extent on the demolition of Southside homes when he spoke in the House of Assembly on Friday -- but he still left a number of questions unanswered.

Mr. Bascome maintained that the homes dismantled by MP Arthur Pitcher's construction company contained some asbestos, but it was in a form which is widely considered to be safe.

Now he has rightly called for a review of how permits are applied for and handed out for the removal of asbestos from buildings; this needs to be done as quickly as possible. He also acknowledged that not all contractors understand the dangers of asbestos, and that the demolition at Southside should have been done in such a way that there was no risk to workers or residents. That was significant.

Mr. Bascome's information on the type of asbestos found in the buildings does not square with information that The Royal Gazette has obtained which indicates that some of the buildings which Mr. Pitcher's company demolished did contain "friable'' -- dangerous -- asbestos and this was clearly marked.

It may be that The Royal Gazette's information is incorrect; equally, Mr.

Bascome may have been misinformed. There have been a number of reports on asbestos at Southside and they do not concur on how the level of risk. Still, it would seem to have been wise to err on the side of caution.

Mr. Bascome's statement did not answer some of the other questions concerning this issue.

Mr. Pitcher's company dismantled the buildings without following the "normal procedure'' of getting a demolition permit; that is he did not follow the common practice when asbestos is involved.

Mr. Pitcher's company began to build footings for the new homes before the homes were approved by the Development Applications Board and without building approval. He has since been stopped, but Mr. Bascome failed to reveal what action, if any, had been taken against Mr. Pitcher, a contractor for the Housing Corporation, or against Housing Corporation officials for that breach.

Finally, there is still no lease between the Bermuda Land Development Company and the BHC for the property for the new homes.

While this newspaper has been assured that the BLDC supports the still-unapproved application and the lease negotiations are proceeding well, it seems extraordinary that work has reached this point without a lease.

What would happen if the BHC was turned down by the DAB for the development? At a meeting of St. David's residents last week, neighbours of the site made it clear that while they were prepared to do their part to help the housing crisis, they felt that too many homes were planned for the area. Their views will be taken into account by the DAB.

This issue concerns much more than one housing development and one contractor.

It raises questions about how Government agencies conduct their business and go about giving tenders. It raises questions about what conditions contractors expect their employees to work in.

It may be that the Housing Corporation, already under fire for moving slowly to ease the housing crisis, felt it had to do something.

But not following proper procedures leads to mistakes being made. Bermuda cannot afford mistakes when the health and housing of its residents are concerned.

It is encouraging that Mr. Bascome has asked his officials to find out if the law has been broken in this case and by whom, and has proposed action should be taken to ensure it does not happen in the future.

But more than simply ensuring it will not happen again, he must, in the interests of transparency, resolve that Mr. Pitcher's company or the Housing Corporation be punished to the fullest extent if they have been found to have broken the law in this case.