Health and Safety Executive’s approach to asbestos management

Asbestos-related illness is one of the great workplace tragedies of modern times. Extensive use of asbestos in the twentieth century accounts for many thousands of deaths. The extreme exposures of the mid- to late twentieth century may be behind us, but its legacy lives on. Asbestos remains in many of our buildings. The current five-yearly statutory review of the asbestos regulations is an opportune moment for us to assess whether the regulatory framework—and HSE’s contribution to this—is working as effectively as it might.

We recommend that HSE and Government use the conclusions and recommendations from our report to inform both its immediate post implementation review of the asbestos regulations and its longer-term approach to asbestos management. (Paragraph 15) The asbestos risk today

Progress made since the gradual imposition of restrictions on the use of asbestos and its eventual ban in 1999 are no reason for complacency. Understanding the extent to which asbestos fibres are still being released from the fabric of buildings remains vital and requires different methods of analysis. Past measurement of fibres in lungs has shown that the lifetime risk from mesothelioma is substantially lower for people born in the late 1960s. For people born in the late 1980s, the risks appear even lower, but the numbers sampled are small and patterns of exposure may be subject to wide variation over time and between people.

Recent HSE data on the relative risk of mesothelioma deaths shows elevated rates for women whose last occupation was education and teaching. However, limitations in death certificate information means that the earlier occupational history of these people—which may be key to understanding the cause of their disease—is not known. Moreover, the long latency period before asbestos-related illness develops means that HSE data on relative occupational risk tells us little about asbestos exposures in work settings today. We know relatively little about current levels but, worryingly, we heard accounts from several sources of recent exposures in the workplace and in the home. Our view is that HSE’s efforts to develop the evidence on current asbestos exposure levels in non-domestic buildings are relatively piecemeal. A more structured approach to collecting data and assessing current exposure levels is needed.

We recommend that HSE develops and implements a robust research framework for the systematic measurement of current asbestos exposures in non-domestic buildings, using a range of measurement and sampling techniques and informed by international experiences and approaches. It should ensure that adequate consideration is given to exposure measurement in schools and other public buildings. We recommend that HSE publishes its framework by October 2022 and produces findings at frequent intervals thereafter. (Paragraph 31) 48 The Health and Safety Executive’s approach to asbestos management

We also recommend that the Government investigates opportunities to improve the occupational information recorded on death certificates. (Paragraph 32) A strategic approach to asbestos management

Under the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012, asbestos-containing materials that are in good condition and are unlikely to be disturbed can be left in place by building dutyholders. Buildings containing asbestos will not last forever and, as HSE acknowledges, we do not know how long some of these materials, left undisturbed, remain undamaged. Some, including the TUC, have called for a stronger programme of asbestos removal. They argue that a policy of management in situ was always a temporary solution and that accidental disturbances by contractors and others will always happen. They believe that the current regime gives unscrupulous dutyholders too much flexibility to turn a blind eye when confronted with the cost of asbestos removal.

Wholesale removal is not, however, without its own risk and uncertainty. Despite this, HSE has been slow to invest in research to better understand the costs and benefits of removal and to evaluate options for safer removal. This is becoming a more urgent task. The likely dramatic increase in retrofitting of buildings in response to net zero ambitions means that more asbestos-containing material will be disturbed in the coming decades, thus changing the cost-benefit analysis. Simple reliance on a set of regulations which devolve asbestos management to individual dutyholders will not be good enough. There is a need for a cross-government and ‘system-wide’ strategy for the long-term removal of asbestos, founded on strong evidence of what is best from a scientific, epidemiological, financial, and behavioural point of view.

The Minister and HSE told us that their goal was to see asbestos gradually and safely removed from GB’s buildings. We agree with its ambition but greatly regret that neither HSE nor the Government has articulated a clear and comprehensive strategy for achieving this. There is no written down, fully developed, and long-term plan to match the Government’s goal, one that is founded on an analysis of costs and benefits and integrates with wider government policy. Moreover, the Government has so far failed to signal its intent by setting a clear timeframe for the removal of most, if not all, asbestos.

We recommend that a deadline now be set for the removal of asbestos from non- domestic buildings, within 40 years. The Government and HSE should develop and publish a strategic plan to achieve this, focusing on removing the highest risk asbestos first, and the early removal from the highest risk settings including schools. This plan should, in the first instance, commit to improving urgently the evidence around safer asbestos removal and disposal, considering relative costs and benefits. It should integrate with—and take full account of—proposals for the upgrading of the built environment linked to net zero targets and wider waste management strategies.

We are unconvinced that a significant further expansion in the use of air monitoring for the routine measurement of asbestos fibres is needed. Clearly, such monitoring is an important component both in assessing sites following asbestos removal work The Health and Safety Executive’s approach to asbestos management 49 and, potentially, in informing management decisions where, for example, asbestos- containing material is damaged or obscured. It also has an important role as part of any systematic and carefully sampled research programme measuring fibre release. Nevertheless, for routine operational purposes, the balance of opinion we have heard is that regular visual inspection should continue to be the priority.

We recommend HSE work with others in the UK and devolved governments to continue to review and share the evidence relating to routine, environmental, air monitoring of asbestos fibres. We ask that HSE writes to us in 12 months’ time with an update on Government’s latest assessment of these developments.

Information about asbestos within buildings is often poorly communicated to users and contractors by dutyholders. Surveys and management plans which include critical information on asbestos are not always maintained as living and accessible documents. Opportunities to exploit digital technologies to improve communications on asbestos risks are being missed.

We recommend that HSE strengthens its work with, and guidance to, dutyholders to make clear their obligations to communicate asbestos information and risks to building contractors and users. We also recommend that HSE works with others in Government to sponsor improvements in how information on asbestos in buildings is communicated and used, drawing on lessons from the use of digital technologies in building management and in the health response to the pandemic.

Whether building dutyholders are complying with the requirements of the Control of Asbestos Regulations is largely unknown. HSE collects some data from its programme of inspections, but these cover a tiny fraction of the non- domestic premises that contain asbestos. HSE doubts whether a central register of information on asbestos would give it better compliance data. Our view is that the exercise of reporting data centrally will, in some cases, cause dutyholders to commission surveys and update records of asbestos in their premises if they know their data is being shared centrally and may be subject to external review. The resulting database would offer a sampling frame for enforcement activity and could be analysed to inform a risk-based and targeted enforcement approach. It would also provide important background data to support a longer-term strategic approach to managing the asbestos legacy. We acknowledge, however, that it would be for others in government, such as the Government Digital Service, to lead on developing a central register and the concept would need careful testing.

We recommend that HSE works with others in government to develop a central digital register of asbestos in non-domestic buildings, describing its location and type. In the first instance, the concept of a central register could be tested using asbestos data from public buildings such as schools and hospitals. In the meantime, we also recommend that HSE conducts research which complements its inspection programme to identify the extent to which dutyholders are, in fact, complying with their obligations under the asbestos regulations. (Paragraph 83) 50 The Health and Safety Executive’s approach to asbestos management HSE’s enforcement and campaigning

HSE has experienced significant cuts in government funding. Lower grant funding has been partly mitigated by the introduction of its fee for intervention ‘cost recovery’ model but this cannot be used to target inspections of licensed asbestos removal work. It is not surprising, therefore, that HSE’s asbestos enforcement activity has reduced in recent years. However, the scale of decline is remarkable when compared with HSE’s enforcement activity overall, despite no specific and compelling evidence that compliance with the asbestos regulations has improved dramatically during this time. HSE accepts that part of the recent reduction in asbestos enforcement work stems from having to divert experienced inspectors to support the training of new recruits which reduced capacity. It says that it expects to increase the number of asbestos inspections in 2022/23. This is welcome but needs to be sustained over the longer term, not least because fulfilment of the Government’s net zero ambitions presents considerable asbestos exposure risks as buildings are updated.

We recommend that HSE commits to a sustained increase in inspection and enforcement activity targeting compliance with the Control of Asbestos Regulations. Repeating our recommendation from June 2020, the Government and DWP should ensure that it provides adequate funding to HSE to support this increased programme of work over the medium term. HSE should also identify wider lessons from its planned inspection programme for dutyholders in 2022/23, considering whether it needs to specify minimum knowledge, training or other requirements for people performing this critical role.

HSE promotes understanding of the dangers of asbestos, technical knowledge exchange and compliance with the asbestos regulations through its participation in domestic and international networks. HSE has also previously invested in significant campaigns targeting those occupations most likely to be exposed to asbestos. Campaigns such as ‘Hidden Killer’ were widely regarded as successful. However, HSE has invested less in this behavioural work in recent years, seemingly because of a lack of resources. Witnesses also described an absence of similar interventions targeting dutyholders. For those campaigning activities that do continue—through social media for example—HSE cannot say with certainty what their long-term impact is.

HSE should commit to investing more in sustained campaigning work across a range of media, using multiple interventions and synchronising with the development of its wider strategy for asbestos management. It should employ robust evaluation methods to test what messages and which methods achieve the greatest impact on the behaviours of dutyholders and tradespeople. (Paragraph 102) Regulating the asbestos industry

Currently in Great Britain, some asbestos removal work does not need to be undertaken by a licensed contractor but some of this will still need to be notified to HSE before work starts. The three-way categorisation of work is confusing and of questionable value. Reducing the number of categories and requiring a greater proportion of asbestos removal to be done by licensed contractors—possibly by The Health and Safety Executive’s approach to asbestos management 51 further tightening the control limit on expected asbestos fibre exposures or reducing the types and conditions of asbestos materials that are exempted from licensed work—could lead to fewer accidental exposures and better disposal practices. There is, however, a risk that extending the requirement to use licensed contractors could have unintended consequences and any changes will need to be considered carefully. HSE should use its five-yearly review of the asbestos regulations to assess the merits of the current categorisation of asbestos works.

We recommend that HSE considers how it could consolidate, tighten, and simplify the current categorisation of asbestos works as part of its 2022 statutory review of the Control of Asbestos Regulations. Its review should carefully assess the net behavioural impacts and costs of any changes.

Asbestos surveyors have an important role in helping dutyholders to identify and manage asbestos in premises. We have heard concerns about the variable quality of surveys. It is not clear to us why the regulatory and quality requirements for asbestos surveyors should be less stringent than for analysts who must be UKAS- accredited.

Despite their requirement to be accredited, the work of analysts continues to be compromised by regulatory arrangements which allow licensed asbestos contractors to commission their own analysts to check their work. We heard disturbing accounts from several sources that the current model undermines the independence of this critical quality check. Witnesses told us that one simple way of improving standards would be to make it a requirement for the building owner or client to employ the analyst in all circumstances.

We recommend that HSE makes it mandatory for all people conducting asbestos surveys to be accredited by a recognised accreditation body. We also recommend that HSE assesses the impact of making it a legal requirement for building owners or occupiers to commission accredited asbestos analysts to check asbestos work done on their premises and, by extension, making it illegal for asbestos removal contractors to do so.

HSE has an important role in monitoring international developments in approaches to managing asbestos risk, assessing the balance of evidence, and commissioning its own research to understand workplace patterns of asbestos exposure and behaviour. The direction of travel in Europe is towards tighter regulation of asbestos and lower exposure limits which rely on greater use of electron microscopy techniques. These changes may have practical and financial consequences for the way asbestos is managed, including when and how it should be removed. HSE has said that developments in Europe may not necessarily be grounded in the real-world experience of asbestos exposure and a more pragmatic approach is warranted. It also told us that part of the problem in Great Britain is that asbestos is so widespread. Our concern is that an asbestos regulatory policy which prioritises only that which is immediately practical risks tolerating poorer health standards and higher costs over the longer-term.

We recommend HSE ensures its current review of the Control of Asbestos Regulations includes a thorough written assessment of moves towards more stringent asbestos 52 The Health and Safety Executive’s approach to asbestos management occupational exposure limits in Europe. It should carefully consider their application to the GB context, taking full account of costs and benefits. It should ensure that the extent of the asbestos legacy in Great Britain is not seen as reason to tolerate poorer health standards. (Paragraph 128) The Health and Safety Executive’s approach to asbestos management 53