Works and Engineering Minister Alex Scott yesterday said he had no concerns about the slow start to the building of the new $70 million Berkeley Institute - and promised to hold monthly public briefing sessions on its progress.

He said he was being constantly updated on the progress of the new site, and said the general contractor, Pro-Active Management Systems Ltd, was now in the process of ordering the materials.

Opposition MP Michael Dunkley and a major construction firm on the Island have voiced concern over the lack of action on the site and said it should be a hive of activity by now.

And yesterday, when The Royal Gazette visited the site, there were only about five construction workers to be seen.

But Mr. Scott said the fact there was only a handful of workers on the site was nothing to be worried about as work was going on in the background.

He said: "All the procurements are taking place. All of that is being ordered. I have had at least three reports (from Pro-Active) since the agreement was signed and one I read today, so I know that work is progressing and we have begun."

Mr. Scott has just returned to the Island from vacation, but while he was away the project hit a wave of controversy over the way contracts were being distributed and allegations that the project had been declared a "union site" by Bermuda Industrial Union (BIU).

Contracting firms complained they had been told by Pro-Active that in order to win contracts, staff working on the site had to become members of the union.

As a result, a number of firms told The Royal Gazette they had been pressured into negotiating with the BIU, and some said they had even offered to pay the union dues themselves if their employees had chosen against it.

But the scheme was labelled "undemocratic" and illegal by a number of companies, as well as the Bermuda Employers' Council and the Bermuda Construction Association.

It also led to claims that the union, Government and Pro-Active had done a deal to get additional members into the union because the BIU had put up the security bond for the contract.

But Government moved to dispel the claims and said it had not agreed with anyone to make Berkeley a union site.

Yesterday, Mr. Scott said while on holiday he had been updated every day on the progress of the site and the allegations, and said he believed there was nothing untoward going on.

He said there was no need for concern about the project being completed by the deadline of September 2003, and said he had not taken seriously the allegations made by contractors trying to win work on the site.

He said they were only allegations and no company had put their name to them.

And Mr. Scott said he did not believe there was as much to the claims as the employers' council had made out.

He said: "They were only allegations. We had no names. I treated it as a rumour. We can only go by what we found out. The explanation I received was more than satisfactory."

He said his ministry had established a good working relationship with the union and Pro-Active and they anticipated no communication problems.

And the minister said he had no doubts that all contracting firms would be treated fairly and equally if they bid for work, regardless of whether or not they were unionised.

The minister said a committee was now being set up with members of his ministry, people from education and various principals involved in the project with the aim of getting students from both Berkeley Institute and CedarBridge Academy interested in the industry and involved wherever possible.

Yesterday, The Royal Gazette learned that draughtsmen in Canada were currently drawing up plans for the steel work to the site, but erection of the steel, which is one of the first tasks on such a project, is unlikely to take place until October or November.

Shadow Minister for Labour and Home Affairs Michael Dunkley, and one of the Island's major construction firms who did not wish to be named, said they had grave concerns about the pace at which the new school project was moving.

They have both voiced concern over whether or not the school will be ready on time, as very little work has already been carried out.

Mr. Dunkley said he would like to have the construction programme made public so everyone could see what work was to be carried out and when.

He said: "It's very concerning to me, and other members of the public, that there seems to be very little action down on that site.

"The development must surely be behind schedule already. That doesn't make us feel very confident that it will be finished by September, 2003."

The contractor said: "We would have expected them to have done something by now. With the schedule as tight as it is, they should have hit the ground running. I think we would be very concerned if we were in that position."