Draft Control of Mercury (Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Control of Mercury (Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. This affirmative statutory instrument introduces mechanisms to enforce the EU mercury regulation in Northern Ireland under the Windsor framework that maintains Northern Ireland’s dual market access to the EU single market and the UK internal market. The mercury regulation applies in a modified form in Northern Ireland, and before I set out the instrument’s purpose and scope in further detail I will provide some background to the arrangements that apply in Northern Ireland.
Dental amalgam is a dental filling material that is made up of a mixture of mercury and metal alloys, including silver, tin and copper. It is a stable and safe filling material that is widely used across the UK to fill cavities caused by tooth decay. Compared with alternative fillings, such as composite resin, dental amalgam fillings are typically cheaper and take less time to apply.
Last year, the EU introduced amendments to the UK mercury regulations that apply under the Windsor framework. Those 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. An immediate ban on dental amalgam would have led to longer dental treatment times in Northern Ireland, meaning fewer patients being treated. That could ultimately have worsened oral health outcomes in Northern Ireland, so the UK Government made representations to the EU on that issue.
Following scrutiny by Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the European Commission recognised Northern Ireland’s specific circumstances last year and set out bespoke arrangements for Northern Ireland. That means that Northern Ireland will have a much longer transition period until December 2034, or until an earlier phase-out date is agreed with the Minamata convention on mercury, an international treaty to which the UK and the EU are parties.
During that time, businesses and dentists in Northern Ireland may continue to import and use dental amalgam. Such treatment may be given only to UK residents and imports must be proportionate with use. The gradual phase-out of dental amalgam will allow more time to transition to alternative fillings. That will give dentists time to improve practice efficiency, gain experience with more complex fillings, adapt to emerging alternatives and support the training of dental professionals.
Let me say briefly that I know the Windsor framework and its operation are of immense interest to hon. Members, and I know that questions of democratic legitimacy and the effectiveness of the framework’s democratic scrutiny mechanisms are frequently considered and discussed. That discourse is often about whether and when mechanisms such as the Stormont brake should be used, but these bespoke arrangements illustrate the entire purpose and benefit of the Windsor framework.
In this case, we saw an issue that would pose particular difficulties for Northern Ireland. Members of the Legislative Assembly scrutinised the issue and voiced their concerns. The Government acted on those concerns and the EU Commission recognised them. The arrangements were then adapted accordingly. That pragmatic ability to work collegiately on a foundation of trust, partnership and credibility to identify and address problems lies at the heart of the Windsor framework.
The dental amalgam exemptions on use and import have applied in Northern Ireland since 1 January 2025, and the Northern Ireland authorities have taken the required steps to implement them, including by issuing further guidance and engaging with dentists. The purpose of the instrument is to further strengthen the enforcement measures that the Northern Ireland authorities can take on the ground to support the arrangements in Northern Ireland, including powers to enforce the prohibitions to export or manufacture dental amalgam; additional reporting requirements for dental amalgam importers; and restrictions on dental amalgam use for patients, as set out in the European Commission notice. The statutory instrument also implements the allowed exemptions to the import and use of dental amalgam while Northern Ireland gradually phases out its use.
More broadly, I recognise the concerns about mercury’s environmental impact. It is a highly toxic substance that can cause harm to human health and the environment if improperly managed. When dental amalgam is exposed to high temperatures, such as during cremation, the mercury it contains can enter the environment as a toxic gas if there are no mercury emission controls in place. I am happy to confirm that the crematoriums in Northern Ireland are fitted with control technologies to reduce mercury emissions. Under the environmental improvement plan, we are taking steps and further developing plans to reduce mercury emissions, including from crematoriums. As part of that, the Government will soon publish an updated process guidance note for crematoriums and the accompanying consultation response, which will include further guidance on emission abatement technologies in crematoriums.
In conclusion, the draft regulations are clear in their purpose of ensuring that Northern Ireland authorities have the power to enforce EU export and manufacturing prohibitions, reporting arrangements and exemptions on dental amalgam use and import, as set out in the European Commission notice. They will also mean that Northern Ireland continues to benefit from the exemptions on dental amalgam use and import, allowing for a longer transition period and equity of dental provision with the rest of the United Kingdom. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell.
The official Opposition recognise the need to keep our environment free from pollutants. We recognise that the use of mercury, and its impact on the environment, has increased in the industrialised age. It is right that we take steps to reduce mercury use where possible, and that we work with international partners to do so. However, it is crucial that we do so as a Parliament representing the whole of the United Kingdom.
Last year, the EU took further steps to continue the phase-out of mercury by significantly restricting the export, import and use of mercury for dental purposes. At the time, that created great concern in Northern Ireland, where dentistry practices said that they simply were not ready for mercury-free dentistry and the extra costs that the phase-out would create for the sector. The Government secured a derogation on dental amalgam for Northern Ireland that would end on 31 December 2034, or before that if dental amalgam was similarly phased out across Great Britain.
Do the Government believe that that decade-long window gives the Northern Ireland dentistry sector sufficient time to adapt to the regulations that will be baked in by this legislation? At a time when dentists in Northern Ireland are warning that they are already making a loss on routine procedures, what do the Government estimate the transition will cost? Do they have an understanding of the timeframe for the phase-out of mercury in dentistry practices UK-wide, and do they anticipate that the deadline will be before the EU derogation ends in Northern Ireland?
Although the derogation is welcome, do the Government recognise that there is an issue with the position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom, given the remaining influence of EU rules and regulations? What reassurances can the Minister give, in an age of dynamic alignment, that Northern Ireland will remain firmly under the authority of Stormont and Westminster, and not Brussels?
I note that an impact assessment has not been produced for the draft regulations, because, in the Government’s words, they consider that they will have no or very little impact on the business sector. However, given the concerns of the dentistry sector that I have raised, will the Minister outline why no impact assessment has been produced?
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell.
I am the former Northern Ireland Health Minister, and when the issue of moving away from dental amalgam kicked off, it was quite serious. It was raised by all political parties, the British Dental Association and its representatives in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and all sectors. We have heard about the use of amalgam in dentistry, but it is mostly used in our national health dentistry. While we were struggling, and are still struggling in the rest of the UK, to get NHS dentists, the inability to use amalgam for basic fillings would add an extraordinary cost to businesses. The shadow Minister asked and, if I recall it right, the charge at that point was in the region of £26 million.
With regard to the specifics, the draft statutory instrument includes only “mercury” in its title, but it focuses solely on amalgam. I ask the Minister, are there any other implications for the utilisation or import of other mercury products, or for other utilisations of mercury in other machineries, that might be affected by the SI?
Also, in the setting out of this, there were conversations about what the UK Government were able to achieve. EU Commission notice C/2024/4675 stated that the Commission permitted this regulation and the change that enabled Northern Ireland dentistry to continue to use dental amalgam, as stated, until 31 December 2034 or until the date agreed under the global Minamata convention, to which the UK is a signatory. I therefore seek input from the Minister on that. Should the convention move earlier than the agreed deadline of 31 December 2034, what steps have the Government put in place—working with the Departments of Health and of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland—to ensure that preparatory work is being done now?
Originally, the Northern Ireland Executive established a mercury working group, which was under the leadership of the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. I note that in the explanatory memorandum, under “Consultation”, the Government had consulted not only the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, but the Department of Health in Northern Ireland—they
“were consulted on the approach taken during the drafting of this instrument and were given the opportunity to propose amendments to the text.”
May I seek clarity from the Minister? Did they reply, and if so, what did they say? No reference to that is included.
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.
Jim Allister
Absolutely. We have seen that dozens upon dozens of times, with suppliers in all sorts of sectors simply saying that it is beyond their reach in terms of finance—it is too bureaucratic, they cannot afford it and they cannot afford the extra staff to do the paperwork. It could well be that suppliers, particularly since it has to come through the red lane—the full-throated Irish sea border—decide not to send it. If they do, then we are back to where we started: NHS dentistry would face collapse, because we cannot possibly afford the alternatives, according to the dentists.
The regulation is riddled with absurd inconsistencies. My own dentist has confirmed to me that this regulation says that, whereas he can put a dental amalgam filling in my mouth because I am a resident of the United Kingdom, if he treats somebody from the EU—that does happen along the border, where someone might live in the Republic of Ireland, but come to a Northern Ireland dentist—he cannot give them a dental amalgam filling. The thing is so absurd that it is unbelievable.
As parliamentarians, in the dignity that we should attach to our position, we should be very sceptical and very resistant to doing only what a foreign jurisdiction allows us to. We should be working towards the proper restoration of full and equal citizenship, so that this House makes the laws for all the people of the United Kingdom.
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?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I particularly pay tribute to our colleagues from Northern Ireland for coming and sharing their perspective on this and how it relates to the communities they represent. I will do my best to respond to the questions.
Affordable and accessible dental care is important to many of us, so it is no surprise that we have had such an interesting discussion covering many points. Not all will be directly related to the statutory instrument, but that does not mean it is not important that we cover them. I will try my best to run through many of the questions raised today.
On the proposed updates to regulations and what action we are taking, the United Kingdom will lay legislation this year to prohibit the import, export and manufacture in Great Britain of a number of products, including those containing additionally added mercury. We are already, as the United Kingdom Government, looking to reduce mercury use across the whole of the United Kingdom. These products will be phased out in Northern Ireland by the EU mercury regulations. The legislation will prohibit several mercury-containing products, including fluorescent lamps, photographic film and paper, and propellant for satellites and spacecraft. This contributes to our goal of protecting human health and the environment from the harmful effects of mercury. That offers some reassurance that the Government are looking at mercury across the whole of the United Kingdom.
We are currently working to assess the future use of dental amalgam across the UK ahead of the Minamata convention. We have engaged with Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, ready for discussions at the Minamata convention’s conference of the parties next month to look at what we are doing as a country. On the assessment of how this will impact Northern Ireland over time, Northern Ireland’s Department of Health will consistently monitor and evaluate the provision of both amalgam and non-amalgam fillings, along with regular consultation with professional dental organisations to obtain feedback on any issues that might come up. In addition, the national plan for phasing out dental amalgam, which will be developed to support a smooth transition, will provide important information as we proceed.
On Northern Ireland’s involvement in preparing for Minamata, Northern Ireland is having conversations, along with the Scottish and Welsh Governments. In response to the question from the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, stakeholders like the British Dental Association referred to being able to phase out dental amalgam in evidence given to the Northern Ireland Assembly, which was considered when working with the Northern Ireland Departments. The specific arrangements for Northern Ireland allow for its continued use and import until 2034. This date will be brought forward if parties to the Minamata convention agree to an earlier phase-out date. The UK, along with the EU, is a signatory to the convention and we would be bound by that decision.
There was an investigation by the Democratic Scrutiny Committee at the Northern Ireland Assembly, and the Windsor framework set out to address the democratic deficit challenges in Northern Ireland by establishing democratic safeguards, including the Stormont brake. Following the work of the Northern Ireland Assembly, we made representations to the EU, which made the changes to the mercury rules for dental amalgam. As far as I am aware—I have asked officials to check—there is no manufacturer of amalgam in Northern Ireland, so that should not have an impact. On the Windsor framework more broadly, we work constructively with all stakeholders—the EU, the Northern Ireland Executive, political parties, businesses and civil society in Northern Ireland—to achieve these aims.
As we consider the instrument before us, it is clear that our approach must balance regulatory compliance, environmental responsibility and the practical realities across the United Kingdom. Our actions are guided not only by domestic priorities but by our international commitments under the Minamata convention and the evolving expectations of our global partners. As further discussions occur at international level, the UK will continue to play a constructive role grounded in evidence and a shared commitment to progress. I thank all Members for their contributions.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Control of Mercury (Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.