Edmond Campbell, News Coordinator

A divide along party lines has produced two reports from the examination by Parliament's Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of the controversial US$43 million ($2.8 billion) cost overrun on the Sandals Whitehouse hotel project.

This after nine months of gruelling and, at times, intense debate on an issue that grabbed national attention last year.

The PAC concluded its examination of the cost overrun on the construction of the project yesterday, with Government members submitting a majority report, while the Opposition, with fewer members, presented a minority report.

In its report, the Opposition argued that the Contractor General's report, the forensic audit report, as well as the investigations conducted by the PAC, had highlighted a "myriad of allegations of gross negligence, poor management, conflict of interest, misrepresentations and breaches of Government procurement policies".

In this regard, the report stated that a forensic financial audit and a financial audit are required to deal with "these serious allegations".

It contends that these audits will have different scopes and purposes from the previous ones.

According to the minority report, the overall objective of a financial audit is to ensure that the full overrun is known.

The Opposition members noted that the current estimate of US$43.36 million should be seen as preliminary and does not include all interest costs and contingencies.

UDC negligent

In terms of the forensic financial audit, the Opposition PAC members contended that the information presented to the committee suggested that the Urban Development Corporation and its agent were negligent.

If there was negligence, according to the Opposition, "we need to ascertain if this negligence was deliberate or why it occurred. Was fraud committed?"

However, the majority report, submitted by Government members, charged that there was no evidence of corruption.

"We concerned ourselves as to whether there was any evidence whatsoever that any of the public officers concerned in this matter obtained any personal gain and we are satisfied that there was none," the report stated.

The Government members contended that while aspects of the Contractor General's report were inaccurate, they found sections useful.

According to the report, "even if we relied entirely on what he reported, there was no evidence of corruption", neither were any such charges presented to the committee during its deliberations.

In its conclusion, the Government team said the "flawed" budget of US$70 million had caused a misleading picture of what the true cost overrun was.

The reports are to be tabled in Parliament, after which debate will follow.