Scrutiny highlights concerns on PFAS regulatory framework
Scrutiny
25 March 2026
The Environment, Housing, and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel (the ‘Panel’) has reviewed the Draft Water Law (Jersey) Amendment Regulations, lodged by the Minister for the Environment and has identified several areas that require clarity in order to support informed decision-making by the Assembly.While the Panel fully supports the intention to reduce PFAS in drinking water and recognises the significant work undertaken by the Independent Scientific Advisory Panel, the Scrutiny Panel recently held a Hearing with the Minister on the subject of PFAS, which raised further areas that it has not yet had sufficient opportunity to examine in detail. It believes the Assembly should be made better aware of the issues around those key uncertainties before progressing the legislation.
The Panel welcomes and supports the direction of travel set out in the Independent Scientific Advisory Panel’s latest issued report (which remains draft at this stage and is its fourth to date) including its 31 recommendations, which emphasise the need for a whole-island approach. However, these findings remain interim, and further scientific advice, together with pending international guidance from the World Health Organisation and EU, has not yet been fully assessed.
Concerns also remain about the proposed timeline to reduce levels to 4ng per litre within five years. Evidence received by the Panel indicates that this may be ‘highly ambitious’, particularly if substantial new treatment infrastructure is required. While the Minister has given reassurances that this timeline could be extended by Ministerial derogation, the Panel notes that the Assembly is being asked to make a statutory decision without assurance that the proposed timeline is achievable.
Deputy Hilary Jeune, Chair of the Panel, said: ‘We absolutely agree with the need to reduce and limit the PFAS in our water and support the Minister in his aims and the work of the scientific panel. However, the evidence available to us at this stage raises major questions that need to be explored more fully. ‘
‘The scientific evidence is evolving, international standards are still being developed, and the long‑term costs and infrastructure implications for Jersey are not yet clear. The fact that multiple amendments have been lodged, reflecting differing views, including from those with access to more detailed information than the Panel has at this stage, tells us that there is not yet consensus on the most appropriate pathway forward.
‘This is complex, long‑term work that will shape our water infrastructure and public health protections for decades. It is vital that the Assembly has a complete and coherent evidence base before it is asked to make a statutory decision.’
Read the Panel’s Comments Paper.
