Bob Richards said a summons issued by Public Accounts Committee chairman David Burt to bring the financial secretary before the committee was not legally valid.

Mr Burt, however, insisted that the summons was valid and Mr Richard’s claim was “idiotic”, questioning why government is attempting to keep details of the airport contracts secret.

At a press conference yesterday, Mr Richards, the Minister of Finance, said that a summons could only be issued on the agreement of the committee rather than by the chairman. “During my tenure we inaugurated public meetings and issued summonses — including one to a sitting minister,” he said. “But they were issued with the consensus of the bipartisan committee — not by the chairman alone. As the most recent summonses were written and delivered by the chairman without prior committee approval, they are not valid.”

Mr Richards also said the development agreements of the airport project should not be released publicly yet as negotiations are still under way.

“The schedules include commercially sensitive information that we cannot release while we are still in negotiations with CCC and Aecon,” he said.

“Parts of the ADA, which I signed last summer, bind us to keep such sensitive information confidential. This is for the benefit of all parties concerned.

“Releasing these schedules contrary to our agreement would jeopardise Bermuda’s reputation as a responsible and reliable business partner. Once the parties reach a final agreement, then all documents that relate to our agreement can, should and will be made public.”

His statement came a day after four One Bermuda Alliance MPs failed to attend a scheduled meeting of the bipartisan committee, forcing its postponement.

Financial secretary Anthony Manders had been summoned by Mr Burt, the Shadow Minister of Finance, to present copies of the Airport Development Agreement at that meeting.

Mr Manders was in attendance for the meeting with a lawyer. When the committee did not reach a quorum, a fresh summons was handed to him by Mr Burt.

While OBA MP Cole Simons said the non-appearance was due to scheduling conflicts, when questioned yesterday Mr Richards said the issue of the summons also played a part.

“Mr Manders had been summoned and we didn’t think the summons was valid,” he said. “Some members had business elsewhere. There was no point in having that meeting and they had other things they had to do.

“It was a combination of factors, but certainly the fact that the summons was not valid was one reason.”

Asked by The Royal Gazette why the OBA did not raise the issues at the PAC meeting yesterday and instead held a press conference today, he referenced the fact that he had returned from the RIMS conference in San Diego only yesterday.

“I got back yesterday,” he said. “I wasn’t going to send my financial secretary into a meeting where he would be grilled on something that was not valid. If the summons isn’t valid, then he shouldn’t be there. He is a senior government official, and he should not respond to summons that are not valid.”

Responding to the comments last night Mr Burt maintained that the summons was valid, saying that the position was supported by legislation and by the Speaker of the House Randy Horton.

Mr Burt also dismissed the suggestion that he had moved unilaterally, stating that the PAC voted unanimously to request the Airport Development Agreement from the financial secretary last November.

“For him to say that I acted alone in this case is a lie,” he said. “It was a decision made in a PAC meeting heard in a public sitting. He knows the PAC requested this.”

He also said further elements of the contracts can and should be released, saying that money is already being spent on the airport project.

Mr Burt asked: “If this contract is still under negotiation, how is it that work is happening at the airport? How is it we are appropriating and spending money then?

“How could the terms and definitions be a secret? How can the schedule of fees that are going to be charged to the people at the airport be a secret? How can you say all these items that should fall under public oversight be secrets?”