The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) will definitely not be able to deal with the two most recent reports from the Auditor-General which have been tabled in Parliament.

The reports for financial years 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 are still lying on the table, untouched, as the PAC tries to get to the bottom of the US$43 million overrun at the Sandals Whitehouse Hotel.

Substantive chairman, Audley Shaw, admits that it is very unlikely that the committee will start reviewing the reports this parliamentary year. In fact, he believes it might be as late as August, when the House of Representatives completes both the budget and the sectoral debates, before the PAC will start looking at those reports.

The House is expected to be prorogued around March 24 to allow for the ceremonial opening, which marks the start of the new session, on March 29.

The PAC is scheduled to have its final sitting for this year on March 20, when it hopes to reach agreement on a report to Parliament on its review of the hotel scandal.

“What is likely to happen is that we may have to examine the two reports at the same time,” Shaw told us last week.

This would mean that each ministry or department will have to provide answers to issues arising from both reports, at the same time.

However, the PAC will not be meeting again until March 6 when representatives of the contractors, Ashtrom, are scheduled to appear. Gorstew is scheduled to reappear the following Tuesday.

Last week’s meeting was virtually aborted as none of the parties turned up, resulting in provisional chairman, Mike Henry making the point that, “I am not sure that we are moving with the speed I would like to see”.

Henry read letters from Dr Vin Lawrence, the former chairman of the Urban Development Corporation (UDC) and Alston Stewart, head of Nevalco, who shared the responsibilities of project manager at Sandals Whitehouse, asking to be excused from attending further meetings.

Lawrence’s letter noted that it was the fourth time he was being requested to appear, and recalled that he had indicated that he would be away, on week days, for several months.

He suggested that the committee send him their questions and he would response.

Stewart pointed out that he was unable to attend last Tuesday’s meeting, because of business commitments which he had delayed to meet earlier requests, and that he will be engaged for a number of weeks.

The UDC also sent in a letter advising that they would not be able to attend last Tuesday, because it was the eve of their annual board retreat and it would be difficult to prepare for both retreat and meeting.

At one stage, there was a suggestion that the PAC could utilise the coming two-week break by returning to its normal function of reviewing the AG’s report.

Since Shaw needs to retake the PAC reins…

However, Government member K D Knight pointed out that there would be a difficulty, since the requirement was that the Opposition spokesman on Finance (Shaw) ought to chair the committee. Henry was appointed temporary chairman following Shaw’s withdrawal on the Sandals Whitehouse case after making certain comments on the campaign trail that were taken as partisan.

Knight said that it would seem “untidy” for Shaw to resume the chair for two weeks, then return it to Henry to complete the Sandals Whitehouse issue.

In addition, Auditor-General Adrian Strachan, felt that it was already too late to serve notice on the ministries and departments to attend the PAC within the next week or two.

“I believe we should conclude this first, then move on to the other items. It is much tidier,” Strachan suggested.

So that put paid to any suggestion that the PAC could use the next two weeks productively. But, Strachan suggested that in the interim, his office and the secretary to the committee, Rosemarie Douglas, could work together on a draft copy of the report.

Incidentally, do not be surprised if two reports emerge from the PAC on this issue.

In fact, Member Knight has already suggested the likelihood. The reports would be divided between that supported by the Opposition members and that supported by the Government members.

Members of the PAC are: Mike Henry, chairman, Audley Shaw, Delroy Chuck, Clive Mullings and Joseph Hibbert (Opposition); and Dr Patrick Harris, Charles Learmond, Dr Morais Guy, K D Knight, Sharon Hay-Webster and John Junor (Government).

Henry on track – nine crucial questions about the railway

Opposition spokeman on transport Mike Henry has asked minister of housing, transport, water and works, Robert Pickersgill the following questions:

(1) Does the minister recall that in May 1999 the Government signed an MOU with Rail India Technical and Economic Services (RITES) for the phased rehabilitation and reintroduction of the railway service?

(2) Will the minister state what became of that MOU and whether it is still in force?

(3) What was the estimated cost of the project and how was it to be financed?

(4) Did the Government sign a subsequent MOU with the Government of China in February 2005 with the similar objective of restarting the rail service?

(5) What is the outcome of that MOU?

(6) Did CAMC Engineering of China, pursuant to that MOU, carry out detailed studies to determine the feasibility, proposed implementation and cost of the project?

(7) Did CAMC Engineering submit a technical proposal to the Government in December 2005 for the implementation of the project? If so, will the minister provide this honourable House with the details of that proposal?

(8) Will the minister state whether the Government has given a definitive response to the proposal and what has prevented further action from being taken?

(9) Will the minister state whether the contractual arrangements, signed between the Government and the operators of Highway 2000 have impacted on the feasibility of restoring the rail service? If so, will the minister state the nature of these arrangements and explain their impact on the revival of the rail service?