Opposition leader David Burt said last night his party had “not advocated for people to impede access to Parliament” on February 3, when the controversial airport deal is again up for debate.

Mr Burt was asked by The Royal Gazette if the Progressive Labour Party was planning or involved in organising a fresh protest to prevent parliamentarians from discussing two pieces of legislation key to the airport redevelopment plan.

We also asked if he advocated protesters barring MPs from entering Parliament, as they did on December 2, during a demonstration he encouraged supporters to participate in.

Mr Burt said the conditions that led to the December 2 protest would still exist on February 3, unless the Government released “crucial contract details” about the deal with the Canadian Commercial Corporation and contractor Aecon.

Specifically, he said the “lease, master assignment and consent agreement, and the domestic contract” should be released to give the public and MPs enough understanding to be able to accept or reject the deal.

“I cannot predict how the Government will act before that time [February 3], but it is clearly their responsibility to provide the country with the facts needed to support this deal,” said Mr Burt.

“The PLP has made no plans to call for the presence of concerned citizens on February 3, 2017, yet it should always be within the public’s right to vocalise their positions. Additionally, we have not advocated for people to impede access to Parliament on that date.”

The PLP leader also discussed the events of December 2, reiterating an allegation by his party that Michael Dunkley, the Premier, and “some” Cabinet ministers “knew in advance of the deployment of police support units” to the scene.

Michael DeSilva, the Commissioner of Police, told this newspaper on December 6 that no one outside of the Bermuda Police Service was informed of the plan to send officers in riot helmets to the scene.

On December 14, he said the officers deployed to deal with the demonstration outside Parliament were not a police support unit (PSU) and did not have shields. The officers were carrying pepper spray, which they used on the crowd.

Mr Dunkley, when asked what he knew in advance of the police’s plan for dealing with protesters, told a press conference on December 8: “I was not informed of police operations.”

Mr Burt said last night: “Information has come to us, as is often the case in Bermuda’s small community, that indicates that the Premier and some ministers knew in advance of the deployment of police support units (PSUs).”

This newspaper asked the Opposition leader for evidence to support his claim. He provided none, but said the information which had come to the PLP was “one of the primary reasons behind our insistence for a full and independent public inquiry” into the events of December 2.

He said the Speaker of the House of Assembly had called for the same and noted that this newspaper had made a Pati request to try to determine whether anyone outside of the BPS knew of the plan.

Mr Burt added: “The PLP’s position is that there must be full disclosure of the sequence of events leading up to the deployment of PSUs, including who had prior knowledge and when it was obtained.

“It is vital that public confidence in the police and the Government is restored and that can only be obtained via a full, independent public inquiry. This inquiry must include the complete disclosure of phone records and e-mails sent and received between the Police, Government House and Government during those critical times.”

Referring to the Premier’s December 8 press conference, Mr Burt said Mr Dunkley was “twice asked the question as to whether he knew about the PSUs or pepper spray” and “viewers should note that the Premier’s broadcast comments did not include a denial of advance knowledge of the tactical option that included pepper spray use”.

A recording of the press conference is on this newspaper’s website and includes Mr Dunkley’s comment that he was “not informed of police operations”.

The BPS’s policy on pepper spray (see separate story) says it can be deployed by any officer trained in its use and officers must use their judgment to decide when it is necessary.

We asked Mr Dunkley for comment, via his spokeswoman, but did not hear back by press time.

• On occasion The Royal Gazette may decide to not allow comments on a story that we deem might inflame sensitivities or when the discourse is lowered by commenters to unacceptable standards. As we are legally liable for any slanderous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers.