Works and Engineering Minister tried to amend a motion deploring the construction management practices at the new senior secondary school last night almost before his Shadow counterpart had finished her first sentence on the issue.

However was allowed to say her piece, having the right to speak to the issue after being the member who moved the motion: "that this House deplore the construction management practices at the second senior secondary school".

Since Premier Alex Scott was then Works and Engineering Minister, Mrs. Gordon-Pamplin said, there have been two Ministers in his place, including Mr. DeVent.

In all that time, she noted, "I have not been able to find one Ministerial statement updating this House on the status of that school.

"Silence is golden ... but not when the public purse is at stake."

At the Press conference on February 26, 2004, when Mr. DeVent announced that the completion date of the project had been changed from September 4, 2003, to September 30, 2004, he promised to give regular updates on the project, she said.

Then, on August 23 this year, the public "awoke to headlines in the newspaper" announcing that the general contractors for the project, Pro-Active Management Systems, had been terminated ? before the agreed-upon completion date and without any updates in between alerting the public that such a move might be considered.

At the Press conference on February 26, Mrs. Gordon-Pamplin said, the Minister announced that Pro-Active had a legitimate claim to some $20 million in addition to the original $68 million price tag on the project. Government would pay $13 million of that claim, and the dispute over the further $7 million was to go to arbitration.

However, Mrs. Gordon-Pamplin noted, "The Minister has yet to say what happened to that extra $7 million ... Is the public purse on the hook for it or not?"

In June, Mrs. Gordon-Pamplin said, it was noted that in the Auditor General's report on the project, the contract was awarded to the Pro-Active/Lubben Group. When Government then began employing Lubben as consultants, the Opposition found the relationship "incestuous".

"So, I gave a series of questions to the Minister," querying when the divorce between Pro-Active and Lubben took place. The answer, she said, was "surprising": according to the Minister, the two had never been in partnership. Lubben was simply acting as consultants to Pro-Active.

"That struck us as awfully odd," Mrs. Gordon-Pamplin said, in light of who was named as the winning bidder on the contract. Despite the inconsistency, she said, there has been no satisfactory explanation yet from Government.

February was also when Mr. DeVent announced that the bill of quantities for the project had undergone major changes. Mrs. Gordon-Pamplin submitted formal questions to him asking why, however because of a technical mistake the Minister did not have to answer. She asked the question again in June, and has since received no reply, she said.

A debate with a similar motion was attempted by MPs in June. At the time, however, Government MPs used their majority to reduce the motion to a take note motion put forward by Premier Alex Scott. Instead of deploring the "systematic misinformation and lack of accountability surrounding the PLP's mismanagement" of the Berkeley project, the new motion called on the House to "take note of the management and accountability of the second senior school construction project at Berkeley".

Mrs. Gordon-Pamplin then asked Government to respond to allegations that there had been a high level of "interference from civil servants" when the project first began which had apparently "prevented the work being carried out at the appropriate speed".

"Is this the truth?" she asked.

"We've heard one side of the story and it is time now for the Government to finally give their side."

The Shadow Minister for Works and Engineering then referred to information that there were serious logistical difficulties right at the start of the project, including clear errors in the architectural plans for the site.

She questioned why these "obvious flaws" had not been "effectively dealt with from the outset".

"What did Government put in place to minimise the effect of these errors on public expenditure? The answer, regrettably, is almost nothing and since that time they have continually failed to communicate to the public whether these issues were, and have been properly investigated. In fact, we the public have been left guessing."

To loud cheers of approval from the Opposition benches, Mrs. Gordon-Pamplin demanded a "full public inquiry" into the the handling of the Berkeley project, so mistakes that were made could be brought "clearly out in the open" for the public to peruse.

"We on this side of the House would be hanging our heads in shame if we had operated so irresponsibly with public money," she said.

"I stand here today to demand an explanation of behalf of the people of Bermuda and only through a public enquiry do I believe that we will start to get some honest answers to some honest questions."

Provoking vociferous protest from Government backbencher Derrick Burgess, Mrs. Gordon-Pamplin then asked whether other members of the House had heard the rumours that a proportion of the building materials allocated to the Berkeley project had gone missing.

"Were all the materials designated for the site actually used at the site?" she queried.

Leaping to his feet, Mr. Burgess scolded Mrs. Gordon-Pamplin for introducing "what amounts to little more than gossip" into a formal parliamentary debate and warned her that she would be moving into "very dangerous territory" if she started making any accusations of wrongdoing without "proper evidence".

Mrs. Gordon-Pamplin refused to withdraw the comment however, arguing that she was merely asking the Government whether they had "also come across" these rumours and was not "implying" she had any physical evidence of any theft from the site.

Referring to the UBP Government's handling of the CedarBridge Academy construction project, which opened in 1997 "only two weeks late and not a dime over budget", she said the Premier himself had acknowledged that the methods employed then would have been "ideally suited" to the Berkeley site.

The then UBP Government, she said, had granted the construction contract to the "experienced" firm Somers Construction Limited, but had also sub-contracted out work to "80 small black firms ? many of whom are still in operation today because of that decision".

In her closing remarks, Mrs. Gordon-Pamplin promised that she would continue to exert "all the pressure she could muster" on the Government over the Berkeley project in order that it could be completed "as soon as physically possible".

"When history judges us, I do not want to be accused of being anything other than vigilant in pursuing this matter,"

In response, Minister DeVent conceded mistakes had been made and that progress on the construction project had been "very disappointing".

However, he argued that it was time for the Opposition to stop "rehashing yesterday's news" and get on board with the Government to ensure the project was completed by September, 2005.

"We cannot dispute that things have not gone smoothly," he said.

"When major building such as this takes place there are always delays and problems. That is the nature of construction. But after the initial bout of anger and disagreement following the cancellation of Pro-Active's contract, we are now in very cordial negotiations with them and have the situation as a whole under control."

Responding directly to his counterpart's earlier query as to whether some building materials had gone missing from the site, Mr. De Vent said that the site had been secured "immediately after the termination of Pro-Active's contract" and a full inventory taken.

"I have seen no evidence that materials were stolen or anything like that, and I would caution anybody who decides to use hearsay as a basis for what they are saying," he said.

The site is now fully active again, Mr. De Vent said, and the Government "had been working hard" on a number of initiatives to ensure the project "goes according to plan from now on".

He announced that Somers Construction Limited had officially assumed the role of Construction Manager and that they would act only in an "advisory capacity" and not as a "Constructor".

Mr. De Vent said the rest of the work still to be completed is in the process of being sub-contracted.

"As soon as those contracts are negotiated I will report this to the House and the Public," he said.

He also announced the creation of a new "Cost Centre", "in order to better maintain and track expenditures" and through which all new charges will be allocated.

The total so far charged stands at $875,459.

However, Mr. De Vent said that the final cost of the project "would not be known until it is completed".

"My goal is to have the school open for the 2005/2006 school year and we are committed to achieving that deadline."