Telecommunication Minister Michael Scott?s assertions during Friday night?s debate about the Berkeley project in Parliament have been disputed by a member of his own party.

Mr. Scott raised a few eyebrows on both sides of the House when he argued that the construction of the second senior secondary school had been well managed by Government ?from start to finish? and that ?every single dollar had been accounted for?.

But Government backbencher Derrick Burgess was heard to remark ?don?t go there Michael? as he passed his PLP colleague while leaving the chamber, and yesterday Mr. Burgess confirmed that he could find little validity in those claims.

?I cannot say that I agreed with what Michael Scott was saying,? he said.

?The major mistakes were made by the architects originally who produced a number of drawings which were flawed. Something like 30 percent of the steel structure had to be redesigned and you have to question the competency of those folks down at Works and Engineering. But I think (Works Minister) Mr. De Vent has admitted that there were certain things could have been done better on our part.?

Contacted by , Mr. Scott reiterated his view that Government had ?insisted on the highest standards throughout? and that all their actions had been ?fiscally sound?.

He also took aim at the Opposition who he once more accused of ?politicising? the issue.

Shadow Works Minister Patricia Gordon-Pamplin argued that Mr. Scott was ?defending the indefensible? while Opposition leader Grant Gibbons referred to the remarks as ?utter nonsense?.

?That a member of the Cabinet can claim, after the most recent Auditor General?s report, that the Government?s handling of the project was fiscally sound is outrageous,? Dr. Gibbons said.

?We still do not know what happened to the $700,000 performance bond paid to Union Asset Holdings and such was the obstruction from the Ministry of Works and Engineering in terms of getting hold of that information, the Auditor General Larry Dennis had to turn the matter over to the Police. How you can defend a record such as that I just don?t know.?

Both Dr. Gibbons and Mrs. Gordon-Pamplin pointed out that the original financial allocation for the project, unveiled in 2000 by then Finance Minister Eugene Cox had been $71.2 million, with then Works Minister Alex Scott categorically dismissing Opposition claims that the costs could slide towards the $100 million mark.

Construction costs to date total $103.7 million with the Government hoping for completion by September, 2005.