Control of Mercury (Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Debate between Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and Lord Morrow

Thursday 30th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)]

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.

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

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.

Under the Commission notice, from 1 July 2026 it will be illegal to produce amalgam in Northern Ireland and it will have to come from Great Britain. This introduces two compulsions. First, in order to have amalgam, Northern Ireland must buy it from GB because it is not allowed to be produced in Northern Ireland. Secondly, its movement from Great Britain to Northern Ireland is subject to the imposition of an international customs border, cutting the United Kingdom in two. This means that, from July 2026, it will only be possible to take amalgam across the red lane as if moving it to a foreign country.

In a context where the number of traders selling goods from GB to Northern Ireland is falling all the time because of the cost of having to negotiate the border, what certainty do we have that anyone in GB will be ready to sell dental amalgam to Northern Ireland from July 2026 until December 2034? While UK citizens living in England, Wales and Scotland will be protected from this uncertainty, apparently it is fine not to afford the same protection to UK citizens in Northern Ireland.

We must confront the fact that the regulations before us today rest on a very uncertain foundation. The fundamental problem is that, when interpreting the relevant EU law to which these regulations seek to relate, the European Court of Justice will have to confine its interpretation to the law. It will have to ask what EU Regulation 2024/1849 means in relation to Northern Ireland and not what the EU Commission notice means, because, rather than being the law, the latter is simply the Commission’s rather extraordinary interpretation of EU Regulation 2024/1849.

In her response, the Minister might be tempted to say that there are other examples of Commission notices performing the same kinds of feats as that which underpins the regulations before us today. I can locate only two, both of which come with the heading “DISCLAIMER” and seek to interpret the relevant legislation to the point of changing its effective meaning. Interestingly, they both relate to the Irish Sea border and attempts to interpret one’s way out of earlier problems. One relates to human medicines and the other to veterinary medicines.

Finally, could the Minister explain why it is acceptable to bring legislation to your Lordships’ House that does the following? First, it testifies the disfranchisement of the people of Northern Ireland in relation to key aspects of the NHS; secondly, it further alienates us from the rest of the United Kingdom through the imposition of a dental amalgam sea border from July 2026; thirdly, it presents all this on a legal foundation that relates not to EU law but to an interpretation of it that bears no relation to the actual legislation, and which could be struck down by the European Court of Justice at any time; and, fourthly, it acquiesces with the unconstitutional practice of, in effect, using the Executive to suspend laws made by this legislature.

Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of duration of non-jury trial provisions) Order 2017

Debate between Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and Lord Morrow

Tuesday 18th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords, I, too, commend the Minister for his clarity on this issue. I would like to state clearly that, as far as my party, the DUP, is concerned, we have consistently argued that in any case where there is a significant risk of jury intimidation or a risk of perverse verdicts, it should be heard by a non-jury trial. Equally, offences motivated or aggravated by sectarianism, and crimes involving paramilitary and serious organised crime, including quasi-paramilitary organisations, should also be heard by a judge alone.

There is no doubt that, over the past 30 years and in extremely difficult circumstances, the Diplock court system served Northern Ireland quite well. It helped prevent jury intimidation and avoided perverse verdicts. I hasten to add that it may also have saved lives. Much of the credit must go to the judges who operated the system. They are to be commended and I do so wholeheartedly this evening.

This may be an imperfect way of administering justice, but it is the most satisfactory in the circumstances that prevail in Northern Ireland. My colleagues and I support the Government’s order. We also look forward to the hasty return of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I wish also to clarify to the House that my party, with the biggest mandate in Northern Ireland, is ready to return to the Assembly tomorrow—without any preconditions, without any ifs, ands or buts. We cannot see any reason why the Northern Ireland Assembly is not up and functioning and delivering for the people of Northern Ireland.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate on this statutory instrument and thank them for their universal but reluctant support for it—I think that the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, summed it up both responsibly and correctly when he talked of the reluctance with which the decision was taken, but said that it was a very necessary decision. I also thank him for the bipartisan approach that has characterised the approach of government and opposition parties on the important issues that confront Northern Ireland. As I have indicated, it is a small number of cases that confront us where a non-jury trial is necessary—it is currently 0.5% of cases—but in my view it is nevertheless the correct approach.

I also thank other noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord Alderdice, Lord Browne of Belmont, Lord Bew and Lord Morrow, and my noble friend Lord Bridgeman —for their support. Perhaps I may deal first with points that have been made across the piece on the return of the power-sharing Executive and then return to some specific issues quite correctly raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, and echoed by others.

The return of the power-sharing Executive is absolutely necessary. I find that everybody seems to want it to happen, everyone is willing it to happen, but the two principal parties have not yet gone the final mile necessary. This may be due to a lack of personal chemistry among the leaders. We have seen in the past how the chemistry that has existed between the leaders of the two largest parties has helped them go that extra mile—we saw it with the “Chuckle Brothers” in the early days and then with Peter Robinson—but we have not yet seen it with the “Chuckle Sisters”. I hope that there will be some reflection over the summer and that we will be able to go that extra mile to get to where we need to be. I thank noble Lords for their support in that connection.

I also thank noble Lords for acknowledging that we are doing this reluctantly and keeping it under review. David Seymour, who is doing the independent review of the legislation, will incorporate this into the report so that we are able as soon as possible to end this practice, which I think we all accept is necessary but undesirable.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, once again for his support. He raised a couple of specific issues. The first was the deficiencies of the criminal justice system and the need to increase public confidence. We will respond to that report in due course, but I recognise the need that he reflected there. The second issue that the noble Lord raised, quite correctly, was the importance of confronting paramilitary activity. The noble Lord is aware more than most of the need to tackle that. I thank him for the role that he has played in producing the invaluable report on the way forward.

Noble Lords will be aware—as the noble Lord indicated—that the Executive agreed an action plan for tackling paramilitary activity, criminality and organised crime in July last year. Since the publication of the action plan, work has been progressing to implement those commitments. To date, £9.1 million has been allocated across more than 15 projects, including the establishment of a paramilitaries task force led by the PSNI, which will have support from the NCA and HMRC, to tackle the criminality linked to paramilitaries. I can assure the House that the current situation, with the absence of an Executive at Stormont, has therefore not completely halted this important work; progress continues to be made to push it forward. As the noble Lord will be aware, the fresh start agreement has led to the creation of the Independent Reporting Commission, which will report on progress towards ending paramilitary activity.

That said, there are of course limitations to what can be progressed in the absence of Ministers, in this area as in so many others, and certain issues, including any legislative changes, will not be able to be moved forward until Ministers are in place to take such decisions. That is one more important reason why we need that power-sharing Executive to move things forward in Northern Ireland.

Of course, we will keep matters under review—let us see how they progress over the summer—but it is clear that some important measures will need to be taken if we do not reach a situation where we have a return to a power-sharing Executive. This is just one more of those. So I undertake to keep the House informed as to how we are progressing things should we be in the unhappy position of not having a power-sharing Executive when we come back after the conference season. In the meantime, I again thank noble Lords for their support of this statutory instrument and commend it to the House.