Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, first, I ought to say how I approach this debate. I had not intended to speak. The issue—passionate though people feel about it on both sides of the argument—is one that I hope I have always approached with an open mind. Abortion is a terrible thing in contemplation for anybody concerned, but it is a practical necessity for some. That is something that I have always felt strongly about.

One of the things that we could have been confused about in hearing the debate today is that the police are investigating every stillbirth and every miscarriage, which is not the case. If the death takes place or the child’s life is lost in a medical setting, usually the police are never involved. The time when the police become involved is either when there is a medical referral because there is a concern by medics or, alternatively, when there is an emergency at home or somewhere else.

I mention this because we have to be realistic, whatever the decisions made about Clause 191, about how the police respond. There are some ways the police response could be improved, but we have to give some understanding to the officers who deal with these emergencies, say, in a home or at a place of work. It could be a public toilet, or it could be that something is discovered in the middle of a field. At the beginning, the officers do not know whether they are dealing with a baby, a late-term foetus or a child who might have taken a breath or not; they have a very confused situation, and they cannot just walk away from it.

My first point is that there has to be some sensitivity. At a far earlier stage in the debate, I think the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, raised sudden death syndrome for babies. The police have got far better at dealing with that sort of situation, because 30 years ago we did not know that sudden death syndrome happened. Now we do, so it is dealt with in a different way from how it was 20 or 30 years ago.

The bottom line is that there is a requirement to freeze the scene in terms of evidence, because it is no good two or three weeks after the event when a judge, a coroner or someone turns around and says, “Well, you must have seen this at the scene and gained the evidence”, and they say, “Well, actually we did not seize it; we did not freeze it”. There is a difference between starting an investigation and freezing the scene and making sure you have as much evidence as is available, without too much intrusion, at that first point.

It is really important to be clear about this. If we set off and say that Clause 191 will come into effect and there will certainly not be a criminal investigation into the mother, that does not stop the need to collect evidence right at the beginning, when no one is sure. I think we have to be a little realistic about this.

On improving the police investigation process, there are two things that would be really helpful. Number one is that a senior detective with some experience attends the scene as soon as possible—I would say within an hour—to see what they are dealing with, so that if there is evidence to be seized, it is done sensitively and the family are protected as much as possible. Probably as importantly, unless there is an immediate need to start an investigation—for example, we could imagine that there might be injury to a child or a foetus that is not possible to explain by what appears to have happened to it medically, for example a knife or something else—you need to consider that set of circumstances. But generally, within a period of time—let us say 48 hours—the police must seek medical advice about how this child or foetus died and what, if anything, should happen thereafter. That starts to create a process that we could all objectively rely on.

My second point is that there has been a little confusion about the fact that, if the woman is coerced, Clause 191 does not mean that the coercer is innocent. It has nothing to do with that at all. It is only about the mother, if it is decided that that should go ahead.

I would like to make two final points. I just want to sit here and learn, but one thing I have not heard addressed in the debate—the problem, it seems to me—is that there are some women who, at 24 weeks and onward, need help. Whether the state says they can have an abortion or not, they might take that decision. Where do they go? We all agree that a back street abortionist is not a good idea. They cannot go to a medical professional, who would then be complicit in providing the abortion, perhaps, that they cannot legally have. If they end up with these online tablets designed for those under 10 weeks, that is not a good outcome. But I am not sure that what the state says—what we say—will help them in that terrible dilemma, because the need that they feel to have that abortion beyond 24 weeks has not gone away. If we abandon them to that decision alone, I do not think we help anyone. I would like to understand this myself, regardless of the decision about Clause 191: how do women in this position get some help?

With an open mind, there were three points that I do not think we have yet clarified. One thing that I was really interested to hear was that the pills designed for under 10 weeks are available online for people beyond that, and it seems as though that is not a good idea. They are designed for people under 10 weeks because that is when they work best. At 24 weeks and beyond they sound like an awful option—but what if they are your only option? How are we going to deal with control of those pills? I do not understand, from Clause 191 or the existing law, what we intend to do about that.

The second point, from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, was that there is this fundamental dilemma: the woman has not committed a criminal offence, but the people who enable her to do this act do commit an offence. I am not a lawyer, but that sounds like a contradiction. I think there has to be some explanation of how that gets remedied.

On the final point that was raised, I am not sure about the answers. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, did not think it relevant, but the point about sex determination as a reason for abortion seems to me a real risk. I do not know whether Clause 191 makes it more or less likely to happen, but it is a risk and nobody should allow that. It happens now, potentially, but if Clause 191 makes it more likely, what is the mitigation of that risk? I have not heard it. That needs to be addressed if Clauses 191 is to remain.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, for the benefit of the absent noble Lord, Lord Russell, I will attempt to speak in a paperless fashion, which means that if I engage in verbal streams of consciousness I hope that the Committee will forgive me. There is a range of amendments in this group, many of which I support, a number of which I have sympathy with and a few that I oppose. That is perhaps natural, given the fact that a number of amendments in this group pull in completely opposite directions.

Of the amendments that I support, I draw particular attention to Amendment 460, which would require that before an abortion could take place there is at least a clinical appointment, that guidance is given and that it is done through that route. Noble Lords have come up with a range of solutions to what we all appreciate is a sensitive situation and have tried to square the circle. The evidence from prosecutions that have taken place, and where there have been convictions, is that in almost every case there has been an absence of clinical support and someone has, in effect, gone on a form of solo run. Albeit that it may well have been in very difficult circumstances and taken with a heavy heart, nevertheless that is the route down which they have gone.

In the limited time available, I will concentrate on supporting the Clause 191 stand part notice from the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, because, with respect to those who drafted Clause 191, it is somewhat disingenuous, radical in its implications and dangerous, particularly for women. Let me explain why.

Mention has been made that it does not legally change the time limits. In a strict legal sense, that is true, but it does turn those time limits into a façade. If you have a situation in which an act that remains illegal can be carried out but the person who carries it out is immune and protected from prosecution in all circumstances—in blanket circumstances—you have a law that is utterly ineffective. It is the equivalent of saying that we will retain speed limits on motorways but anyone found driving on a motorway beyond that speed limit will not be prosecuted. It is somewhat disingenuous. A more honest approach would have been an amendment that simply said, “We want to move the time limit to the point of birth”. That is, in effect, what Clause 191 does, but the changes that it makes are disguised as the mirage that has been put in front of us.

This is a radical change. Within this Committee and society as a whole, there is a wide spectrum of views on the issue of abortion. Some, and I am one, would take a much more restrictive approach towards abortion and feel that with our current laws the balance is wrong. Others take a much more liberal or permissive view. The settled compromise between those positions is to say that, at present, the determining line between what is legal and what is not is whether a child can be born and viable at the point of birth. The point has been made that that line has shifted from 28 weeks to 24 weeks. There is a good argument that it should come down a little bit more. But Clause 191 will, in effect, shift the ground in some cases to a situation in which that abortion can take place up until the day of birth. That is a radical step that is out of sync with public feeling.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

My Lords, we have all received briefings on this clause, telling us that, unamended, it would allow abortion up to birth. I will address that in two ways. First, Clause 191 does not fully decriminalise abortion or alter the legal time limits. The legal framework remains for medical staff, which the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, set out very clearly. It has the advantage of stopping women facing investigation after miscarriage or a stillbirth, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, set out, but it would also ensure that the very small number of women who have ended their own pregnancies outside the law receive healthcare, mental health support and referral to appropriate support services rather than facing year-long police investigations. That is what Clause 191 sets out to do.

Secondly, I understand that some are concerned that this change in the law may increase later-term abortions. Clearly, later-term abortions have higher rates of complications than abortions at earlier gestation, but that still remains relatively low. We can, however, look at evidence from other jurisdictions. Although the noble Lord, Lord Weir, is right to point out that there are lots of different gestation limits across Europe, bringing women into the decriminalisation zone would bring us in line with 50 other jurisdictions, including France, New Zealand, Australia and the whole of the United States, where no women can be prosecuted for having her own abortion.

Evidence from these other jurisdictions shows that abortion law does not affect the likelihood of later-term abortions, and decriminalising abortion does not cause or correlate with any increase in third-trimester abortions. That is confirmed by the WHO and robust global evidence from countries including Canada, New Zealand and Northern Ireland, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, pointed out.

Looking at those in a little more detail—I am aware that it is late—in Canada, abortion was completely decriminalised in 1988. It is regulated as a health service with no criminal law or gestational limits, which goes much further that Clause 191 does. Over decades, data shows a stable pattern of early abortion and no increase in later abortion, despite that complete decriminalisation. In Northern Ireland, where abortion was decriminalised in 2019, almost nine in 10 abortions happened before 10 weeks, and there have been no reported cases of women ending their pregnancy at late gestations outside of medical frameworks.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

I appreciate the point the noble Baroness is making, but would she accept that the telemedicine is illegal in Northern Ireland? Pills by post is not an option, so the only route that any woman in Northern Ireland can use is the clinical route and within the timeframe. It is pretty obvious why there have not been any prosecutions; it is because there has not been a situation arising out of that.

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

It is not the prosecutions that I am referring to, it is the cases themselves. I absolutely acknowledge that telemedicine is not available through medical services in Northern Ireland, but the pills are available illegally online and people are purchasing them. However, because women are decriminalised, they are never prosecuted for taking them.

The proportion of abortion procedures carried out before nine weeks’ gestation has increased in most countries with more liberal abortion laws. As explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, that is why this change is so strongly supported by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of General Practitioners, and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and many other health experts. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that the meeting with these experts was really helpful. Perhaps we could do another one of those before Report so that noble Lords who have further medical questions can ask them.

Amendments 455, 456, 456B, 456C and 461F would retain the criminalisation of women in relation to abortion law, and women would still face arrest, investigation and prosecution under the law. I very much appreciate the efforts to find some compromise in Amendments 456 and 456C, and it is important to discuss whether this is possible. However, the harm that Clause 191 seeks to address would remain if those amendments were to be included in the Bill, as investigations would still be ongoing and we would still see women being pulled into the criminal justice system, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, set out.

I will briefly touch on vulnerable women. It is important to consider how this clause and the amendments would impact those women, who could be in a situation of abuse or coercion. Noble Lords have rightly raised concerns around this. Importantly, non-consensual abortion would remain a crime under Clause 191, including in the terrible case that the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, referred to.

Experts in this area have been really clear that the clause will be beneficial to women in this situation. The threat of criminal sanctioning can dissuade women from seeking help or even telling anybody what has happened to them. That is why it is supported by so many violence against women and girls groups, including the End Violence Against Women Coalition, Refuge, Rape Crisis, Karma Nirvana and many more. These groups came and did a very helpful briefing to noble Lords; perhaps we could replicate that again before Report. I understand noble Lords’ concern around coercion, but we should listen carefully to the experts in this area.

I will address telemedicine and Amendment 460, which would repeal its provision. Like other noble Lords, I was here for the legislation on its introduction, and I will present what has happened since. A large national cohort study undertaken in England and Wales published in the International Journal of Gynaecology & Obstetrics found that telemedical abortion is

“safe, effective and improves care”,

and is preferred by women. Full telemedicine is now essential for abortion provision and is being used by over 100,000 women every year in England and Wales. It has meant that once a woman decides she wants an abortion, she is able to access it more quickly and, therefore, more safely. Since the introduction of telemedicine, as the noble Baroness said, we have seen the average gestation at treatment for abortion falling substantially, with more than half of all abortions now taking place before seven weeks’ gestation. As we know, it is much safer to have an abortion as early as possible.

Telemedicine also provides a safe and confidential way for women in abusive and controlling relationships to receive abortion care. Safeguarding is an essential part of abortion care provision. Any patient that causes professional concern is provided with a full safeguarding assessment, and pre- and post-abortion support and counselling is available to all patients. Abortion providers are regulated by the Care Quality Commission, NHS England commissioners and the Department of Health and Social Care, which all have regulatory oversight.

I will address the medical complications point, which a number of noble Lords have raised. There have been 54,000 complications to medical abortion over the past five years, but that covers all gestations for all forms of medical abortion—in clinic, at home, telemedical or in person, scan or no scan, and at any gestation. Those complications are not reflective of pre 10-week medical abortion and are not exclusive to telemedical abortion care. No information has been included before 2021, when telemedicine was launched, so there is no analysis to see what has happened since then.

This also looks at the basic numbers of complications rather than rate, so it is an incomplete picture. As noble Lords have mentioned, over 1 million abortions have taken place in that five-year period. The number of abortions has gone up, which means the number of medical abortions has gone up. Therefore, sadly, the number of complications has gone up. But rather than looking just at the total figures, when you look at the rates shown by the latest abortion statistics and the hospital episode statistics, the rate of complications for medical abortion has fallen by 25% since telemedicine was introduced. That is why telemedicine is supported so strongly by medical professionals. Put simply, it is better care for women.

Telemedicine is a choice for clinically eligible women, not a requirement. A woman can always choose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, has been around this circuit before, I think on a Private Member’s Bill proposed by one of his noble friends, about collecting the statistics. It shows that he does not actually seem to have checked what statistics are already collected before deciding that these things need to be done. I thought that it might be useful for the Committee to know that the annual abortion statistics already include the ethnicity of the woman and medical complications as part of the treatment. The noble Lord will also be aware that it is incredibly rare that the sex of the foetus is known, because the vast majority of abortions are carried out or happen before 10 or 12 weeks—so that is simply not known or collectable.

Complications from abortion care are extremely rare and are already reported. Abortion care providers are regulated and scrutinised through long-established accountability mechanisms, including published safe- guarding reports and Care Quality Commission inspections. These are on the public record; I am not sure why the noble Lord has decided that these things are not. Doctors are already legally required to provide information about abortions to the Chief Medical Officer, including gestation complications and grounds for an abortion.

The noble Lord is bringing forward amendments that would cause a huge amount of bureaucracy and might risk leaving medical professionals permanently unsure of the status of abortion law. I am sure that we would wish to avoid that happening. I shall be very interested to hear from my noble friend the Minister what the Government have to say about the implications of all these amendments.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. We live in what a lot of us would describe as a post-truth world, in which facts are often passed off as opinions or, worse, that terrible phrase “fake news”. Sometimes opinions are passed off as being completely truthful facts, and sometimes we have misinformation going around the globe that comes not simply from conspiracy theorists on the internet but, sadly, sometimes from world leaders.

Given that context, it is important that when this House resolves on any legislation, looking into the future, that it should be on the basis of evidence, truth and facts. That is particularly true when it comes to abortion. It is an issue, irrespective of your views on it, which is deeply sensitive, and on which raw emotions are often provoked. To some extent we saw that earlier when, at times, the atmosphere of the Committee got a little bit tense. People have genuinely conflicting views on this, so the more we can try to base this on evidence, the better.

That is particularly true for the proposed changes that are being made in Clause 191, for two main reasons. First, although there has been some mention that this has been in the ether for a number of years, the specifics of this legislation came about by way of a Back-Bench amendment to a different piece of legislation, with a limited amount of debate on it. It was not part of a government programme or manifesto commitment. Any Back-Bench Member is perfectly entitled to bring forward an amendment; that is the normal procedure. The downside of that is that there has not been a direct level of consultation on this specific proposal.

Secondly, despite what has been said, there are some concerns about the quality of the data that we have on a range of issues. I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness said, and it seemed that she was putting forward two somewhat contradictory positions. You can either make the argument that all this data is already there and already gathered, and therefore these amendments are unnecessary, or, alternatively, you can make the argument that this would involve so much gathering of data that it would be a bureaucratic nightmare. You can argue either of those propositions, but the two are somewhat mutually exclusive in that regard. It strikes me that when we take decisions on this, it is important to get the data.

It has been highlighted—I think it was mentioned in a Private Member’s Bill that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, proposed—that there are sometimes concerns over the quality of the data. Perhaps not unsurprisingly—it is not unique to this particular debate—we have heard different people on different sides of this argument quote sometimes contradictory data as to where we are.

It strikes me that there are one or two solutions to these problems, neither of which is mutually exclusive. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, in the next group of amendments, proposes, apart from anything else, that we pause things until there is a proper consultation period. These amendments then look towards the idea of producing data and a report, and gathering evidence so that there can be a review of the procedures and how things work out. They highlight the range of issues that formed a number of the concerns in the previous debate. These are issues around the level of coercion, the medical complications that arise as a result of changes, whether it leads to a driver on sex selection, and, as mentioned, the incidence of late abortion, which then leads to a live birth. This range of issues highlights a lot of the concerns that were raised in the last group.

I appreciate that we have had this debate today, and that the proponents of Clause 191 will say that the concerns that have been raised—although I am sure they will accept they are genuine—are, in their view, misplaced or perhaps exaggerated, and that we have nothing to fear from Clause 191. Various incidents of what has happened in other parts of the world have been quoted. It is important, therefore, that we test that out. These amendments would gather that data and allow us to assess that. If we are dealing with false fears then, for the proponents of Clause 191, this will strengthen their argument in a year or two years’ time, whenever these things are reviewed. If the fears are genuine and are realised, however, then it is important, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, says, that if we gather evidence, it is not some sort of desktop exercise where we simply look at figures. If we gather evidence then it should be on the basis of having the opportunity, if it shows that there are increased dangers, for instance, to women or concerns over any other categories, to take a level of corrective action. That seems a very sensible course of action. I do not think there is anything that anybody should have to fear in these amendments, so I commend them to the Committee.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, and what he said sounds eminently sensible, but the problem is this: the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has set out the level of detail that is already gathered. The noble Lord, among other Members of your Lordships’ House, have gone on all day about telemedicine and coercion, yet when the royal colleges set up the evaluation of telemedicine, when it came in during Covid, they took particular care to examine issues such as that. They came up with data that showed that telemedicine was safe. Actually, it not only discovered women who were being coerced; it discovered women who were being trafficked. Yet Members of your Lordships’ House still trot out the same argument time and again. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, and the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and I am afraid I rather think that it does not matter what data we collect: they will make the same arguments over and again.

My noble friend Lady Brinton cannot be here this evening, but she particularly wanted to say this: the detail of these amendments is designed to confuse and delay the safe and effective legal rules of abortion. They would also take abortion out of the clinical sphere, trying to exceptionalise it and create an environment so hostile that it would deter women and, equally important, clinicians and medical staff, as the rules become more and more complex; and it would also be at the whim of the Secretary of State to amend details or to report at various times. It is a worrying idea to use secondary legislation to make everything more complex, because it gives Ministers the powers to change things and causes confusion and distress.

Your Lordships will know that, after the overturning of Roe v Wade in the USA, abortion became a state matter—a very key objective of the anti-abortionists. That meant that all the gathering of data became a matter not just for individual states, but individual counties within states. In one county in West Virginia, a prosecutor decided that, as abortion was now illegal, women had to provide evidence of a miscarriage: in other words, physical foetal remains, no matter at what stage that miscarriage happened. Fortunately, there were other people who saw that for the inhumanity that it was, but that is what he wanted to do. The outrage—

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

I have listened to what has been said. Initially, I was not quite clear whether it was an intervention or not, but I appreciate that it is actually a speech. I think comparisons with America are somewhat facile, because if we were gathering data, it would be on an NHS-wide basis in that regard. The idea of anybody, as you would have in the United States—where an individual county will take a particular view—imposing different decisions or requiring different things is not something that could happen in this country. By all means, criticise the amendments and try to take them apart, but let us not make false comparisons based upon the very different federal system they have in the United States compared with what happens here.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

I do not think that it is a false comparison. What we are saying is that, instead of having a system that is democratically decided openly and in Parliament, we will leave it to regulation and officials. I think that is wrong.

The other thing that my noble friend Lady Brinton wanted to say relates to proposed new subsection (3) in Amendment 457. Imagine a woman who is, in the words of the amendment,

“acting in relation to their own pregnancy”,

having to identify and report medical complications. What does that mean? I do not think that that is intended to make it any easier for a woman in need to access the care she needs. I think it is intended to frustrate and, therefore, I hope that these amendments will not be passed.

Control of Mercury (Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her statement, which filled out very carefully the exact situation that we now face with amalgam fillings in a useful and important way. I am very grateful for that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, is right on one key point. I have friends in the Irish Republic who regularly use Northern Irish dental services. This is, at the very least, a loose end in the regulations presented to us in the House today, which, in principle, place a burden on Northern Irish dentists. It is difficult to see how they can deal with it in any proper way. It is the loose end in the Minister’s very elegant introduction.

This is a sensitive matter. Reference has already been made to the operation of the NHS in Northern Ireland. One of the key differences between the Windsor Framework and the 2019 withdrawal agreement is that the Windsor Framework makes it clear on page 14 that basic state functions include medical supplies. This is essentially an issue of medical supplies. It is one of the things that can be said in favour of the Windsor Framework—indeed, it was the first item in the DUP’s election manifesto for the Assembly elections that this situation had to be rectified.

The debate today raises a degree of uncertainty as to how these matters are going. In broad outline, there is a practical resolution to most of the questions, and the Minister has made that clear, but one has to understand why there is a certain neuralgia in the public mind none the less. It is related to another issue, which is in no way the Minister’s responsibility—but it is the case that the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, has brought forward an independent report on the Windsor Framework for the Government in this House. My noble friend Lord Carlile’s Select Committee, on which the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, sits, has also produced an important document on the working of the Windsor Framework. Does the Minister have any ideas of any significant EU response to the issues that have been raised and the loose ends, one of which we have discussed—the burden apparently being placed on Northern Irish dentists? Given those two reports, I hear very little about the government response.

This is a moment of reset in Anglo-Irish relations. For example, at the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, which I attended last week, the Irish Minister, Mr Lawless, said that the key thing about the Windsor Framework was that it protected the Irish position on the island economy. Actually, the Windsor Framework makes it clear on page 5 that for the foreseeable future there are two economies on the island of Ireland—but for the first time in decades there was no British Minister to reply to that at the BIPA, if they had so wished.

In this House eight days ago, the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, dismissed a relatively innocent question on the green lane and its working in the Windsor Framework on the grounds that the green lane was a kind of old-style Brexit thinking. In fact, the green lane is in the Windsor Framework and is specifically referred to on page 8, so it is not unreasonable to ask how it is working out in actual fact.

For those of us who support the Windsor Framework critically but know that it leaves a lot of irritants for the public of Northern Ireland, it needs to be fully implemented. The Government cannot just pay lip service to it, as they do, but then half shy away when the Irish Government say something else, or it does not appear to fulfil commitments that were given to the electorate of Northern Ireland and are fundamental to why the Assembly and the Good Friday institutions currently operate. The fact that those commitments were given in good faith became the basis for the return of the Assembly.

A significant minority of unionists in Northern Ireland have tired of these institutions and are deeply critical of them—and, in my opinion, unrealistically and unreasonably wish to replace them. But it gives succour to that group if the Government do not just support the Windsor Framework but support it with vigour.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, earlier today we had a haul of Earls—I think that was the collective term. In this debate on issues that pertain to the protocol and the Windsor Framework, I rise as one of a number of unionist Peers. I am not sure what the collective term is, whether we are an anger of Peers or a frustration of Peers. I will allow some of my more erudite colleagues to disseminate the correct answer.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, made reference to the fact that a number of colleagues from across the Chamber are due on different flights tonight to return home to Northern Ireland. I am not, but I will forgo what I intended to do—a two-hour contextual dissertation on the impact of dental amalgam and its history over the past 100 years in British dentistry.

When looking at the issue and the regulations in front of us, we need to disaggregate two issues. One is the landing point of the regulation itself and the other—perhaps much more concerning, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and others—is the underlying issues behind it. On the regulation itself, we have heard the concerns raised in relation to the continuance of mercury amalgam. I think that has been accepted largely, not simply by the UN convention but by the World Dental Federation. I think it has been accepted that there is a need at least for a phasing out of that dental amalgam. There may be some degree of disagreement over the speed of that.

We know that if immediate action was taken, there would be financial implications for dentists. Wherever we reach in the near future, the alternatives at present are considerably more costly and time-consuming. Indeed, the real concern that was raised, particularly by local dentists in Northern Ireland, was that if we faced a cliff-edge ban in 2025 or 2026, it would lead effectively to the collapse of NHS dentistry in Northern Ireland. That was a very real fear. This does not come simply within a vacuum. We have to realise that the impact, particularly for the dental profession, has arisen from the Covid situation, when it was particularly hard hit.

With that balance in place, I think that we can, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, indicated, at least accept a level of relief that, instead of the immediate crisis that had been created, with this regulation we are now talking about the beginning of January 2035 for that phasing-out period. That is in line with what has been put forward by the World Dental Federation. It should also be indicated—I will be interested in the Minister’s response on this—that whatever happens in terms of phasing out, it should be done across the UK.

I commend the landing zone but join others in expressing concern over the underlying issues of how we got here in the first place. There are three major concerns. First, on the dental issue itself, when either a piece of primary legislation or regulations are passed, I think we all fall into the trap of then dismissing the issue—job done; we have reached a solution. It is abundantly clear that, with these regulations, we are putting it off to a particular point at the end of 2034. That does not mean that the issue can simply be ignored between now and then. As was indicated, there needs to be considerable investment and support to ensure that we have practical alternatives to the dental amalgam. As has been highlighted earlier, some of those seem to be in progress but, at the moment, it is indicated that the alternatives are roughly five times the cost in private practice of what they would be in the NHS. We need to be in a position where we can institute the alternative. That means a considerable amount of work. It means support for the dental profession and for this to be brought about on a UK-wide basis.

Undoubtedly, it is the case that even if this did not apply anywhere in the United Kingdom, there is a major problem facing dentistry throughout the UK because of the EU ban. It is quite likely that the supply chains, and the overall European market for dental amalgam, will collapse in the near future, which will create its own difficulties. The Government need to be aware, so I again look to the Minister to see what support they will give to the dental profession as we move ahead between now and the beginning of 2035.

Secondly, on the solution that has been reached today, I commend officials and Ministers in the Government on raising these concerns with the EU and negotiating a sensible final position. But it highlights that these issues should not have to be fought out on a one-by-one basis. It shows the fundamental flaw with the system itself. These decisions lack any form of democratic accountability because they lie, ultimately, with the EU, where sovereignty has been surrendered and a level of democratic and political autonomy has been given over. We are left in a situation where this solution has been reached only because the EU decided, in effect, to do us a favour and agree this. We cannot be in a position, in the long term, of having to fight each individual matter on the basis that issues will be resolved on the good will or otherwise of the EU. We need a better solution to that.

Finally, this also shows, as has been shown with a number of other issues that I will touch on briefly, a level of overreach when it comes to our relationship with the EU. It is undoubtedly the case that the argument for a particular form of relationship that impacts Northern Ireland is largely based on two things from an EU perspective: the protection of the single market and a reduction of any friction on a cross-border basis. But the relationship at present, through the protocol and perhaps to a lesser extent through the Windsor Framework, goes into a wide range of areas, from immigration, for example, to the selling of poppies, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, indicated, which is nothing to do with cross-border trade or protecting the EU market.