MPs have debated the issue of asbestos in the workplace just days after an inquest found that former MP Alice Mahon died of an industrial disease linked to asbestos exposure. Alice Mahon’s death was one of thousands of deaths each year linked to asbestos exposure in workplaces.
According to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), asbestos remains the biggest cause of work-related deaths in the UK, with 5,000 deaths recorded in 2022. Britain has the highest rate of mesothelioma cases in the world.
Mesothelioma is not typically detected in the early stages of the disease, as it has a long latency period of 15 to 45 years, with some prolonged cases of 60 years before symptoms show. Therefore, once diagnosed, it is often advanced, so up to 60% of patients die in the first year after diagnosis, with just over five in 100 surviving for five years or more.
Introducing the debate, chair Jane Hunt said:
“Historically, men working in building-related activities as well as other heavy industries such as shipbuilding were the most likely people to develop asbestos-related diseases. But we are now seeing a trend of younger people, both men and women, dying as a result of exposure. As Irwin Mitchell highlighted, over the past 20 years, an increasing number of people have developed asbestos-related illnesses from more indirect sources.
“The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 provide the regulatory framework on working with asbestos and apply to all non-domestic premises. Under the regulations, the HSE requires duty-holders to assess whether asbestos is present in their buildings, what condition it is in and whether it gives rise to the risk of exposure. The duty-holder must then draw up a plan to manage the risk associated with asbestos. Importantly, that must include the removal of the asbestos, if it cannot be safely managed where it remains in place. Duty-holders are also legally required to remove asbestos-containing materials before major refurbishment or demolition work.
“Despite those efforts, asbestos is still present in many buildings, and people are still suffering and dying from asbestos-related illnesses. We therefore need to take a look at what more we can do.”
The debate gave rise to the following initial recommendations.
Central asbestos register
Jane Hunt said:
“The Work and Pensions Committee’s recommends that a central asbestos register is introduced. The lack of in-depth and up-to-date data is proving to be a barrier to dealing with the risk posed to the public. A central register would help to alleviate that problem and support a longer-term strategic approach to managing asbestos. It would also provide vital information on the level of compliance by those with a duty to manage asbestos on their premises, and ensure that enforcement action is focused in the right areas.
“Without a register and steps being taken to remove asbestos, the British Occupational Hygiene Society estimates that we are likely to see a spike in occupational, and potentially non-occupational, illness arising from asbestos exposure in around 2060.”
Deadline for removal of asbestos
Hunt continued:
“The other recommendation from the Committee is that a deadline is set for the removal of all asbestos from non-domestic buildings. That approach would bring our strategy in line with that of France, where a general plan has been implemented to remove asbestos from every building within 40 years. Under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, the UK is obligated to seek out and adopt international best practice. Currently, the classification of acceptable exposure levels to asbestos fibres in the UK is ten times greater than that now allowed across Europe.
“The current way to deal with asbestos - to leave it in situ - is clearly not working, given that the people affected by asbestos-related cancers are becoming younger and younger. Materials are degrading over time through wear and tear, and are being damaged inadvertently. Research published last year by the Asbestos Testing and Consultancy Association and the National Organisation of Asbestos Consultants identified that more than 70% of asbestos-containing materials managed in situ had deteriorated, indicating that management of the risk was ineffective.
“We therefore simply cannot afford to delay asbestos removal further. That is particularly true in education and health settings where many of our most vulnerable stay, work and study. The majority of those who have contacted me ahead of the debate are in agreement that in order to deal with the current risk, we need a national asbestos strategy. That approach has proved effective in other nations, which have accepted that leaving asbestos in situ is not safe. Since developing national asbestos strategies, such nations have seen an improvement in their asbestos monitoring and detection technologies and practices. The UK needs its own asbestos strategy that incorporates this best practice, as well as a timetable for the safe removal of asbestos, prioritising the highest-risk asbestos in settings such as schools and hospitals. Taken together, those two actions will help to focus minds across government and industry, and will help to drive progress.”
The future for legislation
If the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill reaches the statute book in its current form, there will be no UK regulations on managing asbestos for the first time since 1930.
Imran Hussain MP argued:
“The government first need to make clear whether the current legislation and protections for working people from the risks of asbestos exposure will actually exist beyond the end of the year, because right now that is far from clear.
“Under the government’s Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, which will automatically delete a huge number of pieces of employment rights legislation, the Control of Asbestos Regulations will cease to have any force unless amended or replaced by secondary legislation. The government were warned of that when they were rushing the retained EU law Bill through Parliament. They were warned that sunsetting so many rights and protections was reckless at best and dangerous at worst. They were even pushed on the Control of Asbestos Regulations specifically during the passage of the Bill. The Minister responsible answered that the government saw opportunities to reduce business burdens and reaffirmed that the United Kingdom has high standards of health and safety.”
Government responsibilities
Hussain commented:
“Evidence on the number of asbestos deaths and the number of buildings that still contain asbestos shows us that we need to do more, not less. The government should start by following through on recommendations made to them. First, they must ensure adequate data collection and reporting of buildings that contain asbestos. Many locations are not known about until renovation starts. Secondly, the government should conduct a serious review of the adequacy of asbestos exposure limits. The UK’s limit is 10 times lower than limits across Europe and 100 times lower than the limit recommended by the International Commission on Occupational Health.
“Thirdly, the government should reverse the cuts made to the Health and Safety Executive’s funding. Because of cuts of up to 50% between the levels seen under the last Labour government and 2019-20, there has been a huge reduction in the number of inspectors, from 3,700 to 1,000.”
Mims Davies MP concluded:
“The challenge, as we all know, is that there is no easy way of safely removing asbestos from buildings, and disturbing asbestos inevitably creates fibre release and increases the risk to health. Provided it is in good condition, the HSE confirms that it is likely to be safest to remove asbestos at the end of a building’s life. If removal is in a staged and phased way, there is a pathway for Great Britain no longer to have asbestos in its workplaces.”
The full debate can be downloaded here.