Control of Mercury (Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Debate between Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle and Lord Dodds of Duncairn

Thursday 30th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very clear introduction to this statutory instrument and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for raising this issue, even though I will take a very different approach to the SI. I will park the constitutional questions, leaving the Windsor Framework to one side, and raise the issue of why Britain is trailing globally on the issue of mercury dental fillings.

I take issue with the Minister’s introduction, which talked about a stable, safe and typically cheaper material. It is worth stressing that this SI provides bespoke arrangements—here, I am looking at it purely from the medical health side—for a longer transition period away from mercury dental fillings in Northern Ireland compared with the EU, a delayed phase-out that is in line with the rest of the UK. This is bad for the people of Northern Ireland, bad for the UK and bad for the world.

Coincidentally, a new study is out today from the Rivers Trust and Wildlife and Countryside Link that shows that more than 98% of fish and mussels tested in English waters contain mercury levels above EU safety limits. In fact, more than half the fish and mussels tested have mercury levels more than five times above the EU safety limits. We all know that mercury is a potent neurotoxin, even at low levels of exposure. There is the tragedy of Minamata, the disease that resulted from the industrial release of methylmercury in Japan. This has been known for many decades. Some 43 countries have now banned mercury amalgam fillings, including the EU and the Scandinavian countries, but also countries such as Tanzania and Indonesia.

The practical reality is that crematoriums are now the second-largest source of mercury emissions to the air, after the combustion of fossil fuels. We know that fossil fuels are and have to be on the way out for other reasons, so the percentage contribution will only rise higher and higher. As has been mentioned, there is the Minamata convention meeting in November, and there is talk of a global phase-out by 2030, led by African countries including Botswana and Burkina Faso.

I raised issue with the “cheaper” point. Cost is often cited as the reason why we have to go slower, but countries such as Germany use safer alternatives and the cost is only very marginally higher. If Germany can manage it, surely we can manage it too.

It is also important to understand the issue of mercury pollution on a global scale. It is interesting that the African nations are leading at that November convention, because the rise in the price of and demand for gold is also associated with massive increases in mercury pollution around the world. We are used to the idea of blood diamonds; mercury-poisoning gold might not be such a catchy phrase, but it is something we should really be talking about. The risks are particularly acute in the Amazon, as highlighted by the campaigning priest Miguel Ángel Cadenas, who works in Peru. It is also a huge issue in artisan gold mining in Africa, and globally it is estimated to release 800 tonnes of mercury into the air per year. That is nearly 40% of global emissions.

These are global emissions; they do not stay where the emissions happen. I point the Minister to a very important study that has just been published in the journal of the European Geosciences Union. We are used to the idea that food crops are being contaminated by taking up mercury from the soil, so the mercury has drifted in dust around the world, settled in the soil and then been taken up. This study has demonstrated, which we have not realised before, that the mercury is being taken in from the air by plants when they photosynthesise. It is going directly into the green, leafy crops that we all need.

I put to the Minister that this SI takes Northern Ireland in the wrong direction. More than that, the Government are not taking the steps they need to take for public and environmental health here in the UK and for global One Health.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, I will briefly make a few comments on this regret amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. I am grateful to her for tabling it, as it allows a debate on this important issue, which has caused concern in Northern Ireland about access to NHS dentists and not having massive expense imposed on people seeking dental treatment.

I listened very carefully to the arguments that were put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, who spoke very eloquently about why they believe the EU is right to move to a speedy removal of dental amalgam. I also listened very carefully to other noble Lords who spoke about their real concern about a cliff edge, the impact that there may be on the supply chain and so on, in relation to this ban happening in Northern Ireland and not in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Whichever side of the argument noble Lords are on, whether for implementing an immediate ban, slowing it down, or having it at all, this is an issue that should be debated and decided by us. That is the crucial question. There is a multitude of issues within the Windsor Framework, of which this is one tiny example, ranging from the environment, agriculture, manufacturing and thousands of regulations. In Northern Ireland, we can debate until the cows come home about whether they are good or bad ideas and whether the principle behind them is a good or bad thing—which is good, and we should be debating that—but there is nothing we can do about it. The debate in the Northern Ireland Assembly is irrelevant; the British Parliament has no powers. That point has been highlighted by my noble friends Lord Morrow and Lord Weir, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey.

It is an amazing situation that the arguments that are being put forward in relation to these matters have no relevance in Northern Ireland, because the European Commission and the European Union will decide the matter and not give a fig for what anyone elected in Northern Ireland says about it.

When these issues are raised, with there being example after example, I know that there are people in the generality of Parliament who do not take a great interest in these matters, may find this tedious and may even find it laughable at times. You see people who ask, “What is this all about? What are they going on about again?” But time after time, we are seeing a situation where the impact on Northern Ireland is not just in terms of the economic costs of divergence, as has been recently highlighted by the Federation of Small Businesses report and by the Murphy review of the Windsor Framework, which the noble Lord, Lord Bew, referred to and which was highlighted in the recent report of the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee of this House. I would urge your Lordships to read that report, which sets out in very stark terms the cost and the economic damage in a whole range of areas.

So it is not just the cost but the democratic cost as well. We cannot decide these matters. I thought the most telling remark that the Minister made in her introduction, in recognising the problem and hearing what people were saying in Northern Ireland, was that the UK Government “made representations to the EU”. Somebody mentioned self-respect and dignity; this is what we have come to in Northern Ireland on this issue and across a thousand directives and regulations, across 300 areas, for vast swathes of our economy.

We will continue to highlight this issue, because it is something that is ultimately going to cause major problems down the line. I have been warning for some time about the Northern Ireland Assembly, which has been set up, has worked and has done many good things, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Bew, referred to, the basis on which it has been restored and commitments that were entered into that the Government have been cast aside. EU labelling was to be introduced for the whole of the UK, which was a commitment in Safeguarding the Union. That was one of the reasons why the Assembly was restored, but it has been cast aside, rejected and torn up; commitments have been shredded and have not been implemented. This is another example of where we are going wrong and where, ultimately, the Northern Ireland Assembly will be placed in danger.

It may be a minority concern now—it is hard to know, but we will soon find out at the next election—but the recent Northern Ireland Life and Times survey by Queen’s University indicated growing concern in the unionist community about the implications of all these issues. If that is replicated in an election, it will be very difficult to have the stability within the Assembly that is needed to have a strong unionist and nationalist presence in the Executive. I do not say that out of any desire to see it collapse or anything like it, but I am just pointing out a reality.

Whitehall generally, the Government and the big parties need to understand what is at stake. There is a growing disillusionment, anger and frustration that these debates, which we should be having in the Assembly in Northern Ireland or here, are not happening. The decisions have been made by bureaucrats in Brussels, by the Commission, and imposed on Northern Ireland, and then we have to go and beg for a grace-and-favour extension to not have it implemented immediately. That is happening over and over again.

This has been a useful debate, and I commend those who have spoken and highlighted all these issues. I know that the Minister takes a very strong interest in Northern Ireland, follows these things deeply and cares about Northern Ireland, and I look forward to her response.

Elections Bill

Debate between Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle and Lord Dodds of Duncairn

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Monday 28th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I offer Green support for the general trend of these amendments. I also join the rest of the House in wishing the noble Lord, Lord True, a quick recovery. I very much agree with the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. If someone is here contributing to society and is a part of this community—maybe that is only for 20 or 30 years and maybe they will eventually go back to the country they came from, to care for their elderly parents or another reason—they should have a say. They have chosen to make this their home and we should recognise that with the vote.

It is really interesting if we look at the overall context of the Bill—and I very much agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, about the general sense of confusion and the lack of a real sense of clear direction—that where there is a sense of direction, it is utterly the wrong direction. As we were talking about with voter ID and offering a positive alternative of automatic voter registration, we have seen a trend over centuries for more and more people to have the right to vote. Yet, what we have done right now with the Brexit situation and with the rules as they currently are with the Bill without these amendments is that fewer and fewer people are having the right to have a say. That is a diminution of what democracy we actually have.

I very much agree with the comment from the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, that if you are able to vote, you should be able to stand. There is a really interesting case study related to that of the kind of tangles that electoral law can get itself into. Between 1918 and 1928, there were certain groups of women who could stand but not vote. The Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act 1918—with 27 words, it is the shortest law on the statute book—created a rather strange tangle where women were able to stand, and indeed some women did stand, when they could not vote for themselves. That really is an illustration of how you can get yourself into a mess when things are not properly thought through.

I have some very specific questions. I am aware that the Minister has kind of been landed with this, so I entirely understand if he might wish to write to me later. One of the things that perhaps many of us in your Lordships’ House do not think about very much is that there is another reason to be on the electoral roll beyond voting: being on the electoral roll is good for your credit rating and improves your access to credit. I will confess, it is something I have used many times on the doorstep to encourage people to go on the electoral roll. One of the things we will do with this current change is to make access to credit more difficult for some people, such as EU citizens who do not qualify for the vote. As we are seeing with all these complications, I wonder whether the Government have really looked at this situation and considered whether it is appropriate to allow that to continue when we are randomly taking that right away from people.

We have already heard very clearly laid out from a range of noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, all the complicating factors about whether you are allowed to be on the electoral roll or not. Are the Government confident that they have given full and clear instructions to all the local authorities in the land to ensure that they are able to implement this effectively? Are people on the roll rightly when they should be? With local elections coming up, I am sure all of us, except perhaps the Cross-Benchers, know people who are out now knocking on doors and talking to voters and potential voters. Is there a place where the Government have set this all out very clearly so political campaigners out encouraging people to get involved can find out who is eligible to vote and who is not? That would be a very useful practical resource to have.

This is something that has just occurred to me as we have been going through the debate: I imagine that to vote when you do not have the right to vote is an offence. Are the Government going to provide directions to acknowledge that some people, with the best will in the world and no ill intention, will end up voting in this coming and future elections when they do not have the right? I think people in that situation should be protected, given the complexities that we have all just heard outlined.

I will briefly make two other specific points. On an earlier group, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, I think, noted how Scotland has given refugees the right to vote. Given the situation that we see in a world with more and more refugees, and as we will, I hope, welcome more refugees here, I wonder whether the Government have considered that.

I declare my position as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong. Of course, BNO passport holders have the right to vote, but their children will not—so it could literally be that someone who was born in Hong Kong on a certain day has the right to vote, but a person born there one day later does not. So have the Government considered the situation of the children of BNO passport holders who have come here with their parents now? The Government have said that they are looking to allow, from September, the children of BNO passport holders to come on their own—so might that not be another group to consider?

Since I have just introduced several other layers of complexity, is not the obvious situation to base this right to vote on residence? If people have made themselves part of the community and contributed to it, that should be the basis of the right to vote.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 156 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. I too extend my best wishes to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord True, for a speedy recovery.

This amendment is specifically to do with Northern Ireland, and its basis rests on an interpretation of Article 2 of the Northern Ireland protocol to the withdrawal agreement. The ability to stand for election and vote of EU citizens who were resident at the end of the transition period—or the implementation period, as it was called—on 31 December 2020 is clearly preserved. There is no argument about that; it is set out and is the legal position. So we are talking here about EU citizens who arrived in the UK—or Northern Ireland—after that. I understand that this is a probing amendment, but it is worth pointing out that EU citizens who have arrived since 1 January 2021 will move to a position whereby voting and candidacy rights are granted where there is an agreement with the European Union member state that they came from—they are preserved on a bilateral basis. That is the normal accepted position.

There has been a reliance on an interpretation of Article 2 of the protocol, and a lot of claims are made, appealing to not just the letter but the spirit of the Northern Ireland protocol, with all sorts of extravagant positions that would otherwise not be deemed to be rational or even democratic. People talk about taxation with no representation, and laws are now made over vast swathes of the economy of Northern Ireland, despite no Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, for which elections will take place on 5 May, or of this or the other House being able to have any say or vote on them. People are running for election to the Assembly in Northern Ireland to make laws for Northern Ireland, yet, in vast swathes of the economy, they have no powers whatever—those laws are imposed on them by the European Union on a dynamic basis, in over 300 areas of law. In a modern 21st-century democracy, that raises severe problems about the democratic deficit.

I return to this particular amendment. Article 2 of the protocol confers no right on Northern Ireland citizens to have voting rights in an EU member state in which they choose to reside. Therefore, it would seem bizarre to argue that it confers rights on EU citizens to vote in Northern Ireland district elections—that seems totally incongruous and spurious, and it is a wrong-headed argument. For that reason, I would obviously oppose that amendment if it is pressed.