The query is to do with Asbestos Awareness Training, as we undertake no work with the removal of asbestos, the training has far as I am aware is just awareness training which we can be undertaken on-line now, but employees who have had Asbestos Awareness training within the last 12 months just require a TBT on asbestos, stated within the guidance on the HSE web site. As a company we intend to give everybody who previously hasn’t had Asbestos Awareness training the on-line course certificated by UKATA and everybody else a TBT once a year, then full training every 3 years. I know what we are doing is okay, but my director rightly asked if a client insists that we should have UKATA certification what would be our argument to prove that it is not needed for our type of work and under the regulations what we are doing is sufficient. I suppose what I’m looking for in my long roundabout way, if what we are doing is correct or are we way of the mark!!

mh46, you're approach is sound and goes beyond CAR Reg 10 requirements - there's no need for ANY repeat regurgitation of that formal training, 3 years or otherwise. Unfortunately (and I understand these Organisations have to make a living) the established industry trainers would rather sell you a repeat training (sometimes annually!). Even more unfortunate is the related trickle-down "tick box" approach by the Major Contractors Group that is insisting on various safety passports, current Asbestos Certificates from recognised providers, etc. It doesn't look as if the HSE is going to interfere with that, and the UK Government seems more obsessed with the trivial issues (whilst selling them as "big" issues). On the other side of this of course is the commercial of your prospective client asking you to jump. IT may be very difficult for your employer to do anything with that other than to ask "how high."

Thanks for your replies, when I said every 3 years I meant Category A. I think with some clients they will understand that we are complying with the Regs, but with others if it says UKATA on their forms, then unfortunately that’s what it must be.

IanC, I think the reason why people ask for UKATA only is because not all in house courses would hold up to scutinisation from the HSE and in some cases bad in house courses or poor training providers have resulted in prosecution from the HSE for not covering the requirements of Reg10 of CAR. There are alternatives to UKATA but currently none have the same auditing regime of their trainers so it still holds up as the most thorough asbestos certification body. That is why the big players in the industry will stick to it. - until the others catch up. I would emphasize that giving in house asbestos awareness training is dangerous ground unless safety professionals are absolutely certain that they are competent to do so. NEBOSH Diploma alone does not make someone competent to deliver this training.

I would emphasize that giving in house asbestos awareness training is dangerous ground unless safety professionals are absolutely certain that they are competent to do so. NEBOSH Diploma alone does not make someone competent to deliver this training.' I have provided asbestos awareness training on many occasions for those who may come into contact with ACMs via their work. It is certainly not rocket science and I feel competent to deliver this training even though I have no formal qualifications. There is no legal requirement to use UKATA registered trainer, some may prefer this route whilst others may wish to cover their backsides. In my experience many employers do not provide AAT, so whilst we are knit picking over training requirements many employees are unaware of the basic principles.

it comes down, once again, to the definition of competence. Often this doesnt get tested unless something goes wrong. At that point. if tested and in purely my own opinion, I wouldnt like to have men in the field who have been trained by someone without any qualifications in asbestos such as P402 and a training qualification.