properly removed from buildings at Southside by a construction firm owned by Government backbencher Arthur Pitcher.

Health Minister Nelson Bascome has stated that an inspection by his Ministry identified those buildings where there were dangerous levels of asbestos, and he seemed to indicate that these buildings were dealt with by a professional removal firm.

But the Opposition claims it has evidence that other buildings containing asbestos were improperly dismantled, thus posing a potential health risk to the workers themselves and to nearby residents and schoolchildren.

Mr. Bascome and Mr. Pitcher must make a clean breast of the issue. The report carried out by the Health Department's inspectors should be made public and the public should also be told which buildings had asbestos removed prior to their demolition and who removed the material.

Mr. Pitcher must also make public which other buildings, with "safe levels'' of asbestos within them, were demolished and what safety measures, if any, were taken.

The public is also entitled to be told whether the contract for building low cost homes at Southside was put out to tender or not, and who, other than Mr.

Pitcher, made bids for the contract.

Bermuda is too small to bar politicians from bidding on and receiving Government contracts. But when a politician -- from either party -- bids on a contract, the process must be cleaner than clean.

When the Government was elected, it promised transparency in bids for contracts and also promised that the taxpayer's money would be used wisely by ensuring the bidding process was opened up.

A full report on what happened at Southside would demonstrate the Government's commitment to this idea.

Mr. Bascome has a deserved reputation as one of the most honest and honourable Members of the House of Assembly. Now he needs to tell the whole story on Southside.

DRUG SENTENCE EDT Drug sentences On Friday, Magistrate Edward King imposed a $10,000 fine on an American drugs smuggler instead of a prison sentence.

Mr. King said the reason for fining the man instead of jailing him was partly based on cost; why should Bermuda spend $44,000 a year to keep him in prison when he could be fined and banished from the Island? In principle, this means that Bermuda does not pay for the upkeep of drugs smugglers, the person is deported from Bermuda never to return, and the size of the fine acts as a deterrent to other would-be drug users.

As a principle for dealing with drug users -- as opposed to smugglers -- this seems to be fair and sensible. The recent case in which an American whose prison sentence for a relatively small amount of marijuana was reversed on appeal and converted into a fine and deportation when it was proved he used the drug for medical purposes showed how the principle can be applied properly.

However, this principle should not apply to drug smugglers. Drug cartels would most likely see a $10,000 fine as a relatively small cost of doing business, not as a deterrent.

In Friday's case, which is likely to be appealed, the man was convicted of smuggling $28,000 worth of cocaine, a substantial amount which was unlikely to have been for his personal use. In the circumstances, a $10,000 fine is not particularly onerous, where a lengthy prison sentence could be a greater deterrent.