HSE consultation ‘Legislative and guidance proposals for the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012’ revisited on the eve of Global Asbestos Awareness Week

Despite the UK having some of the lowest rates of occupational injury and fatality in Europe, asbestos remains a major occupational health issue, causing over 5,000 work-related deaths in the UK each year, primarily from diseases such as mesothelioma and asbestosis.

Rick Brunt, HSE’s Director of Engagement and Policy, says:

Sir Stephen Timms, Minister for Social Security and Disability, says:

On 10 November 2025, the HSE opened its consultation ‘Legislative and guidance proposals for the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012’, which ran until 9 January 2026.

Global Asbestos Awareness Week will be observed from 1–7 April 2026, focusing on education, prevention, and advocacy to eliminate asbestos-related diseases. It is therefore timely to recap on the areas of concern identified within the consultation and HSE’s proposals for change.

The consultation sought stakeholders’ views on regulatory and non-regulatory proposals:

1. Regulatory: To amend the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 (“CAR”) and associated guidance to ensure the independence and impartiality of roles in the four-stage clearance process to further minimise the risk of exposure from asbestos to workers and building users after the removal of asbestos.
2. Non-regulatory: To drive up the standard of asbestos surveys by improving guidance and using other interventions to ensure dutyholders understand the critical role of an asbestos survey in managing asbestos risk; and are equipped to commission a quality survey from a competent asbestos surveyor or organisation.
3. Non-regulatory: To improve guidance and use other interventions to clarify the type of work that constitutes work with asbestos known as Notifiable Non-Licensed Work (NNLW)

Proposal 1: Ensuring independence and impartiality in clearance process

After licensed asbestos removal work is completed, a four-stage clearance procedure must be carried out before an area can be re-occupied or demolished. This process, conducted by an analyst, includes:

1. Preliminary check of site condition and completeness of removal
2. Thorough visual inspection
3. Clearance air monitoring
4. Final assessment post-enclosure/work area dismantling.

The Work and Pensions Committee (“WPC”) contend that there is a conflict of interest when the licensed asbestos removal contractor (“LARC”) appoints the analyst and therefore suggested it should be mandatory for the CDM client to appoint the analyst instead. This arrangement aims to eliminate conflicts of interest and ensure impartiality in certifying that an area is safe for reoccupation, preventing asbestos exposure to workers and building occupants after removal works.

Informal stakeholder feedback:

During informal stakeholder engagement, the HSE report that most stakeholders were on board with the proposed change. Many highlighted that current arrangements create real or perceived conflicts of interest, which could undermine safety and confidence in certification.

Stakeholders felt the proposal would safeguard analysts, reducing the potential for undue influence (bullying, or harassment) to declare an area ‘asbestos-free’ quickly, to enable work to continue, when further time may well be required to make this determination.

Analysts indicated their preference would be appointment by the client as opposed to the LARC, due to independence, greater client control, reduced conflict with the LARC, and higher quality analysis.

Some concerns were raised regarding increased costs, additional administrative burden, potential project delays, and whether CDM clients possess sufficient competence to appoint suitable analysts. Consequently, further education for CDM clients would be required to ensure the importance of impartiality in the four-stage clearance process is understood.

Policy options and HSE preference:

The HSE propose two options – the first, to pursue a non-regulatory approach through guidance and encouragement regarding the role of an asbestos analyst in the effective management of asbestos in buildings; the second (and HSE’s preferred option) is regulatory change.

The HSE prefer regulatory change because the requirement has been present in guidance for almost 20 years, meaning that CDM clients have had ample time to understand and comply with it through a non-regulatory approach. However, data shows that in 53% of cases, it is the LARC who appoints the analyst, with clients appointing analysts in just 46% of situations. Given the risk of exposure to asbestos, and the guidance proving ineffective to date, the HSE considers that a regulatory approach is proportionate.

Proposal 2: Improving the quality of asbestos surveys

Under CAR 2012, the dutyholder responsible for managing asbestos in non-domestic premises must ensure a written asbestos management plan is created to manage the risk from asbestos-containing materials (“ACMs”) in non-domestic premises, which relies on accurate surveys being prepared.

Surveys identify the location, condition, and risk of exposure posed by ACMs and inform safe maintenance, refurbishment, or demolition. Onus is on the dutyholder to ensure a surveyor is technically competent to carry out the survey adequately and safely.

The WPC recommended mandatory accreditation for all asbestos surveyors, due to inconsistent standards and poor‑quality survey reports, suggesting a national reporting standard.

The overall goal is to ensure surveys provide reliable and actionable information so CDM clients can effectively manage asbestos risks.

Informal stakeholder feedback:

Stakeholders raised concerns about competence of surveyors across both UKAS accredited and non-accredited surveying organisations, with some suggesting that individual accreditation (rather than reliance upon the umbrella of working for an accredited organisation) would improve competence across the sector. However, it was recognised that accreditation would not act as a single solution to addressing the quality of asbestos surveys.

Again, concerns were raised regarding competence of the CDM clients, in this instance, to commission the correct survey, review it, and act on the results.

From a practical perspective, there were concerns that accreditation would incur a significant cost to businesses, as a large portion of businesses in this sector are small to medium enterprises or microbusinesses.

UKAS also raised concerns about increasing their accreditation capacity to meet increased accreditation demand on this scale.

Policy options and HSE preference:

Two options were proposed by the HSE – the first is to drive up the standards of asbestos surveys through improved guidance and resources, ensuring CDM clients understand the critical role of an asbestos survey in managing asbestos risks and they are equipped to commission a survey. The second is regulatory amendment, requiring all asbestos surveying organisations to be accredited.

The HSE’s preferred option is the non-regulatory approach, relying on guidance, training, and other interventions, which is considered proportionate and capable of addressing the issue without imposing significant additional burdens.

HSE proposes to achieve the intended aim by:

• Improving official guidance on commissioning asbestos surveys
• Providing clearer expectations of survey quality
• Promoting competency and accreditation among surveyors
• Improving understanding among dutyholders of their legal responsibilities

Proposal 3:  Clarifying the work which falls under Notifiable Non-Licensed Work

Under the CAR, asbestos work falls into three categories:

1. Licensable work (LW) – highest risk work must be notified to the relevant enforcing authority and completed by a contractor holding a HSE licence.
2. Non-licensable work (NLW) – lower risk activities that do not need to be notified and no licence is needed.
3. Notifiable non-licensed work (NNLW) – a subset of NLW that still carries enough risk to require notification to the enforcing authority, but no licence is needed.

Stakeholders report widespread struggles to correctly distinguish between these three types of work, particularly NNLW.  The HSE therefore proposes to improve and redesign guidance to help dutyholders and contractors correctly determine when notification to regulators is required and when medical surveillance and additional controls are necessary.

Stakeholder feedback:

Stakeholder consensus is that the category of NNLW is confusing and inconsistently interpreted. Some do not see any benefit to this category of work, whilst others believed it should be maintained, but with clearer definitions, guidance, and practical examples to assist understanding.

One emerging view, is that some contractors intentionally misuse the NNLW category to avoid incurring the higher costs associated with licensable work, enabling them to price more competitively for work.

Policy options and HSE preference:

The HSE has proposed three options:

1. Improving guidance and use other interventions to clarify the type of work that constitutes work with asbestos known as NNLW.
2. Amending the CAR to remove the NNLW category altogether.
3. Amending the definition of NNLW, removing work with higher risk materials including asbestos insulation or asbestos insulating board from scope.

HSE’s preference is the first option, to clarify requirements through non-regulatory guidance, training and resources. The issue is seen as one of interpretation rather than a deficiency in the legal framework and therefore not requiring legislative change.

The HSE proposes to work with stakeholders to identify ways to improve understanding and develop guidance through collaborative approaches, in turn, boosting the profile of this category of work. 

The HSE will consider the views expressed to decide how best to take the proposals forward based on an interpretation and analysis of the responses. A summary of HSE’s response to the views expressed by respondents will be published on the consultation webpage in due course.