Health & Safety Executive approach to asbestos management
examined
ATaC Push for Mandatory UKAS Accreditation for Surveying Organisations On the 9th July 2021, The Work and Pensions Committee launched an inquiry into how the Health & Safety Executive manages the continued presence of asbestos in buildings. When The Work and Pensions Committee needed to better understand the experiences of those working with the HSE, they contacted ARCA/ ATaC for the industry view.
The Committee raised concerns last year with the Government about the UK’s policy on managing asbestos in buildings, following the publication of a report by think tank Respublica. In response, the Minister for Employment confirmed that the HSE would be reviewing the effectiveness of the regulations for managing asbestos. The Committee’s inquiry will examine the current risks posed by asbestos in the workplace, the actions taken by HSE to mitigate them and how its approach compares to those taken in other countries. The results of the inquiry will feed into the executive’s review. Rt Hon Stephen Timms MP, Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, said: “Despite being banned for more than 20 years, the impact of asbestos is still devastating lives. Thousands of people die from asbestos-related illness every year. With the UK death rate from asbestos-related illness the highest in the world, there are serious concerns about how the material is being dealt with compared with how it is managed in other countries, such as France. The HSE is rightly looking into how asbestos can be handled more safely, and the Committee’s inquiry will help to make sure monitoring and regulations are as effective and safe as they can possibly be.”
ARCA/ATaC article published in ARCA/ATaC News issue 115 - the journal for asbestos management professionals © Asbestos Removal Contractors Association
March 2022
The Committee asked for views on the following questions. w What are the current risks posed by asbestos in the workplace? Which groups of workers are most at risk? w How effective is the current legislative and regulatory framework for the management of asbestos? w How does HSE’s approach to managing asbestos compare to the approach taken in other countries? Are there lessons that the UK could learn from best practice elsewhere? w How does HSE measure and report its progress in mitigating the risks of asbestos? w Does HSE keep adequate records of asbestos in public buildings? w Is HSE making best use of available technology and systems to monitor the safety of asbestos which remains in buildings? w Does HSE commit adequate resources to asbestos management in line with the level of risk? w How robust is the available data about the risks and impact of asbestos in the workplace? What gaps in evidence need to be filled? w Is HSE drawing on a wide body of international and national regulatory and industry expertise to inform its approach to the management of asbestos safety in buildings? w How effectively does HSE engage with external stakeholders and experts about its approach to the regulation of asbestos? The deadline for submissions was Friday 17th September 2021.
The ATaC Management Committee provided written evidence to the inquiry on behalf of the Association in September 2021. The full text of this written evidence submitted by ATaC is available at: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/39367/pdf/ All submitted written evidence is available at: https://committees.parliament.uk/work/1393/health-and-safetyexecutives-approach-to-asbestos-management/publications/
On the 11th November ARCA was invited to give oral evidence to the inquiry on the 15th December 2021. The invitation explained that ‘The Committee was keen to hear insights from representatives of organisations involved in asbestos removal to better understand their experience of work with the HSE’. Based on the type of evidence the enquiry were looking for, it was decided it was most appropriate for an ATaC Management Committee member to represent the Association in this instance. When considering what statements would be made on behalf of the Association, the ARCA Governing Council were keen that, in addition to any comments the ATaC Committee may wish to make, the fact that asbestos removal contractors would support an increase in the licence fee if further resources are needed to properly enforce licensed asbestos removal work; that HSE should make it a legal requirement that asbestos surveys are only carried out by UKAS accredited laboratories; that Regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012, The Duty to Manage, needs enforcing more rigorously, and that the Association would support a national asbestos register in principle.
ARCA/ATaC article published in ARCA/ATaC News issue 115 - the journal for asbestos management professionals © Asbestos Removal Contractors Association
March 2022
The parliamentary inquiry Committee consisted of the following Members of Parliament. y Stephen Timms (Chair) Labour Member of Parliament for East Ham y Debbie Abrahams; Labour MP for Oldham East and Saddleworth y Shaun Bailey; Conservative MP for West Bromwich West y Steve McCabe Labour; MP for Birmingham, Selly Oak y Nigel Mills; Conservative MP for Amber Valley y Selaine Saxby; Conservative MP for North Devon y Dr Ben Spencer; Conservative Member of Parliament for Runnymede and Weybridge y Chris Stephens; Scottish National Party MP for Glasgow South West y Sir Desmond Swayne; Conservative MP for New Forest West Three inquiry meetings were to take place.
First Inquiry Meeting The first inquiry meeting took place on the 17th November 2021, and the first part of the inquiry heard from: y Prof. Thomas Kuhlbusch (Head of Hazardous Substances Management at The Federal Institute for Occupational Hygiene and Health (BAuA), Germany), y Prof. Alex Burdorf (Head of Department of Public Health at Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands), y Nicolas Bessot (Head of the Office of Chemical, Physical, Biological and Occupational Diseases at Ministry of Labour, Employment and Integration, France), y Charles Pickles (Asbestos campaigner at The Airtight on Asbestos Campaign) The second part of the inquiry meeting heard from: y Gill Reed (Technical Adviser at The Joint Union Asbestos Committee), y Tony Hood (National Head of Asbestos Strategy at Thompsons Solicitors), y Joanne Gordon (Chair at The Asbestos Victims Support Groups’ Forum UK), y Liz Darlison (Chief Executive Officer at Mesothelioma UK) A transcript of the evidence given in the first inquiry meeting is available at: https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/9776/pdf/ A recording of this first inquiry meeting is available to watch at: https://www. parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/b93a9a0e-333d-43a2-a2c3-bdb5a3a19c14
Second Inquiry Meeting The second inquiry meeting took place on the 15th December 2021, and the inquiry meeting to which ARCA was invited. Darren Evans of the ATaC Management Committee attended on behalf of the Association. The first part of the inquiry meeting heard from: y Prof Julian Peto (Professor of Epidemiology at London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine), y Clare Gilham (Assistant Professor at London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine), y Prof John Cherrie (Emeritus Professor of Human Health at Heriot Watt University), y Prof Kevin Bampton (Chief Executive Officer at British Occupational Hygiene Society and the Faculty of Asbestos Assessment and Management)
The second part of the inquiry meeting heard from: y Darren Evans (Management Committee Member at Asbestos Testing and Consulting, Asbestos Removal Contractors Association), y Ruth Wilkinson (Head of Health and Safety (Policy and Operations) at Institution of Occupational Safety and Health) y Graham O’Mahony (Chair at UK Asbestos Training Association) A transcript of the evidence given in this second inquiry meeting is available at: https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/3252/pdf/ A recording of this second inquiry meeting is available to watch at: https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/a5a80aa2-0054-4a91-bc64e0945af48674
Following the Association’s opportunity to give evidence at this inquiry, the Association was contacted by the Committee who said ‘We were interested in your comments about the lack of data on the effectiveness of the asbestos regulatory regime and the need for greater enforcement. We were also interested in your observation that the ‘playing field’ for the professions operating in the asbestos industry was uneven with different regulatory requirements placed on surveyors and analysts.’ The Association provided further written evidence to address the areas in which the Committee had expressed interest. The full text of the additional evidence is available at: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/42606/pdf/
The additional evidence submitted by the Association concluded by making the following observations regarding the Post Implementation Review (PIR) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 which is currently being undertaken. w A review of the UK’s approach to our long-term management of asbestos is required to ensure our approach to asbestos provides those managing properties with some clear guidance as to the objectives to manage asbestos in the short, medium, and long term. We believe that, in 2022, it is unacceptable to find high risk materials such as sprayed asbestos within education buildings. w Accreditation for surveying in Regulation 4. While the costs for this have been explained, there needs to be a level playing field, particularly if consistency of information and databases are the future. There should be a demonstrable cost and quality benefit in this being the case. While it is a matter of record that both accredited and non-accredited surveys have been conducted well in many instances (and poorly in others) accredited surveying organisations have, through mandatory and audited in-house QA procedures, demonstrable independence, objectivity, reproducibility, and reassurance in their accuracy. Therefore, if the HSE’s key regulation is Regulation 4 then surely this is a key component of this. They have also demonstrated that accreditation can be required. It is puzzling why this is not in place. w Ensure independence of analysts and LARC for Reg 17. Like everywhere else in Europe, Hong Kong, Australia etc., analysts, under Regulation 17, must be client-appointed and not directly employed by LARCs (marking their own homework). The HSE is aware of this, but just ‘recommends’ independence. If they are aware of the problem, then why not act, and now, when they can? This would go a considerable way to reducing the number of poor visual inspections, as was suggested were happening during the inquiry, as well as removing the element of pressure and abuse of analysts by LARCs. The point must (always) be made that for every poor visual inspection there is, by definition, a poor abatement project and a poor visual inspection by the LARC’s supervisor (which is part of the due process).
ARCA/ATaC article published in ARCA/ATaC News issue 115 - the journal for asbestos management professionals © Asbestos Removal Contractors Association
March 2022
w In addition, independence should be expanded for businesses with shared ownership i.e. LARCs owning analytical organisations or vice versa. Again, in the new HSG 248 it is implied this shouldn’t happen, but how would a client know if this were hidden? w Review the status of non-licensed work with regards to licensing and independent checks etc. It isn’t realistic for this huge sector of work to go on being effectively ‘unregulated’. w Social housing is specifically excluded. This is largely a workplace, and places where a large sector of society could be exposed to asbestos. Lots of social housing providers have this information. It needs inclusion, specifically, not just in Regulation 5 which isn’t explicit. We believe that social housing needs to be part of Regulation 4.
Third Inquiry Meeting The third inquiry meeting took place on the 2nd February 2022, and this was the inquiry meeting where the HSE gave their evidence. This inquiry meeting heard from y Chloe Smith MP, Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, y Sarah Albon Chief Executive, Health and Safety Executive, y Professor Andrew Curran Chief Scientific Adviser, Health and Safety Executive. A transcript of the evidence given in this inquiry meeting is available at: https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/9780/pdf/ A recording of this third inquiry meeting is available to watch at: https://www. parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/7cb1d7ba-9546-4f5c-9dc5-aed865624771
Following the third inquiry meeting at which the HSE gave evidence, the Airtight on Asbestos (AoA) Campaign commented that they felt the key messages from the meeting were: w UK stuck in holding pattern claims W&P select committee member HSE admit deteriorating asbestos unlikely to be removed from buildings for decades. w Minister suggests there is a ‘goal’ to remove asbestos but admits this is not stated anywhere in writing – policy, regulation, guidance, or strategy. w HSE admit that “We don’t know how damaged asbestos is” but insist visual inspection and responsibility on Duty Holders is sufficient to manage the risks.
w HSE state that a national database is too costly, an administrative burden, and would not add to what is already held. It is only as good as the data it holds “garbage in, garbage out” and would be hard to audit for accuracy. This is a both a denial of potential utility and an admission that current data systems are inadequate. w AoA insist that a national database based on mobile technology is achievable and affordable. That uploading asbestos plans would improve access to information and that holding all plans in a standard format would allow deficiencies in plans to be analysed. w HSE profoundly out of date in understanding the benefits of new technology in air sampling and data management. AoA went on to comment that: w The committee seemed rather sceptical and sometimes alarmed about the defence from the HSE. Dr Spencer, Chevon Bailey, Debbie Abrahams, Chris Stephens, Nigel Mills, and Stephen Timms all asked difficult questions to varying degrees. w The Minister/HSE confusion about the central goal of the policy was enlightening in that it implies they do not have a concrete plan, which in our view came across as damming. w The HSE did state that we have the worst asbestos problem in Europe and this was cited as a reason why we can’t adopt policies from other countries. Surely the scale of the problem in the UK demands a commensurate response, not an un-coordinated holding policy. The European comparisons were widely used to question HSE. w What was not picked up on is the need for an emphasis on amosite (brown asbestos), which accounts for 12% of imports and causes 98% of mesotheliomas. Surely there is a strong argument to address this highrisk material. w Overall, the HSE came across as defensive, with policy and practice clearly behind other nations. If this assertion is correct, the committee may well be minded to recommend improvements.
What happens next? Most inquiries result in a report to the House, containing recommendations to the department, the wider Government, and sometimes other organisations such as arms-length agencies or regulators.
w HSE assurance on safety in schools is based on 30-year-old data (the lag between exposure and developing disease) and a sample of monitoring in 29 schools.
Once the oral evidence is concluded, the chair is responsible for commissioning a draft report for the whole committee to consider. First, there will normally be one or more meetings when the committee will discuss a proposed structure for the report and an outline of the narrative and recommendations. These are known as heads of report discussions.
w HSE claim a study of every possible type of exposure would be too great. AoA is calling for national research programme on scale of the French campaign which introduced reforms.
The heads of report are often a vital element in enabling the staff, who will draft the report, to gather the political input which will help them to express the committee’s opinions.
w AoA agree that air monitoring is not analogous to passive smoke alarms and that sensitive air monitoring needs to occur in schools during periods of normal use, using improved methods, including TEM microscopy.
The Association will continue to play our part in this significant development within the asbestos management industry and keep members informed as to how it is progressing and notify of any outcomes.
w HSE deny that environmental air monitoring, as practiced in other countries, can provide assurance - too technical, too difficult, and too expensive – “not a wise use of public money”.
w HSE agree TEM is superior but claim that results take longer to process and therefore delay assurance / clearance. AoA believes that adding a day on to the project timeframe, to be assured of greater safety is not unreasonable.
ARCA/ATaC article published in ARCA/ATaC News issue 115 - the journal for asbestos management professionals © Asbestos Removal Contractors Association
March 2022