This article has been co-authored with Jonathan Grant

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has launched a major public consultation on proposed changes to the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 (CAR) and associated guidance. These proposals aim to strengthen how asbestos is managed across Great Britain, and will have a direct impact on dutyholders, analysts, surveyors, removal contractors and anyone involved in maintaining or working within the built environment. 

The consultation seeks views on three key areas:

1. A proposal to ensure the independence and impartiality of analysts undertaking the four-stage clearance process. HSE’s preferred option is to amend CAR so that the analyst is appointed independently of the licensed contractor – formalising what many see as an essential safeguard in preventing undue influence, and maintaining the integrity of the clearance process.
2. Mandatory accreditation. The Work and Pensions Committee recommended that “all people conducting asbestos surveys should be mandated by a recognised accreditation body”, and that “a national standard for reports” would assist dutyholders. However, the proposal has been reframed as “[driving] up the standard of asbestos surveys to ensure dutyholders have the information they need to safely manage asbestos risk”. In other words, rather than mandating accreditation, the HSE’s preferred approach focuses on improving guidance and ensuring dutyholders understand how to commission and use surveys effectively.
3. What constitutes Notifiable Non-Licensed Work, an area where stakeholders have long reported confusion. 

The Notifiable Non-Licensed Work (NNLW) category has its roots in changes made when textured decorative coatings were moved from licensable to non-licensable work. Historically, removal of textured coatings had been treated as licensable, which created a substantial volume of licensed work despite the relatively low risk these materials present.

When the HSE revised the Regulations to classify textured coatings as non-licensable, parts of the removal industry challenged the change at the European Court, citing technical requirements in the EU Asbestos Workers Directive concerning notification and medical surveillance. The challenge was upheld, requiring the UK to amend its legislation. 

To comply, the HSE introduced the NNLW category, applying the minimum necessary changes under the Directive: keeping textured coatings as non-licensed work, introducing a simple notification process, and requiring a level of medical surveillance that was proportionate but not as extensive as that required for full licensable work. As a result, the NNLW category emerged primarily as a compromise solution to meet EU legal requirements, rather than as a clearly defined or conceptually distinct risk category – something that has contributed to ongoing uncertainty in its interpretation. There is evidence to suggest that the current system has allowed asbestos insulation board (AIB), insulation and sprayed coatings to be treated as NNLW. Yet this is either a significant misunderstanding of the rules, or deliberate misuse. The HSE’s data suggests this accounts for around 10% of notifications – 2,400 or more projects annually.

Being able to remove NNLW is, in Jonathan Grant’s view, the only tangible Brexit benefit to date – though others may take a different view. 

Nick Garland takes a different position: NNLW should be retained, but only for genuinely lower-risk materials. AIB, insulation and sprayed coatings should be explicitly removed from the category – ensuring these higher-risk materials are dealt with under the licensed regime.

Should LARCs appoint 4SC Analysts?

This is not a particularly controversial area, and the HSE’s preferred option – that licensed asbestos removal contractors (LARCs) should not appoint four-stage clearance (4SC) analysts – is sound. There will be teething issues – domestic clients and small construction companies are likely to say to the LARC, ‘just tell me who to appoint’ – but largely the removal of a clear conflict of interest would be a great move. Alongside it, there must be client-focused channels for finding the right consultant – a point made in the consultation.

Surveyor Accreditation

The HSE’s own evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee is revealing. It considered accreditation of surveyors in 2004, but opted instead for non-regulatory measures it viewed as less burdensome. The voluntary individual certification schemes that were attempted failed largely because uptake was low – an entirely predictable outcome when participation was not mandatory. Despite the HSE position and evidence, the Committee recommended mandatory accreditation.

For the past two decades, efforts to improve survey quality have relied on two main approaches: non-regulatory guidance for dutyholders, and accreditation that is encouraged but not mandatory. Yet significant issues with survey quality persist, which suggests that neither approach has been sufficiently effective.

The HSE’s own research shows that UKAS accreditation has improved survey quality, but it is not a complete solution – and therefore the regulator maintains that mandatory accreditation would not fully resolve the problem. But the preferred option of more guidance has demonstrably failed over the past twenty years.

Consistent feedback from across the sector points to the core issue being the competence of individual surveyors. The Committee’s recommendation was for surveyors – not survey companies – to be accredited, which is possibly revealing of their intent.

Unfortunately, the consultation document narrows the question down to just two options: mandatory accreditation by UKAS or improving guidance. If we have to pick between one that has some effect and another that has been shown to have no impact, then it has to be mandatory UKAS accreditation.

However, it is rather a shame that the opportunity was not taken to think around the subject, possibly picking up on the Committee’s use of ‘surveyors’ to look at an approach that directly tackles individual competence.

This consultation does offer quite a few yes/no, or multiple choice questions. But across all these areas there are opportunities for respondents to expand on what they think. There will naturally be a wide range of views – but what is essential is that all practitioners across the sector make their views heard. The consultation is open until 9 January 2026, but to find out more – including more views beyond Jonathan and mine, FAAM is running a very timely webinar on the 17th December at 10:00. Here’s a link to sign up. And once you’ve attended that here’s where you can respond to the consultation.