Speeches by Hardy.

“It designates a substance of very high concern so I will push back gently on that. When it comes to EA funding, again I do want to reiterate to the Committee that it is this Government that increased funding to the EA by £188 million this year after the previous Government slashed it dramatically down to its lowest lev…”

“Thank you, Chair. Putting chemicals on the candidate list is not a mere signal to the industry. Putting chemicals on the candidate list is more than a mere signal that we might do something about it.”

“I am happy to explain.”

“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?”

“You are right. The candidate list is a list of chemicals that we have high concern about. This is where I differ from the previous Government. The previous Government were only looking to consider putting things on the candidate list if they were going to move it into the authorisation list, and what this has meant in …”

“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…”

“Again, I probably have not explained it very well. We are not going to ban individual PFAS. There are different ways of grouping them. Perhaps Marc, with his scientific knowledge, could explain how the different ones are grouped, which might help illustrate it. We are not talking about an individual one because there a…”

“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…”

“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.”

“We are changing the system when it comes to UK REACH, absolutely. We are changing the way in which we identify and restrict the use of certain chemicals for UK REACH so we are changing that system. That will make it quicker and easier for us to add chemicals to the authorisation list or restriction list and we are doin…”

“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…”

“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 …”

“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…”