Speeches by Hardy.

“As it mentions in the plan as well, we are looking very carefully at other jurisdictions and how they do that. As I was trying to explain—I will try again—the system that we have at the moment is laborious, slow and takes an awfully long time to put any chemicals into restriction, so we need to change the system and th…”

“It is a good thing that we listen to experts under this Government. It is a good thing that we have research and information, that we take knowledge in, and we recognise that where there is expertise we should listen to it, learn from it and understand it. It is also good that, under this Government, we are having an E…”

“Thank you so much for having me today and for also raising the problems we have around PFAS as an issue. I look forward to working in collaboration with your Committee. When it comes to the plan, I am very proud of it. I am obviously not here to speak for the previous Government’s action or inaction, but I will talk fo…”

“The part on reform to UK REACH.”

“Each Department has a chief scientific adviser, as I am sure you know, and the chief scientific advisers of all different Departments have discussions together about some cross-Government issues. On the exact details of what currently the chief scientific adviser is working on in this area I would have to come back to …”

“I hate to repeat myself, but I think this is why we need to do the research and get the evidence to find out what the accurate situation is. At the moment we are dealing with estimates and projections. We are not dealing with facts. Until we have that evidence, we cannot have an accurate idea about what the cost would …”

“As I mentioned earlier, this is why research and monitoring matter, because you cannot give an accurate estimate to Treasury if you do not have the information you need. This is why in the plan research is mentioned so often and why I am so pleased it is, because it needs to be there. If I want to go to Treasury and sa…”

“Yes. On monitoring we do exceptionally well. Do you want to explain about the monitoring, Marc?”

“Yes, you are right in that there are only two hazardous waste incinerators permitted to accept PFAS. At the moment we judge that there is sufficient capacity to meet needs, but as we take more action on this, as we discover more and therefore want to destroy more, we anticipate there will be greater demand. That is why…”

“The EA issues—I do not know if it is guidance or if it is statutory guidance on what is the best way to destroy it. At the moment what it has said is that the best way to destroy it is 1,100°C incineration. However, it is constantly looking at that. As I say, this could be a growth story. This could be where there is i…”

“There is definitely innovation in how we deal with PFAS and what we can do to destroy it, as was highlighted by the Environment Agency earlier. At the moment, the way to destroy it is 1,100°C incineration. However, there are other innovative ways coming on, but obviously we want to carefully monitor them to ensure that…”

“We are doing a roundtable soon, actually, with DBT. It is slightly different. That is looking more at consumer products and trying to get ahead of the problem so we prevent it happening in the first place.”

“Yes. It is important that we look at how we move away from PFAS and look at alternatives, but with the proviso that we do not then use a similar chemical that is just as bad. I just put that caution out there. One thing is clear regulation and using regulation as a tool. Again, that goes back to what I have been talkin…”

“I think that is genuinely impossible to answer at the moment, which is why the research that is highlighted in the plan is so important. At the moment we know that there is a big problem. We know that we are going to have to deal with it, but it is not accurate enough at this stage for me to be able to say to you, “It …”

“Not at this stage. That is why having that monitoring and research matters so much, so we can fully understand the extent of the problem. That is why it is important.”

“As you have quite rightly pointed out, we are not ending the entire PFAS production tomorrow because, as pointed out, that would have a huge impact on the essential uses for which it is being used today. I don’t imagine you are advocating for that either. In terms of how we are going to pay for it, the polluter pays pr…”

“As I say, with drinking water, they are currently already meeting their standards while the limit is non-statutory, so then when you make it statutory, no, I would not on drinking water.”

“Yes, that is a really important issue. Pesticides sit outside of what we are talking about today, but that issue is part of the EU reset negotiations and the SPS agreement. That is live at the moment and I am not personally involved in those negotiations so I don’t know how much of an update I can give you, other than …”

“That is the reforms that we were talking about and how we look at REACH. As Marc pointed out as well, we will be looking carefully at what is happening with the EU and where they get to when it comes to PFAS restrictions and what that regime actually ends up looking like. This comes down to fundamentally changing the s…”

“The really good thing is that because the Drinking Water Inspectorate is so good, it puts in non-statutory limits already. When I came into Government I said, “That is brilliant. You have non-statutory limits. I like it and I want to make them statutory,” and that is exactly what we are going to do. Just to reassure yo…”