Audley Shaw, the chairman of Parliament's Public Accounts Committee, wants to call Port Authority's Noel Hylton before the committee to untangle the deepening quarrel over whether or not Mr. Hylton produced a report on the controversial Sandals Whitehouse project.

We believe he should - unless the Government stops being coy and lays out clearly the facts and its interpretation thereof. Or, unless Mr. Hylton tells the public what he did or did not produce - all without spin!

The public has a right to know. For, as it stands now, it is taxpayers money that is on the line. Plenty of it.

Sandals Whitehouse is the hotel property in Westmoreland that is a joint venture between two government agencies, the Urban Development Corporation (UDC) and the National Investment Bank of Jamaica (NIBJ), and Gordon 'Butch' Stewart's holding company, Gorstew. The hotel caused US$41 million more than budgeted to build and Gorstew and the UDC, the project manager, have been arguing over who is responsible.

Mr. Hylton, a public servant who runs the Port Authority of Jamaica, was asked to help to sort out who should now pay what. Things, it now seems, turn on what precisely Mr. Hylton was asked to do and what he did, in fact, do.

Several weeks ago, Karl Samuda, the Opposition politician who has been carrying Gorstew's case in the legislature, produced in the House what he claimed was a report by Mr. Hylton saying that Gorstew was responsible for just over US$1 million of the over-run. That, therefore, should be its contribution to cover the overrun.

Mr. Hylton, in a letter to the UDC, says he did not produce a report; former Prime Minister Patterson says he did not receive one; Information Minister Colin Campbell says none was ever considered by the Cabinet.

The specifics of Mr. Hylton's assignment, the precision of the language with which it was communicated and, finally, how all the parties interpreted what was conveyed by Mr. Patterson are now crucial elements in this saga. Mr. Hylton appears to suggest that his role was something of an honest broker, attempting to coax the parties to agreement. He failed. At the same time, his task was overtaken by Mr. Patterson's appointment of a forensic review of the project as well as lawsuits by Gorstew against its partners in the project.

What, therefore, was the document from which Mr. Samuda quoted during his parliamentary presentation? Mr. Hylton has not denied that it is something he prepared. The context of its preparation, assuming that Mr. Hylton was the author, remains unclear.

Our suspicion is that the Government, in the case of Mr. Hylton's effort, is playing on nuance of language and that it hopes to use to trip Mr. Samuda, and others, at a point it believes to be politically opportune. If we are correct, our suggestion is to end the games and let the facts out. This, after all, is the people's business.

In that context, we look forward to the addendum to Contractor General Greg Christie's report on the project, now that he has received additional information from the parties involved. We also believe there must be greater urgency in the work of the forensic analysts reviewing the matter. No one, so far, is coming out of Whitehouse looking pretty.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.