Shadow Education Minister Grant Gibbons has called on Premier Paula Cox to provide an explanation that justifies Government’s controversial lease agreement with Pembroke Hamilton Club (PHC).He also called on the Premier to justify her lack of disclosure surrounding the major commitment of taxpayers’ money.Dr Gibbons said: “Because this $8-million lease agreement (closer to $10 million with inflation) was formally signed “on behalf of the Government of Bermuda’ in September 2008, it should have been reviewed by Cabinet at the time.“We understand that the current Minister of Education (Dame Jennifer Smith) was not in Cabinet in 2008 and may not have been aware of the lease agreement until more recently, but no such excuse applies to the then Minister of Finance, Paula Cox.“When did Minister Cox find out about the Lease? And why did Minister Cox not disclose the agreement earlier given her obligation to do so and her recent pronouncements about the importance of transparency?“We call on Premier Cox to provide the taxpayers with an explanation that justifies this lease agreement and her lack of disclosure surrounding this major commitment of taxpayers’ money.”In 2008 Government agreed to lease a revamped Pembroke Hamilton Club sports complex for $8 million over a 20 year period.But the agreement, which would have seen preschool, primary and middle school students within the TN Tatem cluster of schools make use of the facility, was only made public recently via this newspaper and doesn’t come into effect until the new facility is completed.The agreement called for PHC to provide the facility and the programmes for $442 per student per year, with the proviso that this sum would not be less than $391,000 per year.According to PHC documents, the agreement would have seen Government pay for 60 percent of the cost and debt service of redeveloping the iconic Warwick sports club. The usage fee was to increase annually at the rate of inflation.Dr Gibbons said it is apparent from reviewing the structure of Government’s lease with PHC that the primary purpose of the lease is to guarantee an annual minimum payment of $391,000 to the club over a 20-year period while the needs of the participating schools and their students are secondary.He said if student needs had been the primary reason, then a three-year lease, with an option to renew, would have been more than adequate to test the arrangement and ensure it was meeting student ‘health and wellness’ needs.“A review of the details indicates that the agreement was structured as a 20-year government commitment to service the debt on an anticipated PHC bank loan to finance their development project,” he added. “Although the lease states that ‘this agreement may be reviewed at the end of each five (5) year period,’ there is no provision to allow the Government to terminate the lease early and interrupt the payments, should Government’s needs or the needs of the affected schools change.”Dr Gibbons said that unless PHC breaches the agreement or goes bankrupt, the annual payments must be made regardless of whether 850 students or no students use the facility.“While it’s a good deal for PHC and their members, it doesn’t adequately protect the interests of taxpayers or students should circumstances and needs change during the 20-year lease period,” he said.“As the executive officer of the BUT (Bermuda Union of Teachers general secretary Mike Charles) suggested, given the current economic circumstances, it is likely that the money allocated to the PHC lease could be spent on more pressing educational needs. For example, the OBA believes that more resources should be dedicated to professional development for teachers.”As it stands, given the agreed $442 cost per student, Dr Gibbons said some 884 students must use the facility annually to justify the $391,000 rent.“The lease’s built in inflation factor also means that the annual $391,000 payment could easily double over the 20-year period if inflation increases by more than three percent annually,” he added. “The fundamental inflexibility of the lease begs a number of questions which need to be answered.“Was a needs assessment done at the time to indicate that the existing playing field and gym facilities were inadequate?“What happens during the 20-year period if the schools find better ways to address health and wellness issues through their own facilities or, indeed other facilities?“What happens if some of the schools decide they don’t want to participate because it no longer addresses their students’ needs?“How will transportation issues and the need for extensive busing of students to and from the facility be handled?“Have transportation costs, the extra time required, and the potential disruption of school days been factored into the planning?“How will the potentially overlapping needs of the seven schools be handled?”Last week Education Minister Dame Jennifer Smith told fellow Parliamentarians in the House of Assembly: “I want honourable members to know that this agreement came to my attention this year and, in light of the economic climate, I have asked the Attorney General’s Chambers to advise me of its validity four years after the date of its signing given that we currently do not have a completion date for the facility.“Members and the community can be assured that I will ensure transparency as we move forward.”Dame Jennifer also lashed out at the Opposition for resorting to the media to get their questions answered rather than raising them in Parliament.