A parliamentary showdown looms for tomorrow as the Opposition aims to table a motion calling for the airport development to be referred to the Public Accounts Committee — and requesting that the Auditor-General conduct an independent review.

Progressive Labour Party leader David Burt yesterday continued to attack a value-for-money report from the firm Steer Davies Gleave as being based on an invalid comparison.

The request will be made before MPs debate two crucial pieces of legislation for the proposal.

Speaking alongside shadow transport minister Lawrence Scott and Michael Scott, the Shadow Attorney-General, Mr Burt maintained that Parliament could not be expected to consider the Acts when there had been no independent review provided.

Mr Scott added that the proposal broke a convention of administrations not embarking on “mega capital projects” in the final year of their term.

Mr Scott also condemned giving the Bermuda Airport Authority the power to lease publicly owned land.

“What exactly is Parliament voting on?” Mr Burt asked, noting that the fine details are still under negotiation

“On Friday, we will be voting to give an Airport Authority, who is unelected and appointed by the minister, the permission to enter into a contract of their choosing which we have not been able to see.

“It is a surprise to me that we’re even doing this, because the Government had said that before anything was done, they would release all these assessment reports. These assessment reports have only been released to the public last week Friday.”

Mr Burt reiterated a call made during Monday’s session of the House for the Auditor-General, Heather Jacobs Matthews, to provide her own analysis — which prompted Lynne Woolridge, the chairman of the One Bermuda Alliance, to accuse him of misleading the public.

Last night Bob Richards, the Minister of Finance, said Mr Burt had been incorrect in asserting that the report’s conclusion compared the $267 million redevelopment to a vastly more expensive older mode.

“The two comparators are what I call the expensive band-aid approach that we are doing now and the design-build option,” he said. “The old $514 million Taj Mahal option has nothing to do with it.

“The Auditor-General’s job is to audit Government accounts, not to study projects that have not taken place yet. This is an attempt to stall the project — that’s all.”