Now we all like to be in the know, or at least think we are, Mr Editor, but it isn’t always easy to keep with everything that is going on with the Government. So we come to rely on the news media to keep us informed of the affairs of state, thank you very much.

We can also do some checking up ourselves, thanks to the internet, one of the greatest advances of the information age and for good governance: statements and documents can be posted on government websites and made available for our review. Information that is withheld can be sought by question, either through Pati or through our MPs on the Hill.

This is transparency in action and with it comes accountability. That’s the theory anyhow. But it doesn’t always work that way. Some assembly, people, and effort, is required. I have an example: the Airport Development Agreement.

It was signed on August 24, 2015. It was listed on the Order Paper for the House of Assembly on Friday, December 16. But it wasn’t actually presented that day for the information and review by MPs. The finance minister had not brought it with him.

“It is an extraordinarily voluminous document,” he said, according to Hansard. Instead, he proposed to give a copy to “the Opposition” and to arrange to have the document posted on the parliamentary website for review by members and the public.

Christmas intervened. As it turned out, no document was posted until the first of week of January, as far as I could tell.

But the agreement is up, tick, and ready for review, tick. This is putting to good use the Legislature’s website: www.parliament.bm. Another tick: while actual disclosure may not have been as timely as it could have been, at least it’s now out there, er, up there, for perusal.

But good luck with that; it also happens to be incomplete. A 33-page agreement is there, but not its additional nine schedules. These schedules are essential to understanding that to which the Government has committed. The schedules are described, for example, as: “definitions and interpretation” to the agreement; the “Airport Project Concept”; “Project Agreement Heads of Terms”; “Construction Contract Heads of Terms”; and “Regulated Fees and Charges”.

You get the picture — or the half of it anyhow. It must be why the minister described the agreement as extraordinarily voluminous. Still, that’s no reason not to post the agreement in its entirety.

But here’s the thing, too: it won’t be an easy read even when it is posted, not by any stretch. It isn’t just the average person who will find it challenging, although you will at least get a pretty good feel for the commitments — and the concessions and the guarantees — that have been made. They are many.

I note, too, this clause — and warning — very early on in the agreement:

“The Parties acknowledge that, due to the early stage of the development of the Project, except as otherwise provided herein, many assumptions, inputs, cost and estimates contained in this Airport Development Agreement, the Airport Project Concept and the other Schedules attached hereto are preliminary in nature, and will be subject to further analysis, organisation and revision during the Term.”

That is a clause that gives cause for pause on two fronts. The first is obvious: there will likely be revision on what is proposed. The second is this: just who then will be monitoring what will be changed, and what will be followed up and carried through?

The Government, you say: the Civil Service?

Well, the Government has already given us the impression that outsourcing by way of a PPP is the way to go because the Government has not in the past been able to properly manage projects of this size, and to such an extent that overruns, some really, really bad overruns, in the tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, have become the norm.

So what’s to lead us to believe with confidence that oversight of this Agreement and its terms will be any different or better? Any way it is structured, oversight will still be critical if we are to get value for “our money”, ie, for what our government is set to give over, ie, our airport.

I say this notwithstanding the disagreement between the Financial Secretary and the Accountant-General over the issue of whether there is agreed departure from financial instructions. The fact is: there is a departure.

Public meetings are all very well, but ... it isn’t just explanations and promises that we need on this project. There is continuing doubt, too, that the case for a new airport has been made.

I return to a point I make often in this column. This is why we need a far more active and robust Public Accounts Committee, and an Auditor-General whose office is up to date in their review and scrutiny of government contracts and expenditure. Continuing and contemporaneous oversight is essential.

This is where and why we rely on backbench MPs, from the Opposition and the Government, Mr Editor, to help to mind the shop on our behalf. This is also a very essential part of their job description — or at the very least should be.