Draft Control of Mercury (Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 General Committees

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. We are all supposed to be part of the United Kingdom, and with that comes the supposed assurance of equal citizenship. The greatest manifestation of equal citizenship for parliamentarians is that we make the laws that govern our citizens, and yet that is the first glaring thing about this proposition. We are being asked to approve a situation that is under the control of not this Parliament, not the devolved Assembly, but a foreign Parliament, namely the European Parliament, because it is its 2017 regulation, updated in 2024, that bans mercury in dental amalgam.

As a result of the Windsor framework, which the Opposition party delivered to us, we have this situation where Northern Ireland, without consent, without being asked, is subject to the making of laws in 300 areas of which this is one—not to the laws of this Parliament or of Stormont, but to the laws of a foreign jurisdiction, that of the European Parliament. That is why we are subject to the mercury laws of the European Parliament.

The genesis of this proposition is important to understanding the resentment that it causes for me and my constituents. Yes, it is correct that if the original ban date of 2026 had been adhered to, according to the British Dental Association, NHS dentistry in Northern Ireland would have collapsed, because dental amalgam with mercury is the cheapest and quickest form of filling. For a dental practice that is literally already struggling to survive, the consequence of removing the cheapest form of filling, and imposing the most expensive and the one that takes longer to do, is that we will push it under. That was why the BDA said that that would cause the end of NHS dentistry.

We are then expected, on foot of that, to be appreciative that our foreign colonial masters have deigned to give us another few years of affordable dentistry, by awarding us with the concession to 2034. The regulation before us today is on foot of the grace and favour of the EU. It is not because of this House—this House has surrendered the power to make this regulation of its own volition. It is because of the grace and favour of the EU in allowing us this concession, that we then have dressed up a statutory instrument to give authority to what they have allowed us to do.

Think for a moment as a parliamentarian how insulting it is—to my role, to the Minister’s role and to our citizens—that we are only allowed to make a regulation courtesy of the grace and favour of the EU. And yet that is the basis of the regulation. It comes about because the EU issued what it calls a Commission notice. A Commission notice has no legal standing. That is clear when one reads the Commission notice: it starts with a disclaimer that says there is no legal authority, because the legal authority lies with the European Court of Justice. The ECJ could step in and say, “You can’t do this.” Subject to that, it has issued a Commission notice to allow this extension.

The Commission notice contains some other interesting and compelling things. For example, it says that Northern Ireland can continue to produce dental amalgam, but only until the end of next June, and then it is banned from being produced. That Commission notice also says that from then on we have to import it from GB, but through the EU’s full international customs border established in the Irish sea. It says expressly that it is category 1, and it cannot come through the green lane—or the now misnamed internal market lane; it has to come through the red lane.

Under this concessionary Commission notice that we are meant to be so grateful for, the EU is saying that the dental amalgam that we need we cannot produce ourselves; we can only import it from GB, and if we do, we can only import it through the full-throated international customs border that is the Irish sea border. As a citizen, and as a representative of those who I should be making the laws for, I am meant to be grateful for that concession. They could not make it more difficult in terms of bringing it in from GB if they tried.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that given the experience in Northern Ireland of goods that have to go through the process that he has just described, many suppliers simply decide that Northern Ireland is not worth supplying to? So, even though the concession might be there that we can still import it—but we have got to import it through these restrictions—it might well be that suppliers are reluctant to come to Northern Ireland, either making it more difficult or more expensive to get the product.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. First, I welcome the derogation, as do dentists right across Northern Ireland. My own dentist raised the issue with me, greatly concerned, pointing out the impact that it would have on his business and the cost of doing fillings. In my constituency, it is impossible to get a national health service dentist, because the margins simply do not make it worthwhile. The additional cost that this regulation would have imposed in such a short time would have driven even private dentists out of business. When newspapers first reported on the regulation, dentists were in a state of shock about the impact it would have on them.

The big issue is that, as was pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim, the derogation does not deal with the problem. What has happened with dentistry today will happen with some other industry tomorrow. It depends on how focused a particular Minister happens to be, how effective a lobby is or how excited people get about the issue whether, first, it is even raised with the EU, and secondly, the EU decides to respond. The big worry for people in Northern Ireland is that, the more cases like this occur, the more tired the EU is going to get. They could say, “Well, we’re not listening to you. Although it will have an impact on the small sector you are talking about, it will not have much of an impact on the whole of the Northern Ireland economy, so it is therefore not worth dealing with.” It really depends on how successful Ministers from the United Kingdom are in presenting the case, and how receptive the EU is in dealing with the individual case. That is why this sticking-plaster solution is not the answer to the issues presented by the protocol and the Windsor framework.

This is only a stay of execution, as it gives 10 years. I noticed that the Minister said that it gives dentists time to adapt. That is quite right, but to adapt to what? It gives them time to adapt to a higher-cost solution for giving people fillings—an adaptation that, probably for very good reasons in limiting cost to the national health service, we are not asking dentists to make in other parts of the United Kingdom. Only Northern Ireland dentists will be required to adapt to this higher-cost solution. The dental profession, and indeed our own Government, have decided that fillings that contain mercury are safe. They have been tried and tested, and the method has been given approval. The fact that there is 10 years to adapt does not really deal with the issue—that is, that it will become more costly as a health service provision in Northern Ireland.

Lastly, I want to deal with what we actually have in this statutory instrument. I raised in my intervention the fact that the amalgams cannot be produced in Northern Ireland any longer. That is a real problem. People can dismiss this, but as Northern Ireland representatives we get representations from traders and businesses on a weekly basis, about suppliers that they have had for years who refuse to supply to Northern Ireland now because of the costs, the bureaucracy and the uncertainty of supplying to Northern Ireland. If it is a small part of their market, they simply take the view that if they spend a bit more on GB market advertising, they do not need to worry about Northern Ireland.

I do not know how enforceable it is that dentists now have to find out where you live before filling your mouth with mercury fillings. Given the Government’s opposition to any kind of hard border on the island of Ireland, I do not know how you will enforce things. Are the guards going to stand by the road when you are coming across and ask to look in your mouth to see what your fillings are like?

[The Chair]

Order. Mr Wilson, I think you know that when you say “you” and “your”, you are referring to me.

[Sammy Wilson]

I was referring to “you” as members of the public rather than members of this Committee.

Some of these provisions are unenforceable, but the important thing is this: is the current arrangement acceptable? Let us leave aside whether it is unenforceable. Is it acceptable that in this House we should say to dentists, “We have got you a special concession for 10 years. It is partial in so far as you still cannot get the amalgam made in Northern Ireland, and you have to be careful who you give them to when you do give people fillings.” Leave all that aside. Is it acceptable that we will now have two different forms of treatment, eventually, in the United Kingdom—one that is acceptable for the population in Great Britain that is cheaper and quicker, and one that will be more expensive and take longer to apply, in Northern Ireland—all because two different sets of laws apply in different parts of the United Kingdom?