Health and Housing Minister Nelson Bascome yesterday announced an investigation to find out if the law was broken when asbestos-ridden buildings were demolished at Southside.

And he said clear guidelines needed to be set down after revealing that abuse of asbestos removal was widespread.

He said: "We have had enough situations I've seen just in the short period of time I've been Minister. I will look at establishing a policy so it's clear to anyone who violates or is seen contravening in the removal of asbestos.'' Mr. Bascome said he was concerned about the way contractors dealt with low risk, non-friable asbestos and has ordered his officials to draw up guidelines for the future.

He said the buildings bulldozed by contractors employed by Progressive Labour Party MP Arthur Pitcher contained non-friable asbestos, which was of "very little danger to humans'' even if violently disturbed.

He said the risk to workers and residents at Southside was "extremely low'', but conceded the demolition should have been done in such a way as to pose no risk.

He said there were some contractors who did not take the risk of friable asbestos as seriously as they should and that some had been warned several times about their methods. Government Information Services would not reveal the names of the contractors who had been warned, but The Royal Gazette understands that Mr. Pitcher was not one of them.

Law may have been broken at Southside Mr. Pitcher began demolition of the buildings at Texas Road, where he has a contract to build 20 affordable housing units for Bermuda Housing Corporation, but was ordered to stop by an environmental health officer.

Eyewitnesses said most of Mr. Pitcher's workers were not wearing masks while working on the buildings.

Asbestos experts were later called in to handle the asbestos.

Mr. Bascome told the House of Assembly yesterday that all the dangerous friable asbestos was removed from the Baselands after US forces moved out.

"The asbestos which existed in the Southside buildings was of the non-friable kind that poses little danger to humans,'' he said.

"It was present in small quantities in some tiling material and in some mastic. The material has been tested by the Department of Health on more than one occasion and the `little risk' verdict has been confirmed on every occasion.

"I am persuaded by these facts that no matter what the circumstances of the demolition of the building and the removal of the material from the site, the risk to the workers involved and to the residents was extremely low.

"Having said that, I must also say that the workers and the residents always deserve to receive proper protection. The demolition should have been carried out in such a way that no risk was posed to them.'' As The Royal Gazette revealed this week, Mr. Pitcher flouted established procedures by not applying to the Planning Department for a permit when demolishing asbestos-ridden buildings.

By law he did not need a permit because the buildings were more than 25 feet from the road, but it is custom and practice to do so when asbestos is involved.

Mr. Bascome continued: "My investigations this week of the circumstances concerning this incident have convinced me that while the Department of Health and the Department of Planning are well aware of the dangers posed by this material, there are those in the wider community who do not take the risk of non-friable asbestos as seriously as they should.

"The Department has found it necessary to warn several contractors about their methods, and one contractor more than once.'' He said Health Department asbestos experts had discovered previous cases where contractors demolished buildings with non-friable asbestos without permits because they did not believe it was necessary.

"In the circumstances, I have asked the technical officers in my Department to look at developing a clear policy for removal of this type of asbestos and recommend to me ways in which we can get the removal of asbestos in any form under manners.

"I have also asked them to investigate fully whether the law was violated in this case and by whom, and if so, what action should be taken to ensure there is no repetition.'' HOUSING HSG