In Australia, the Asbestos Diseases Foundation is witnessing the "third wave" of asbestos victims, as "thousands and thousands" of individuals are being diagnosed with asbestos cancer as a result of exposure during a home renovation project.

For construction workers, contractors, electricians, drywallers, etc. the issue of asbestos exposure while working in older residences is quite severe. In comparison to the countless other occupational hazards faced by these individuals, asbestos exposure and the subsequent health effects - the development of mesothelioma cancer, for example - may seem less obvious, and for this reason, asbestos exposure continues to occur on the job.

Asbestos exposure in construction workers and other laborers typically occurs during demolition. Often, workers discover asbestos-containing products after having gotten partway through the job, which means that they may have been breathing in airborne asbestos fibers.

Once discovered, asbestos materials must be removed by a licensed asbestos abatement professional and disposed of properly to avoid further exposure, but the long-term effects of even brief exposure to asbestos can be fatal.

If inhaled, asbestos fibers - which appear similar to that of a "claw" in architecture - may cling to the mesothelium, or lining of the body's internal organs, for decades before a victim begins to experience symptoms of an asbestos-caused illness, such as asbestosis or mesothelioma cancer. The asbestos fibers may cause a malignant tumor, and if they do, it is simply a matter of time (often, less than two years following initial diagnosis) before a victim succumbs to their disease.

In the UK, employers (including contractors) are urged by the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work to protect their workers from exposure to asbestos and other toxins.

According to the Occupational Exposure Limits (OEL) put forth by the European government, "average exposure time" is about eight hours per day. If a construction worker spends eight hours a day breathing in asbestos fibers, the future health consequences can be deadly! The very best way to protect employees - and yourself - is to limit (and avoid, if possible) time spent working with asbestos.

That being said, the first step that contractors and their employees should take involves asbestos testing. Before beginning work on any structure that was built thirty or more years ago it is advisable to test attic insulation, drywall, stucco, and tiles for asbestos.

If these materials test positive for asbestos, a licensed abatement company must conduct asbestos material removal prior to beginning any further construction work.

Once all asbestos materials have been removed, air quality monitoring should also occur in an effort to protect workers from exposure to errant asbestos that may be lingering in the air. If safe levels of asbestos in the air are determined - or none at all, ideally - then work on the structure can begin. Taking these "extra" steps is the only way to prevent exposure to this potentially deadly toxin.

Please visit Mesothelioma.com or the European Agency for Safety and Health for additional information about the health and safety consequences of asbestos exposure.

Jennifer Miller, Mesothelioma.com

But in the demolition industry, our ability to start work often hinges upon input from utility companies, which have an unenviable reputation for bureaucracy, inefficiency and ineptitude. These companies have to ensure that all utility services are switched off and isolated. This is something that could be arranged with a simple phone call but, in reality, it often takes weeks and even months to accomplish.

On one recent contract in south London, it took us three months and more than 80 separate phone calls, together with numerous faxes and emails, to have an electricity meter removed from site. That issue alone cost us four weeks' admin time.

The National Federation of Demolition Contractors has made numerous representations to the utility companies it has had ongoing communication with the energy ombudsman and it has entered into numerous, failed partnering agreements to facilitate a more efficient disconnection service.

And yet the problem remains.

We live in a world of instant, centralised and global communications, where business can be conducted at the flick of a mouse button. It is surely time that the utility companies entered the 21st century and allowed us to get on with our work.

David Darsey
Vice president
National Federation of Demolition Contractors

It is not uncommon for subcontractors to receive tender lists from as many as four main contractors for the same job. This is due to the cost-saving of electronic distribution, thus increasing the number of mechanical and electrical subcontractors quoting for a project.

To be the lowest out of four is one thing, but the lowest out of 24 is an entirely different story. If you are the lowest, the reason rarely, if ever, relates to margins.

Let's be realistic about this - surely the most important aspect of the main contractor/subcontractor relationship is, in large part, trust. For example, has the subcontractor submitted a compliant bid, opposed to one that implies compliance? And whose true worth is only exposed after the order is placed and when it is effectively too late.

It is inexpensive to send enquiries to as many subcontractors as you can find, but does it really help your cause?

From the subcontractors' perspective, we are well aware of the cost of estimating, and sooner or later we will be deciding which projects to price purely based on the size of the tender list.

Leaving us to question who wins in this arrangement?

Patrick Cassidy
Operations director
ABS London

And yet, the UK construction industry continues to waste more than £250 million each year on one of the most hated chores in the sector; the repetitive and soul-destroying completion of pre-qualification questionnaires (PQQ's).

It is estimated that around 5,000 contractors are currently collecting and attempting to maintain current information on around 180,000 subcontractors and suppliers. That equates to more than two million paper PQQ's per year. Worse still, around 85 percent of the questions asked are not contract or job specific.

Setting aside the environmental impact of this mass paper-shuffling exercise, that is eight million man hours spent on a repetitive process with no commercial or economic benefit.

As a trade organisation, The Builders' Conference firmly believes that this level of repetition and wastage simply cannot be allowed to continue.

In line with the recommendations of the Government-sponsored Latham Report published in 1994, we are urging our members and other companies within and allied to the construction industry to adopt a single, centralised database that is accessible to all interested parties.

The Builders' Conference is, therefore, calling upon the construction sector to embrace The Builder's Profile, a centralised and online alternative to PQQ's and to put an end to this appalling waste of human resources once and for all.

To state your objection to the current PQQ system, please register your objection at our website.

Neil Edwards
Chief Executive
The Builders' Conference

I set up my own company three years ago and - as I have always believed to be the case - found that it is the responsibility of the company itself to encourage good working practice.

For the NASC to imply that if you do not use its members you may compromise standards is unfair and misleading.

At a time when clients call the shots, every project that we are involved in has been re-bid and the lowest bid wins.

To suggest that being an NASC member excludes you from the price war is unfounded.

The reality of the criteria of becoming an NASC member is that 75% of your workforce have to be directly employed. At present, my own workforce is 40% direct, reduced in the past year from 90% due to fluctuating workloads and uncertain times.

I'm in favour of tighter regulations and a governing body for scaffolding to increase standards and better education of our industry, but in terms of safety non-members are no more dangerous than members.

I would become an NASC member to raise industry awareness and increase our tender opportunities - but not for greater safety regulation or to encourage higher pricing and increased staff salaries.

Mark Gainham,
Managing director
SBBS Building & Scaffolding

So the decisions to fine a pair of grandparents £45,000, a Yorkshire couple £29,000, and an Essex man £103,000 may suggest the authorities are finally cracking down on the criminal element.

But far from having committed some heinous crime, they all have one thing in common; they are in the construction industry. Their only offence was to offer regular work to CIS4 card-holding subbies.

To my mind, it is a scandal that such massive fines are being levied against a hard working community. Rather than being encouraged, their very existence is increasingly threatened by a taxation directive that has been designed to raise revenue - in much the same way that speed cameras operate.

To make sure you don't unwittingly place yourself in line for a nasty surprise, be aware of one of HMRC's more cynical ploys.

When the Revenue is considering a status investigation, subbies are frequently invited to attend an 'informal' meeting to discuss their working arrangements.

The operatives are reassured they are not under investigation, but make no mistake, HMRC is looking for anything that helps them build a case against contractors, who could then find themselves involved in a lengthy investigation, which often ends in a huge fine.

I suggest you alert your subbies to the fact these 'informal' meetings are nothing of the sort.

Richard Crisp
Sales director
Hudson Contract Services

While we can lobby these big companies to restrain from late payment, it is the smaller suppliers that actually hold the power to stop it happening.

The question is: what type of business do you want to be? One that holds on to its values and sticks to the principle of fair payment in order to weather the current storm? Or one that goes bust as a result of trying to manage an impossible cashflow situation?

The Fair Payment Campaign launched by NSCC last year gives SMEs within the supply chain the ability to achieve certainty of payment, 30-day payment terms, and the end of cash retentions.

And we can't let the progress made so far slip away at a time when fair payment is more important than ever. We need to test the resolve of the government's commitment to fair payment throughout the supply chain. If all businesses that want to realise fair payment practices stand firm, they will be much better placed when the market recovers.

The SMEs that make up the supply chain are the construction industry. Without their skills, knowledge and workforce, there is no industry and we should not forget that when it comes to payment.

For guidance, practical tools and tips for getting paid on time, visit the NSCC's dedicated website.

Suzannah Nichol MBE
Chief executive
NSCC

But the 'specialist' construction industry must come together and resist such aspirations.

It is a generally held view that our industry is driven by the majority-contracting side of the construction industry, and that major contractors fail to understand the needs of the specialist sector.

The Construction Confederation would have us believe therefore that it is there to set the agenda and the rest of the industry, which does somewhere in the region of 80% of the work, should recognise its position in the supply chain and dutifully follow its lead.

The Strategic Forum's safety group must not be allowed to move in on CONIAC. Otherwise it risks becoming another closed shop for mainstream contractors, hell-bent on telling the specialists how to do their job.

The National Association of Shopfitters is by no means the sole arbiter of standards within the overall sphere of construction. But what is certain is that CONIAC must be saved. It successfully joins up the dots of the whole industry and demonstrates that intelligent thinking exists outside the square mile of Westminster.

Robert Hudson
Director
National Association of Shopfitters
Shopfitting Independent Training Forum

A PAYE umbrella scheme pays much of a worker's payment as travel expenses or for meals and tools, but workers become employees of the umbrella company and so normal benefits and expenses rules apply.

When a place of work is not a temporary workplace, a worker's travel and other costs become normal costs payable out of taxed income.

What is not understood is that when payments are treated as expense payments, these do not count towards gross pay for calculating the national minimum wage. Neither is holiday pay.

Clients and principle contractors are responsible for checking compliance in the supply chain, but it is still unclear to what extent they could become liable if workers are found to be improperly employed.

HMRC is actively seeking law breakers and is able to impose fines of up to £5,000 for each offence. When the net closes, the taxman will recoup millions, without having to issue demands and challenging appeals on what constitutes a temporary workplace. But at what cost to an already beleaguered construction industry?

Carolyn Walsh,
Director
CW Construction

But with so many schemes available, the challenge lies in accreditation bodies reaching an understanding to persuade more firms to adopt this approach. Some pre-qualification service providers are currently working with the Health & Safety Executive to this end.

If it isn't achieved, frustration over unnecessary duplication could lead to a loss of credibility for pre-qualification providers, which would be bad news for the industry.

In addition to mutual recognition, it is important that an independent awarding body is established to certify the quality of accreditation service providers. This would enable the HSE to endorse those schemes which meet the required level of competence, quality management and service delivery.

While large numbers of contractors and users of their services benefit from third party accreditation, many in industry still doubt the value of such schemes.

Leading accreditation providers must do more to demonstrate the real benefits of these schemes to the client and contractor market. Apart from the role accreditation plays in preventing accidents, it can save clients and contractors a lot of time that would otherwise be spent in multiple vetting processes. Mutually recognised standards would save both time and money for industry.

Darran Hughes
Operations director
SAFEContractor

Why are they doing it? It's simple - it's because, in this climate, they can. By taking advantage of the current fears, born of the credit crunch, larger companies can withhold payment for the maximum amount of time, safe in the knowledge that their suppliers will 'put up and shut up'.

While the FSB are busy naming and shaming the worst culprits, how can those lower down the food chain ensure they don't fall victim and become their clients' latest credit solution?

The answer rests with the issue of value. Those whose services are valued by their clients are less likely to fall prey to extended payment periods. The supplier, therefore, needs to better communicate his or her value and shout louder in their demands for payment. If still necessary, they should then exercise their legal rights and charge interest on any late payments.

The larger firms are playing an arrogant and potentially damaging game. Withholding payment is a sure way to build resentment which could colour the suppliers' performance and service delivery.

Chances are that if they do value the suppliers then so do the suppliers' other customers. If payment is delayed, these same suppliers may feel that they're better off taking their goods and services elsewhere next time around.

Andrew Russell
Joint managing director
Russells Construction

Yet last week, CJ reported that the government will act "to ensure nobody is falsely classified as self-employed", and in parallel, HMRC is consulting on tax relief for travel expenses for temporary workers, which could eradicate Umbrella companies.

As of today, every building in the UK built, sold or leased needs an EPC and recommendations report, with penalties for non-compliance - yet the industry is unprepared.

The problem is that there is a shortage of people accredited to complete EPC reports for commercial buildings. There is already a backlog that needs signing off and this will only get worse.

Is this a new skills shortage? No. There are thousands of fully qualified engineers perfectly capable of producing the certificates. The problem is that to become accredited through a relevant scheme in England or Wales, each of these engineers, no matter how well qualified, needs to undergo two days' training - at a cost of £500-plus each. Yet in Scotland, professionally qualified engineers will be able to sign-off EPCs without any additional training.

South of the Border, it seems, we don't have the same faith in our engineers' abilities and instead must face unnecessary costs and complexity.

Backlogs for certificates will grow, putting yet more pressure on the property market. The government should step in to support those who already have the skills and experience to produce EPCs. Surely in the 21st century, it still means something to be a chartered engineer?

Jim Costello, Director, Hulley & Kirkwood

This blame culture misses the point. The fact remains that increased rainfall patterns are set to continue and our antiquated drainage systems cannot cope. What really matters is that central government and the construction industry learn quickly from mistakes and fully grasp the need to embrace Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) on new developments.

Both government and the construction industry have been talking about this for too long now with no action.

Government has failed to set out legislation that would change the way we manage and alleviate the pressures that unpredictable rainfall patterns place on our traditional drainage systems. Equally, our industry has been too conservative in its approach to using SuDS, often not understanding what systems can offer or how to install them.

The irony is that proven technologies like porous asphalt are widely available. Used as part of a wider SuDS programme they can manage excess surface water and reduce flood risk.

Defra's Draft Floods and Water Bill could hold local authorities responsible for surface water in their areas. This Bill could also eventually pave the way for more specific SuDs legislation.

Yet consultation on this Draft Bill is set for 2009. Our industry should not wait for this legislative 'kick-start' before it embraces current and effective technology.

James Freeman
National special products manager
Tarmac

This is a worrying increase and highlights the need to enhance traditional site security measures that are proving to be less and less effective in combating this serious criminal activity.

At a time when the industry is suffering a downturn in fortunes, these financial losses are hitting contractors hard. It is not only a financial burden that they create as well, as the theft of construction equipment can stall a project, add to clients' costs and lead to late completion.

Contractors need to create and develop a culture and attitude towards site security that is modern, relevant and forward-thinking. It is increasingly vital that a proactive approach to site security is taken, as this will improve the all round performance of the industry.

Taking advantage of high-tech security solutions such as smart cards and biometric recognition entry points is one solution to reduce the amount of theft of construction equipment.

Investing in high quality security solutions will in the long term save contractors money and make it harder for the criminals who are currently profiteering at the industry's expense.

Clive Williamson
Managing Director
Ocon Construction