Government still repeating the same tired objections to an asbestos register

This week, the Government published its response to the Education Select Committee’s report, Foundations of Learning: replacing RAAC and securing school buildings. Among the Committee’s recommendations was a proposal previously recommended by the Work & Pensions inquiry in 2021: create a national digital register of asbestos in the education estate and report annually on compliance and asbestos removal.

The Government’s response? Rejected. The decision rests on a fundamental misunderstanding and a stubborn refusal to engage with the facts.

A solution dismissed on false grounds

The current Government has repeated the same arguments, first made by the previous Conservative Government in response to the Work & Pensions inquiry, that a central asbestos register would duplicate existing information, cost too much, and would not clearly improve safety. It even suggests such a register could somehow weaken the responsibility of duty holders to manage asbestos in their buildings.

This is wrong on every count.

A central register would not require duty holders to create new information. The data already exists. It is gathered routinely through asbestos surveys and already held across the survey industry. The issue is not the absence of data. It is the absence of central oversight, transparency and analysis.

Nor would a national database undermine the legal duties of those responsible for managing buildings. It would do the opposite: it would strengthen regulatory oversight enabling the HSE to assess whether duties are being.

You cannot manage what you refuse to measure

At present, the UK does not have a national picture of asbestos in buildings. That means regulators have weak public oversight, and the system remains highly fragmented and reactive.

A central database would change that. It would allow government and the HSE to:

• Identify where asbestos is located

• Track the overall condition of asbestos over time

• Prioritise higher-risk buildings

• Monitor where removal and remediation have taken place

• Spot patterns of non-compliance

• Intervene more effectively

• Support proper annual reporting on management and removal.

This is not bureaucratic overreach. It is the bare minimum required for evidence-led regulation.

The cost excuse does not hold

The Government also hides behind cost. But this argument simply does not stand up.

The state already operates a national register for the energy performance of homes and commercial buildings. A Freedom of Information request found that this system cost around £2.5 million to develop over its first 18 months, with annual running costs of about £1.4 million in 2024–25.

If the state can afford to maintain a national register tracking the energy performance of buildings, it can afford to track the presence and condition of a known carcinogen that kills many thousands of people a year.

This is not the only reform — but it is an essential one

A national asbestos register is not a silver bullet. It will not, on its own, fix years of weak oversight, inconsistent compliance and institutional complacency. But it is a necessary reform if we are serious about improving asbestos management in schools and across the public estate.

Without better data, there is no serious accountability. Without accountability, there is no serious management. And without serious management, people continue to be exposed.

The bigger failure

What is most frustrating is that Government believes in digital transformation and the use of AI to improve public services. Yet when it comes to asbestos - a major, known, long-term public health risk - it still resists the most basic data-driven reform.

This is the real scandal.

The UK does not have an asbestos problem because the risks are unknowable. It has an asbestos problem because the facts are known, the tools to act exist, and successive governments have still chosen not to act.

What will it take to shift this debate?

The Education Select Committee was right to recommend a national digital register. The Government is wrong to reject it.

Government needs to stop recycling the same tired objections and start building the basic infrastructure of proper asbestos oversight.

The case for a central register is not ideological or bureaucratic. It is practical. It is proportionate. And it is long overdue.

The inconvenient truth is that we cannot manage what we refuse to measure. And every year that reality is ignored, the risk remains in place.

Education Committee Members

Helen Hayes (Labour; Dulwich and West Norwood) (Chair) Jess Asato (Labour; Lowestoft) Sureena Brackenridge (Labour; Wolverhampton North East) Dr Caroline Johnson (Conservative; Sleaford and North Hykeham) Darren Paffey (Labour; Southampton Itchen) Rebecca Paul (Conservative; Reigate) Manuela Perteghella (Liberal Democrat; Stratford-on-Avon) Mark Sewards (Labour; Leeds South West and Morley) Peter Swallow (Labour; Bracknell) Chris Vince (Labour; Harlow) Caroline Voaden (Liberal Democrat; South Devon)