Lost in translation

It’s been a year since Regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002 came into effect and there can be no better example of how legislation can get lost in translation. Or of how a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Or how, unless we rethink our approach to the inevitability of ever-more legislation, history is doomed to repeat itself.

Let’s start with the Act itself, which introduced the new duty to manage asbestos in non-domestic premises. Anything that endangers health requires decisive action and the Act is clear about this: unless asbestos is properly managed, the public’s health is under threat.

The situation must be controlled. And that is exactly where things start to get complicated. The Act does not stipulate the wholesale removal of every last bit of asbestos; it demands management – which is not the same thing.

Asbestos was initially hailed as a panacea and turned out to be a killer – now, if it’s discovered in a building, residents want it removed, end of story. But asbestos has almost unrivalled insulation and fire-retardant properties – its performance is unquestionable.

Okay, it’s strongly associated with a kind of ‘throw it up quick’ approach to construction, so not only is asbestos linked with disease, it has become a byword for bad materials and profit at any cost. But, managed well, this material offers protection for buildings and people. It’s the ‘managed well’ bit that is creating turmoil.

We can’t blame the Government, which has recognised that the management of harmful materials is one of the biggest factors in successful urban regeneration. To support the new act, the Government has come up with very generous tax breaks of 150% relief on capital expenditure relating to asbestos management, although companies seem to be slow in taking advantage of it.

Faced with a sceptical public, of course, the pressure is on to simply rip asbestos out. But this immediately creates problems – stripping it out creates particles, a known killer. And where does it end up? As landfill – yet we do not know what long-term environmental impact it has.

We must be proactive and emphasise the gains to be made by dealing with asbestos in the most forward-thinking way

But asbestos is, if not the tip of the iceberg, then only part of the story. It’s certainly not the only harmful material around. We’re surrounded by materials and substances which, ignored or used unwisely, pose a threat to safety (MDF springs to mind: thank you, ‘Changing Rooms’).

An opportunity for us to act

It took 30 years to recognise and deal with the impact of poorly managed asbestos. Unless we act now, we may face the same situation over and over again as yet more substances reveal their long-term effects.

I am not repeating the mantra that all this legislation is stifling the industry – I believe that Acts like this give us an opportunity to do something positive about the environment.We need to accelerate the agenda for improvement.

As professionals, we must be proactive and emphasise the gains to be made in properly dealing with asbestos in the safest, most responsible and forward-thinking way. And we must be at the forefront of ensuring that the spirit of the Act translates into real benefits for clients, the wider public and the environment.