It was heartening to hear Sarah Albon, the Chief Executive of HSE, state at the Work and Pensions Committee on the 5th February 2025, that there is, “agreement between HSE and government to ultimately look to remove asbestos entirely from built environment" and that “this links to the potential for some kind of register”. Parliament Live (minutes 11:12 - 11:16).
The UK has the highest rates of mesothelioma in the world due to historical exposure. Worryingly, rates of mesothelioma amongst occupational groups thought to be safe, such as school teachers are high and rising. Asbestos is known to be present in the vast majority of schools, so the pertinent question is, are today's school children and school staff safe? “It is striking that there is no official data or modelling of how exposure to asbestos as a pupil is affecting rates of mesothelioma in later life,” says the recent MEWS study. Appallingly, we do not know if children in school today are safe.
We now need a National Asbestos Strategy, informed and guided by accurate 'real-time' data. Prioritising the removal of some asbestos materials over others is essential, to ensure risk reduction is optimised within budgetary and temporal constraints.
Data: Fortunately since 2002 all public and commercial buildings have been required to record asbestos data and much of this is held within a small number of commercially run databases. Due to rapid advances in information technology, it is now possible to bring this data together and create a single national asbestos database. This can provide an accurate record of all asbestos in buildings and provide updates in real time as and when a change to the materials is recorded. So when a material is removed, or found to be damaged, records are kept constantly up to date. With such a system, the UK government would be better able to hold the HSE to account and the HSE would be able to hold duty holders to account. “What is not measured is not managed” as the saying goes.
Data is the fundamental prerequisite upon which asbestos management is based within individual properties and portfolios. So a national register of asbestos materials is fundamental to managing asbestos at the national level, to drill down into the extent and condition of materials, to set budgets and to set timeframes. Data enables a plan! Denying the nation of an asbestos database is to knowingly enable the ongoing mis-management of asbestos at the national level.
Risk Assessment: The HSE's algorithm to assess asbestos risk is grossly and dangerously flawed but if corrected, would inform a national asbestos strategy. Children are known to be more vulnerable to asbestos by a factor of five. HSE research puts the risk from amosite at one hundred fold the risk of chrysotile, but the relevant risk algorithm scores the risk at a mere three times. Clearly the risks to children from amosite are unmanageable! So the likes of CLASP primary schools become the number one priority within a plan or strategy for asbestos.
Prioritisation: All asbestos is dangerous: there is no debate about this. However there is a strong case to prioritise the removal of the amphiboles. According to an important recent study, “Chrysotile constituted 88% of UK asbestos imports... but only 2% of asbestos fibres in the lungs of men with mesothelioma or lung cancer, born 1940–64”, TIPS, (2018). So by prioritising the removal of 12% of UK asbestos, the risk profile of the remaining 88% would be drastically reduced. The case for prioritisation could not be more compelling!
Age Profile: UK amphibole imports ceased in 1983 and declined sharply in the preceding few years. Similarly chrysotile was banned in 1999. By definition all amphibole products are more than forty years old with the vast majority being more than fifty years old. These materials and many of the buildings they are in, are in a state of disrepair beyond their planned lifespan. It is a similar story with chrysotile. For example, think of an asbestos cement roof put up in 1995. It is now thirty years into its forty year lifespan. The demographics of our asbestos materials mean that the next twenty years will see much of it removed. We need a plan for this urgently.
Broader Policy Objectives: It would be inefficient, costly and dangerous to carry out large scale works to the public infrastructure and built environment without a plan for asbestos. To deliver policy objectives at scale,the UK needs a clear strategy for asbestos, its biggest occupational killer, languishing within its buildings. Not having an asbestos plan informed by data, will cost additional lives and tax revenue.
Our Ask: It is time for our government to deliver a National Asbestos Strategy or 40-year plan supported by a National Asbestos Database.
Comments