discussion and an understanding of what people in Northern Ireland are having to go through. I beg to move the amendment.

My Lords, I will make a briefer speech, not on the constitutional aspect of this but on the dentistry aspect. I thank the Minister for introducing this, and indeed the noble Baroness for moving her amendment. I do recognise that there is a very important constitutional issue as well. The amalgam ban will come in in 10 years’ time to Northern Ireland. As regards the rest of the United Kingdom, clearly, EU rules do not apply, but the supply and price chains have a massive effect, so there is an issue about the availability of mercury and amalgam within the next period.

The Minister said quite correctly that amalgam fillings are cheaper, and that treatment is far longer for alternatives. It is also worth saying that they last longer and do not need replacing as often. So there is a very real issue about the cost going forward of alternatives. Research and development is needed within the dentistry profession, sponsored and helped by the Government, to look at alternatives to mercury. We also need investment in better oral health.

Without those things, I fear that, within the next 10 years, irrespective of the constitutional aspects we are talking about, there is a real concern for dentistry and oral health not just in Northern Ireland—although, admittedly, it will hit there harder—but in the rest of the United Kingdom. I hope the Minister will be able to address that. If she does not have specific details, I would appreciate it if she could write.

My Lords, I am pleased to support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. There is no doubt that one of our greatest national institutions is the NHS. The people of the United Kingdom have in the past been exercised about the possibility that those whom they elect might tamper with it, notwithstanding their accountability to the electorate. Imagine, then, the concern that attends the prospect of having a key aspect of the NHS placed in jeopardy by the politicians of a foreign country who are not accountable to you. That is the plight that befell UK citizens living in Northern Ireland when the EU Parliament voted EU Regulation 1849 in 2024.

Being disenfranchised, which has already been mentioned, in some 300 areas of law is bad enough. But when the laws give the foreign legislators the power to strike down any aspect of one of our great national institutions, the justice of that disfranchisement is completely intolerable. It is an indignity to which the people of England, Wales and Scotland should never be subjected: why, then, the people of Northern Ireland?

In this context, I was aghast to listen last week to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right honourable Member for Leeds South, giving evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee in another place that the Government had “solved” the amalgam problem. That was just quite extraordinary, to put it mildly. A piece of legislation has been imposed on part of the UK by a legislature in which it is not represented, and which places a key component of one of our greatest institutions in jeopardy. Rather than standing as citizens, we are subjected to the humiliation of being taken as supplicants to the bar of the grace and favour of a foreign Executive to see what crumbs they might be persuaded to toss from their gilded table.

To make matters worse, we are expected to be thankful, grateful and accepting of it, even though we have no more made the concession than the original legislation. Whatever happened to self-respect? Whatever happened to the United Kingdom? We are then forced to confront the consequences of the fact that, rather than being treated as legislators, we are taken for dumb supplicants in the development of the alternative provision through the fact that this alternative provision further alienates us from the rest of our home country.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this debate and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for her amendment. This SI addresses the implications for Northern Ireland of the Government’s decision not to follow the Minamata Convention on Mercury on phasing out the use of mercury dental amalgam fillings throughout the EU. I will say a few words on why it is concerning that the UK Government are rowing back on their Minamata commitments, and why mercury amalgam fillings, which are highly toxic, should be banned throughout the UK at the earliest opportunity.

This issue is not merely one of dentistry; it concerns public health, environmental protection and ethical responsibility. Mercury is one of the most toxic substances known to science, as the Minister readily accepted in her opening statement, and there is no safe level of exposure for humans. Studies show that mercury vapour is released continuously into the mouth from amalgam fillings, especially when we chew, grind our teeth or have old fillings removed. These vapours are inhaled, absorbed into the bloodstream and stored in the body’s tissues. Chronic exposure has been linked to neurological damage, kidney dysfunction and developmental harm in unborn children.

The problem does not stop at the patient’s mouth. Mercury from dental practices, cremations and landfill waste seeps into water systems, where it transforms into methylmercury, a highly toxic compound that accumulates in fish and other wildlife. That same mercury then returns to us through the food we eat. In fact, dental amalgam is one of the largest sources of mercury pollution in the UK. Once mercury enters the environment, it cannot be destroyed. It circulates indefinitely, contaminating ecosystems for generations. A ban is not just a medical issue; it is an environmental necessity.

The global community recognises this danger. The Minamata Convention on Mercury, which the UK signed in 2013 and ratified in 2017, commits nations to reducing and eventually eliminating mercury use. Countries such as Norway, Sweden and Denmark have already banned amalgam entirely. The European Union is phasing it out completely this year and next. If the UK does not act, it risks falling behind international standards and undermining its environmental commitments.