Public Safety Information Bill (Hansard, 21 May 1986)

§ Mr. Robin Squire (Hornchurch)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for greater public access to information on public safety matters; to give local authorities and their officers certain duties to bring such matters to the attention of the public in order to ensure greater public safety and for related purposes. It seems appropriate that the issue of public safety should be raised at this time, as there has been much debate on safety in the past few weeks. A great deal of that debate has centred on the right to know about information concerning dangers and hazards which may threaten the public. My Bill deals with some of the less spectacular —if that is the right word—but nevertheless actual and potential dangers that confront people in their everyday lives. Although they are lesser dangers in one sense, in another they are equally important in that for many people they exist all the time.

The Bill would do three things. First, it would ensure that where there is a matter of public danger about which a local authority or any of its officers obtains information —public danger in that case is defined as danger in any place to which the public have access or any place which people occupy, except as freeholders or leaseholders—it must be brought to the attention of the next appropriate committee and discussed in public. The press and the public would thus be alerted and councillors would be seen to be deciding what action to take. That in itself would be a spur to action and would give the public considerable protection.

Secondly, any member of the public likely to be affected by the hazard would be told of the information that the council had. They would have a right to see the information and to copy it on payment of a reasonable copying fee.

Thirdly, the information must be placed on a public register, which would be available for inspection at all reasonable hours. That would enable the press and the public to obtain an overall picture of the amount of information on any one danger. That is a straghtforward measure, although inevitably it covers many areas. I am afraid that it is indicative of the dangers which people face these days.

Last year there was the Bradford City football tragedy. Councillor Farley, the former council leader, has been quoted as saying that, had the Bill been law, the fire would not have occurred with the resulting disaster. His reason for saying that is easy to understand. Both Bradford city council and West Yorkshire metropolitan county council had on their files a report which contained the words: The timber construction is a fire hazard … a carelessly discarded cigarette could give rise to a fire risk. The report was filed. It never reached the agenda of any council committee or sub-committee. Had the Bill been law, the officers would have been under a duty to put the matter on the agenda and it would have been discussed in public. As Councillor Farley stated, and I fully accept, for such a debate the Strangers Gallery would have been packed and the press would have widely reported the danger. It is inconceivable that no remedial action would have been taken, in which case the fire and the tragedy would not have occurred.

For that reason, the Bradford city council has not only declared its support for the Bill but has started voluntarily 362 to implement it as far as the current law allows, because it realises that the Local Government (Access to Information) Act would not change the situation. That act gives the public rights once items reach an agenda, but for public safety that may not happen, or it may happen all too late. All the examples I shall give to the House would not be affected by my 1985 Act. That is why I believe the new Bill is necessary.

A Department of the Environment survey reveals that, of 334,000 houses in multi-occupation — HMOs — in England and Wales, 38 per cent. lack the legal requirement on means of escape from fire — that is, 127,000 houses occupied by perhaps 750,000 people. Yet those people have no legal right to see the information held by local authorities on the dangers in which they live. On average, two people die from fire in such properties every day.

The Institution of Environmental Health Officers is concerned about the lack of rights for occupants of HMOs. Its working party urged last year that occupants should have the right to view copies of notices served on landlords. The reason is obvious. The notice may stress the lack of means of escape or some other danger, such as lethal wiring, or loose brickwork, but the occupiers who live in danger have no right to see it. My Bill would give effect to the institution's recommendations.

Thousands of homeless families spend months and even years in overcrowded and, for the ratepayer, enormously expensive bed and breakfast establishments. Often they lack proper fire safety certificates issued by the fire authority under the Fire Precautions Act 1971. Yet fire officers are prevented, by section 21 of that Act, from informing the residents of the bed and breakfast establishment, or even the local environmental health officers, of the dangers they have found on their inspections. Thus, millions of pounds of ratepayers' money is spent on placing the homeless in establishments that may well be dangerous while other servants of the ratepayers—fire officers—are prevented from telling them of the dangers in which they live.

Section 17 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 gives county councils considerable information on the disposal of dangerous waste materials; yet, as an interdepartmental working party reported last month, the county council is under an obligation to keep records of these matters but there is no specific obligation to make these records public". The public therefore may live, work or play in the vicinity of a dangerous waste site but they may never be told— until, of course, an accident happens. An EEC directive will shortly give councils additional duties regarding transfrontier shipment of hazardous wastes, but, as the Government working party reports, The Directive contains no mention of release of information". Only last week, a Which? survey showed that many large stores lack adequate means of escape from fire, yet neither store owners nor fire authorities have any obligation to notify the public of the results of any surveys. Will it take another Bradford-type fire before there is a duty to inform the public? The Bill seeks to avoid that risk.

Many authorities collect considerable information on asbestos, but there is no obligation upon them to inform the public, or even those in immediate contact with the hazard. Hon. Members may remember the televised demolition, or would-be demolition, a few months ago by Hackney borough council of Northaird Point—the tower 363 block that would not fall down and remained half standing after the explosion. During the preparation for the demolition, the council discovered that there was asbestos in the building, and, presumably relevant precautions were taken. However, on the Trowbridge estate there were seven other tower blocks of similar design, and the council was under no obligation to inform those tenants of the presence of asbestos. After pressure, information reached the tenants. But it cannot be right that that information reached them only through pressure. A better way of doing things is to give tenants the right to know.

I could give many other examples, but fortunately, as I am sure hon. Members would say, time does not allow me to do so. In promoting the Bill, I already have the support of 26 local authorities, seven of which have already said that they will implement the Bill voluntarily as far as they are able within the current law. Bradford city council has not only already done this, but its officers have drawn up a code of practice. The council expects no difficulties in implementing the Bill, but I am bound to say that, even if administrative difficulty is put forward as a reason for opposing the Bill—as it was by some as a reason for opposing my Bill last year—the saving of lives must take precedence over that reason. Friendly discussions have already been held with some local authority associations which have reservations but more on technical drafting points than on the principle.

I believe that my Bill is in line with Government thinking on matters of public safety. The interdepartmental working party on pollution matters to which I have referred recommended greater public access to information, following the Royal Commission recommendation that there should be a presumption in favour of unrestricted public access 364 to information on pollution. My hon. Friend the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government, in his preface to the working party report, stated: The Government accepts the broad thrust of the working party report.

A consideration and discussion document by the Health and Safety Commission has recommended greater access to health and safety information, following a statement in the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), the then Minister of State, Department of Employment, that the presumption must be in favour of openness rather than secrecy. In a press release dated 4 March 1986, the Department of Employment announced that the Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment, endorsed the Commission's proposals to make the public aware of the health and safety consequences of industrial activity". I feel that my Bill, which deals purely with the local authority aspect of public safety, is in accordance with current thinking on these matters. I urge the House to give leave for it to be introduced.