Is Mandatory Accreditation the Way to Facilitate an Asbestos-Safe Future?

Date: 28/11/25

As the UK continues to contend with the legacy of asbestos in the built environment, the quality of asbestos site surveys has come under intense scrutiny with regulators and industry bodies pushing for higher standards.  With the HSE strongly recommending the use of UKAS-accredited surveyor organisations, the question of mandatory accreditation – specifically, who should be accredited and whether the regulatory framework itself is fit for purpose – has become a key topic in both policy discussions and professional practice. 

Currently, we do not have a national strategy for phased asbestos removal. The HSE has carried out targeted inspections of public buildings, refreshed its guidance on surveys and management, and reviewed how it supports dutyholders. Yet public access to asbestos management plans remains limited, and concerns remain about inconsistent survey quality. While best practice frameworks such as ISO 17020 and ISO 17024 exist, and the HSE recommends UKAS accreditation as the gold standard for organisations, legal compliance with surveying remains voluntary. 

As an industry, we have clear evidence that voluntary schemes are ineffective in driving up standards. NIACS, a certification scheme involving both the Asbestos Testing and Consultancy Association (ATaC) and the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) that ran from 2004 to 2008, enabled individual asbestos surveyors to demonstrate competence through UKAS-accredited certification to ISO 17024. Similarly, ABICS was designed in the early 2000s to provide the formal certification of individual asbestos building inspections. Neither scheme was written into law under the Control of Asbestos Regulations, and uptake for these voluntary schemes was low. Employers didn’t demand them, surveyors didn’t pursue them, and the regulator didn’t enforce them. The regulatory emphasis has since shifted toward organisational accreditation, but without a clear mandate for individuals or organisations, inconsistencies in surveys and asbestos management have persisted. 

In 2021, the House of Commons Work and Pensions Select Committee called for reforms to asbestos management, urging the HSE to improve survey quality and transparency, develop a national strategy for asbestos removal, and consider mandatory UKAS accreditation for surveyors. In 2022, the HSE acknowledged the Committee’s concerns but stopped short of committing to mandatory accreditation or clarifying responsibilities at an individual level. Instead, it agreed to review its guidance and enforcement practices and explore improvements in competency frameworks. Earlier this month, the HSE launched a public consultation on changes to the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012, which include proposals to drive up standards for asbestos surveys and formalise surveyor competency. 

The topic of mandatory accreditation took centre stage at this year’s NORAC Asbestos Conference, prompting a lively exchange of perspectives, many of which will undoubtedly be reflected in responses to the consultation. iON's Richard Bennion contributed an impartial standpoint, recognising the merits of both for and against arguments but noting that neither provided a definitive answer. 

Momentum is building around the expectation that organisations conducting asbestos surveys secure UKAS accreditation, a position reinforced by the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee’s recommendations. However, approximately 3,600 companies continue to operate without UKAS accreditation, underscoring the scale of the transition ahead. Onboarding even half of these with HSE’s current capacity would be a daunting and impractical challenge. Regardless, from our independent standpoint, the challenge still lies in balancing organisational accreditation with individual competence, an issue widely debated in the 2000s that remains unresolved today. 

Asbestos safety requires uniform competency and quality assurance. In a country with an estimated stock of 1.5 million asbestos-containing buildings, any inconsistency in individual performance poses a real and ongoing risk. We are concerned that organisational accreditation alone may mask inconsistencies and leave key risks unaddressed. While many argue that individual accreditation could be prohibitively expensive for small operators, particularly specialist firms and sole traders, we believe an accessible, affordable and fair scheme under the framework of ISO 17024 deserves serious consideration. 

In other safety-critical sectors, competence is not left to organisational oversight alone. Gas engineers, for example, must hold personal certification to work legally in homes, and many professionals in the aerospace and energy industries are individually accredited to guarantee competence. Such models recognise that it is the individual who determines safety, not their employer. Applying the same principle to asbestos surveys would ensure every surveyor is personally accountable, demonstrably competent and held to a uniform national standard. 

According to HSG246, individual surveyors can demonstrate competence through personal certification of ISO/IEC 17024. The HSE also provides guidance on accreditation and certification for organisations and individuals:  

“Accreditation and personnel certification are both valid schemes for demonstrating competence in performing asbestos surveys. Accreditation is suitable for organisations of all sizes, where the scale and volume of surveying work dictate not only individual competence but also the need for more formal and well-defined quality management systems. Personnel certification is designed for individuals who may operate as sole traders or in organisations with only a few surveyors. The scheme focuses on individual competence.” 

This brings us to the adequacy of the current regulatory framework. Safe asbestos management concerns public health, regulatory integrity and professional standards. While mandatory accreditation would certainly professionalise the industry, the current and proposed regulatory frameworks are not equipped to ensure competence and accountability. ISO 17024 bases individual competence on technical skills, knowledge and experience. These attributes are monitored through in-house audit programmes and periodic UKAS surveillance audits. In practice, the regulator checks whether people know what to do but often overlooks how they do it. 

The Grenfell Tower inquiry revealed a significant deficit in behavioural competence. It highlighted how systemic failings relating to personal ethics and conduct could undermine safety, even when technical rules are followed. In the wake of these findings, BS 8670:2024 was established as part of a programme to improve competency and safety standards in the built environment. This formal code of practice considers behavioural competencies equal to technical knowledge and management skills. If ISO 17024 or any other asbestos regulation is mandated, we strongly advocate for ethical and behavioural criteria to be embedded as a matter of urgency. Aligning asbestos regulations with BS 8670:2024 would recognise competency as an individual responsibility and hold surveyors accountable for what they know and how they act. 

Asbestos surveyors are required to make complex judgements that directly impact human health. Unethical behaviour, poor communication and a lack of accountability can have serious consequences for workers and building occupants. Behavioural competence is therefore essential and extends beyond the scope of HSG264 and HSG248. Technical proficiency must be maintained through continuous professional development, ethical practices and meaningful oversight. Without investment in these areas, accreditation risks becoming a box-ticking exercise rather than an effective safeguard. 

At iON Consultants, we advocate that achieving an asbestos-safe future requires a combination of robust policy, comprehensive education and cultural change at an individual level. The challenge now lies in how the HSE chooses to strengthen and enforce its governance. With the public consultation, the industry now has an opportunity to shape a policy that ensures every asbestos survey meets the highest standards of safety and competency to create asbestos-safe environments for future generations. 

 

Explore more