Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)

My Lords, it is nice to see the noble Baroness answering on this statutory instrument, and I thank her for her outline of what it contains. I reassure noble Lords that, while the Whip’s notice says that today’s rising time will probably be about 7 pm, I have no intention—I do not think any of us have—of continuing this debate until then. That might be helpful. Dentists in Northern Ireland are obviously relieved that the burden that was hanging over them regarding a date has now been lifted. I have brought this issue to the Floor of the House today as I feel, along with many of my colleagues from Northern Ireland, that it is important and necessary to expose how, drip by drip, the EU is taking more control over what happens in a part of the United Kingdom. We have talked regularly about the 300 areas of law that are now out of our own Government’s hands, and sometimes it seems that no one understands the practical problems these are causing. We have seen the questions on duty-free, pet travel and the large numbers of GB businesses that are now refusing to send anything to Northern Ireland because of the bureaucracy. Just recently, in the last couple of days, we had the ridiculous situation whereby poppy sellers in Northern Ireland had to get EU leaflets and deal with EU bureaucracy to be able to sell poppies. That is outrageous, and I am sure noble Baroness would agree with me on that point. So why am I concerned about this SI? The British Dental Association did a great job of alerting dentists in Northern Ireland to the fact that originally, the EU directive was going to ban amalgam filling from 1 January 2025 in Northern Ireland. That became a topic of much concern, and to be fair, His Majesty’s Government sought talks with the EU, which led to a Commission notice—Regulation 2024/1849—saying that instead of Northern Ireland being required to cease using amalgam fillings in June 2026, dentists could continue to December 2034. The purpose of today’s SI is to give effect to the solution the EU Commission developed, but the solution is deeply problematic because these regulations rest on the foundation not of EU law but of a Commission notice. I am sure I do not need to remind noble Lords that there are several different types of EU law: regulations that are binding, directives that are binding, recommendations that are non-binding and opinions that are non-binding. The reality is that Commission notices do not even have the standing of non-binding law. Indeed, Commission notices are not law because, in the constitutional architecture of the EU, the Commission proposes legislation but does not make it; that is the role of the Parliament and the Council of Ministers. The Commission is also not the judiciary; it usually adds to its statements. It usually says that “the following is without prejudice to the fact that it is the role of the European Court of Justice to make final determinations in the application of the law”. Indeed, after the Northern Ireland Assembly’s EU scrutiny committee had been notified of this change—and was quite pleased about it—a few weeks later the Department of Health sent it a letter regarding the standing of the Commission notice. I quote from it: “It is described in the preamble as a ‘guidance note’ which is intended to facilitate the application of regulation (EU) 2024/1849”. So it is not binding legislation in itself; rather, it is an interpretative aid to the application of the law in Northern Ireland, in the unique context of the Windsor Framework.