For decades, asbestos has remained one of the UK’s most serious public health and workplace safety concerns. Today it is never far from the news with various children’s products (toys) and other items being withdrawn from sale after finding their way into the UK from overseas. Although the material was banned in 1999, it is still present in millions of buildings across the country, including schools, hospitals, offices, factories, and residential properties. As awareness around asbestos-related diseases continues to grow, so too does the debate surrounding how asbestos should be handled. At the centre of this discussion is a key question, “Should asbestos be safely managed where it is, or should it be removed entirely?”. This issue, often referred to as the “Manage vs Remove” asbestos debate, has become one of the most talked about topics in the health and safety sector in 2026.
Understanding the Current UK Approach
The UK currently follows a policy known as “manage in place.” Under the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012, asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) do not always need to be removed if they are in good condition and unlikely to be disturbed.
Instead, duty holders are expected to:-
- Identify asbestos within a building
- Assess the condition of materials
- Keep records updated
- Monitor the risk
- Prevent accidental disturbance and exposure
The reasoning behind this strategy is straightforward – asbestos is generally considered safest when left undisturbed. Problems arise when fibres become airborne through damage, drilling, demolition, or deterioration.
For many years, this approach has been viewed as practical, cost effective, and manageable.
However, growing criticism suggests the strategy may no longer be sustainable.
Why the Manage/Remove Asbestos Debate Has Intensified
Several factors have pushed the manage/remove asbestos debate back into the spotlight.
Ageing Buildings
Many UK buildings containing asbestos are now several decades old. Materials that were once considered stable are naturally deteriorating over time. Ceiling tiles, insulation boards, pipe lagging, cement based sheeting and textured coatings often become more fragile as buildings age.
Critics argue that to simply monitor and manage these asbestos containing materials indefinitely increases the likelihood of accidental exposure in the future. As a surveyor with 40 years field experience, this is a fair argument.
Concerns in Schools and Public Buildings
One of the biggest concerns involves asbestos in schools. Campaign groups and occupational health experts have warned that children and staff could face long-term exposure risks in ageing school buildings.
Because schools experience constant maintenance work, wear and tear, and high occupancy levels, some experts (including this one) believe asbestos removal should become a national priority, with schools and educational establishments at the vanguard.
Hospitals and social housing too have also become major talking points within the wider debate.
Construction and Renovation Risks
The UK is currently seeing significant levels of redevelopment and refurbishment. Particularly in the run up to ‘net zero’ targets being met. Older buildings are being converted into flats, offices, and commercial spaces at a rapid pace.
This creates additional risk for tradespeople, maintenance workers, and contractors who may unknowingly disturb asbestos during renovation work.
As a result, many within the construction industry are questioning whether long term management is a realistic proposition (or a short term fix) in an era of constant redevelopment.
The Argument to Manage Asbestos in Place
Supporters of the current system argue that removal is not always the safest option.
In fact, asbestos fibres are most dangerous when disturbed. Improper removal work can release large quantities of airborne fibres if strict safety controls are not followed.
Key arguments for the “manage” asbestos approach include:-
Reduced Immediate Risk
Undamaged asbestos that remains sealed and monitored may pose little to no immediate danger to occupants.
Lower Financial Burden
Large scale asbestos removal programmes would cost billions of pounds across the UK. Public sector organisations, schools, councils, and NHS facilities may struggle to fund widespread removal projects.
Practical Limitations
Completely removing asbestos from every affected building could take decades and create major disruption to businesses, education, healthcare, and housing.
Asbestos Management Plans
Advocates of asbestos management argue that regular inspections, monitoring , updating asbestos registers, and strict contractor procedures can effectively minimise risk when properly enforced.
The Argument for Asbestos Removal
On the other side of the debate are campaigners, unions, health experts, and some industry professionals who believe the UK should move towards phased asbestos removal rather than just try to manage it.
Their arguments focus on long term prevention rather than ongoing management.
Asbestos Causes Thousands of Deaths Each Year
Asbestos related diseases such as mesothelioma, asbestosis, and lung cancer continue to claim thousands of lives annually in the UK.
Critics argue that maintaining asbestos inside buildings prolongs the possibility of future exposure.
Human Error Is Unavoidable
Even with strict regulations in place, mistakes still happen. Contractors may drill into hidden materials, records often may become outdated, or maintenance staff may not receive adequate training.
Opponents of the “manage” asbestos approach argue that relying on perfect long term management is unrealistic. The UK has been managing asbestos since the early 2000’s and the death rate has barely moved down, despite the lack of heavy exposure since the 1960’s and 70’s.
Ageing Materials Become Harder to Control
Asbestos products naturally degrade over time, particularly when sited outdoors. Materials that were once stable may become brittle, damaged, or vulnerable to disturbance decades later.
A Long-Term Investment in Public Health
Supporters of removal argue that although the upfront cost is high, gradual planned removal programmes could reduce future healthcare costs, legal claims, and occupational exposure risks.
