Dawn Ritch, Columnist

Like many others, I find myself often wondering what is the use of Parliament, except to parliamentarians.

They count on our collective amnesia, aided and abetted by a press more interested in doodling. Parliamentarians know that what is said rarely gets reported, and if so, with the wrong emphases. This means that they themselves are entirely free to forget about any item of national significance, because if it got reported, no one would remember anyway.

The hearings before the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament on the Sandals Whitehouse controversy is a case in point. Having wandered all around the mulberry bush last year, the sitting parliamentarians sought guidance last week in some bewilderment from the Auditor General as to what the hearings were all about. Quite correctly and in very measured tones, he reminded them that the focus was cost overruns of US$46 million.

Readers must note that these hearings are taking place after a forensic audit - costing $22 million - into the matter, and the tabling of the Contractor General's report, also on the same matter. The Jamaica Labour Party Opposition requested the first, and the Contractor General acted, he said, on his own initiative.

This is, therefore, a matter much studied by the Parliament, the Government, and technical experts touted by both sides of the House as eminent in the field.

But Parliament is still studying it some more. These PAC hearings are at the request of the Opposition and agreed to by the Government. This is how they waste taxpayers money until they confuse even themselves, and have to ask the Auditor General to straighten them out.

Using Hansard, I must point out to the Contractor General that he cannot "on (his) own initiative" investigate Sandals Whitehouse, because he has absolutely no standing in the matter. None whatsoever.

retroactive remit

On May 17, 2005, Hansard has verbatim reports of then Prime Minister Patterson, who had portfolio responsibility for Whitehouse, and in whose constituency it fell, answering questions tabled by Opposition Leader Bruce Golding. The latter had asked why the National Contracts Commission was not involved.

Patterson replied: "Joint venture companies such as Ackendown Newtown Development Company Limited were not yet characterised as being under the jurisdiction of the National Contracts Commissions (NCC). It should be pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that the Contractor General Act of 1983 was amended in 1999 to establish the NCC ... approved public sector contractors were launched in July/August of 2001. By August 2001, the project team and main contractor had already been selected for over a year."

The action of Greg Christie as Contractor General in investigating Sandals Whitehouse last year, therefore, means that he, all on his own, has made his remit retroactive. This is a clear violation of every principle of justice and law. It makes him an arrogant, unguided missile.

I note also that in the same May 2005 sitting, the then Prime Minister reported that, "(Sandals Whitehouse) is being built in an area where crocodiles nest. Please! you know I am a responsible person. The first thing that had to be done was to ensure the safety of guests ... and the due care and protection of the crocodiles. The removal required permission from NEPA. The terms and conditions of that approval required an increase in the landscaping cost. That had to be met in protection of environmental requirements and for the safety of the guests.

"Secondly, it is not only 'Ivan'. 'Charlie' had also passed by and the whole of that beach area was totally changed. Peat was discovered where it was not known to have existed until the hurricane had passed. And that also was a cost."

As this column has always maintained, Sandals Whitehouse should never have been built. Jamaica needs no catalyst for the development of our wetlands, much less be faced with US$46 million in cost overruns because we defied common sense. Sensible administration does not cause hotels to be built in crocodile nesting grounds and on peat. Peat is one of the features of Jamaican swamp, and gives off methane gas. It is capable of spontaneous combustion, and can be ignited by a strike of lighting. Yet, this is where they chose to build a hotel.

That is a blatant dereliction of public duty. But this did not detain either Patterson, Gordon 'Butch' Stewart, or Dr. Vin Lawrence, now the former chairman of everything.

more than cost overruns

They were in happy agreement on the project from as far back as 1992. Even on May 17, 2005, they were still in agreement. Replying to the Opposition's question on how the Government came to reacquire the property, the then prime minister said: "A specific term of the agreement of the sale off (sic) the land to Gorstew was that construction of the hotel should commence in June 1991 and be completed by November 1992. The agreement also stipulated that if the special condition regarding the construction and completion of the hotel was not met, the UDC could rescind the sale agreement and refund the purchaser the amount for the land less 10 per cent which would be forfeited. The UDC chose not to exercise the power of forfeiture. instead, Gorstew then became a partner with the UDC and in the equity which Gorstew provided was the value of the land which they had."

Since it abandoned the hotel project, this means that Gorstew was in breach of the sale agreement from 1992. This raises the question of why the UDC did not act as required and refund the amount to Gorstew. And if, to quote Mr. Patterson again, "The price was too low" before the breach, did it then remain that low even after the breach? How much land was bought? what was the final price? and, is the land still in one piece?

I can answer the latter without batting an eye. The land is not still in one piece because a major wetland has been destroyed with concrete. But they will never be able to stop a crocodile's returning to his nesting ground, nor the properties of peat. Any holiday insurer should be cognisant of that fact.

Anybody who builds a hotel in the swamp has to expect building costs that are three times the size of conventional ones. From that point alone it was never any secret that Sandals Whitehouse was going to experience massive cost overruns. It wasn't an issue in 1992, nor in 2005, but now it's suddenly an issue, with the Opposition desperately seeking to establish that Gorstew does not end up having to pay for the overruns, or any part of it.

The only conclusion I can draw is that there is more to this than cost overruns. And that is why the Public Accounts Committee cannot remember what it's about. Someone should shoot that horse and put it out of its misery.