Some closing thoughts from me.

So as we move forward, how do we improve this industry and stop the unnecessary exposure of people to this ‘evil dust’? Well I’m absolutely all for innovation and Jordan’s Marvin presents the first realistic achievable step in this area offering a potential solution to the issues we will face in this country to  lowering of the OEL in Europe given we are likely to have to follow suit sooner or later. In addition to some  straightforward developments in sampling equipment, Marvin will allow us to retain our on-site contemporaneous approach when it comes to personal monitoring and the CfR process, given it can count all slides. This frees up some time for the analyst to stop and think about the job and how crucial information is captured for that all important CfR upon completion of the works. The use of AI to capture data will also allow exploration of how we can use that data and any innovation always pave the way for more improvements the industry is screaming out for.

As an asbestos trainer and former primary school teacher I think the foundations for improvement in our industry will always lie in better education, tailored role-specific training and work on changing attitudes and behaviours. As the second article in this newsletter suggests, maybe we haven’t quite got there with training and education of the supervisors around the Supervisor’s Visual and the importance of the Handover Certificate? Also, the training of operatives ‘enough’ when we compare it to the training the analyst receives? It will be interesting to see your opinions on this through the poll so be sure to cast your opinions!

The third article from Rich Bennion is a stark reminder of what I am constantly seeing in context in the work I deliver. PMs, PDs and PCs in charge of managing the health and safety through a project that involves asbestos remediation with no solid knowledge or understanding of asbestos and sometimes even without basic asbestos awareness, because ‘that’s for people on site’. How are they reading and interpreting reports that identify the requirement for removal in the first instance and how are they ensuring remediation is being managed properly particularly on occupied sites. The likelihood is they are not. However, we don’t define their competency requirements anywhere, only that the duty holder should ensure they are competent.

This brings me on to another related point: dutyholder competency. The role of the dutyholder is not appointed it is possessed by default. They sit at the top of the tree as the ‘conductor’ in the orchestra of asbestos management, but we see no definition in terms of training requirements in L143. The dutyholder of course though can and often does appoint competent people to support them but that’s potentially difficult to do if you are not competent in asbestos management as a dutyholder yourself. How do you check the competency of PDs and PCs for example? We also have a vast range of dutyholders types from those responsible for a single building or two like an industrial unit or a school for example to those within a housing association or a large NHS trust. In the larger organisations its not the dutyholder we need to train. They require some top tier senior leadership tailored asbestos briefings but it’s the appointed people we need to focus on, they implement the Asbestos Management Plan on a day-to-day and the plans though fundamentally the same as based on L143 and HSG227 deliver the requirements through processes bespoke to that organisation.

So, is a non-tailored off the shelf course for dutyholders responsible for a managing asbestos in a building or two likely to be effective? Absolutely, but any role within organisations of gathering complexity where the role involves some key responsibilities for managing the risk from asbestos during general occupation, repairs and maintenance, projects and disposal etc next level bespoke training specific to your role and organisation is key in my opinion. The most impactful training I have delivered has been in organisation where I have become embedded in supporting compliance so that I understand their activities and processes. The training content uses their own documentation, scenarios and even incidents making the training about them and how they operate and serves to encourage more effective ‘buy-in’ from the delegates. Even down to asbestos awareness, beyond the basics detailed in guidance we need to understand roles to deliver AA effectively.

Behaviours

As Article 2 shows us we cannot leave behaviours out of the equation when it comes to training and education in the asbestos industry. The Building Safety Act 2022 and its supporting guidance outline the fact that behaviours are a core component of individual competence. Professionals must not only be technically capable but also act responsibly, ethically and with safety as a priority. The inclusion of behaviours reflects lessons from the Grenfell Tower tragedy, where systemic failures were not just technical but also cultural. The Act aims to change the culture of the construction and building management sectors by promoting:

• Accountability
• Ethical decision-making
• A proactive approach to safety

The Act almost missed an opportunity to bring asbestos under its umbrella but that’s not to say we can’t adopt the same approach and education on behaviour is a must in effective training.

Almost every asbestos exposure incident and UKAS action I have been involved with investigating found its resolution in better training and education. I’m sure everyone would agree it would be nice to get that in up front and avoid both in the first instance with more effective training but have to incorporate those behaviours too. My focus over the coming year is to educate more and to educate more effectively and if we all do the same, we may just start to see that change in direction for the industry.