A FORMER member of a council at the centre of a scandal which saw staff exposed to deadly asbestos has called for the senior officers in charge at the time to be named.

Employees at the Woodhouse Close Leisure Complex, in Bishop Auckland, were allowed to work unprotected with the dangerous materials for five years - even though their bosses had been given an official warning by inspectors that there was asbestos in the building.

Magistrates fined Wear Valley District Council £18,000 after the authority admitted six serious breaches of health and safety law. None of the executives who were in charge at the time appeared in court because they no longer work for the authority.

Now, retired councillor Derek Jago has called for the officers responsible to be identified.

"These people should be named - even if they are no longer employees of the council," said Mr Jago, who served on the council as a Liberal Democrat member from 1999 until earlier this year.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) inspector who brought the case to court said staff would have been exposed to a "significant" health risk, but because no official action was taken to monitor the asbestos, it is unclear how many people were affected.

The council was first warned about asbestos in pipe lagging in the centre's boiler room in 2001, but ignored the information. The HSE began investigations in January last year when a council worker made an official complaint after finding out about the report.

The new regime in charge at Wear Valley has issued personal apologies to the people affected.

"None of us knew about this at the time - the full report should have gone before full council," said Mr Jago, aged 57.

"The council has to accept responsibility because it owns the building, but at the end of the day those individuals are also responsible because they didn't act on this report.

"The council could only act on this sort of thing if the information is put in front of everyone."

Michael Laing, Wear Valley's present-day chief executive, said the council would not be naming the officers in case any further legal action needed to be taken.

He said: "It is not a case of anybody avoiding responsibility. We don't want to prejudice any further action the council may have to take."