Turbulent ride for OBA in plane row

Government could face mounting pressure to admit it made a mistake in accepting a free flight in a private jet to talk to potential investors.

Former UBP Premier David Saul said: “I would hope this a lesson to them — it’s Caesar’s wife; they have to be holier than thou. I think it’s been a learning experience for them.”

Dr Saul was among a handful of key figures we spoke to yesterday who expressed disquiet over the decision to take the flight.

Government says it did nothing wrong and that its priority is drumming up interest in Bermuda that will help create jobs. 

But Dr Saul said the decision gave the appearance of Government putting itself in “a compromising position”.

He added: “I’m sure there is nothing illegal or nothing bad going on, but it’s something that should not be done.”

Dr Saul said that MPs in the past had accepted seats on inaugural flights or berths on inaugural sailings to the island — but that he had never approved of accepting such hospitality.

Dr Saul was speaking after Premier Craig Cannonier, Tourism Minister Shawn Crockwell and Attorney General Marc Pettingill, travelled on the private jet to Washington DC to meet potential investors said to be interested in re-developing the old Club Med site in St George’s, among other things.

Ex-PLP Premier Alex Scott — who has called for tighter rules to crack down on corruption in public life and drawn up a draft bill — backed Dr Saul and said he would not have accepted the offer of transport to a meeting on a private jet.

Mr Scott said: “Given the sort of facts as I understand them, Government is currently anticipating discussions with at least two parties. If you then end up in the final analysis going with the one that gave you the gift, it certainly raises questions.”

Mr Scott added: “It would have been better to have the individuals come here at time that is suitable for the Premier and everyone else involved. To be found accepting someone’s private jet, it obviously has a cost to flying it down here and back and that translates into an invitation to treat.

“That’s basically how it could be used and the fact that it has caused so much discussion suggests it may not have been the best thing for the Premier and Ministers to have done.”

And he echoed Dr Saul and said: “In discussions like this, the Premier has to be purer than Caesar’s wife.”

Peter Everson, a former CEO of an international investment company turned consultant, who also heads the Chamber of Commerce economics committee, said the free flight offer was, on the face of it, a good solution to the problem of arranging a meeting.

But he added: “Where people are getting upset is the feeling that they are doing it to buy influence. That only comes into play if applications are made and decisions are taken.

“They must ignore that if there are three groups involved [in bidding for a deal] — it doesn’t matter which group did what.”

Mr Everson added that, from his perspective, the unnamed group would get “a minus score” in any deliberations on the awarding of contracts because, although looking at investment worth millions of dollars, they had not visited the island.

He added: “In the private sector, there is a reporting process if things like flights are over a certain value and you have to give reasons why you accepted them. The most important thing is to report it, have an open disclosure and not let it influence you afterwards.”

Government’s confirmation of the flight came after it was reported in the media.

Former Cabinet Secretary Leo Mills, who held the top Civil Service post from 1992 to 2000, said that decisions on accepting things like the free flights offer were taken at executive level.

He added: “In the normal course of events, the Premier would consult with his colleagues and probably the Attorney General. Based on the advice he got, he would then have acted accordingly.

“There is a possibility this would not even have been newsworthy had the meeting taken place in Bermuda. Perhaps a private aircraft being involved changed the dynamics slightly.”

Another source, with high level links to Government, added: “In Opposition, if they hadn’t made such a big deal about transparency and openness, this wouldn’t be a problem now. They’ve made a rod for their own back.”

He pointed out that Government had not disclosed who had actually paid for the private jet — and said if it had been a PLP Government, the Opposition would have gone on the attack.

Shadow Tourism Minister Wayne Furbert said accepting the flight favour was “a breach of the Ministerial code of conduct” — a charge the Premier has denied.

And he said — if satisfactory answers were not given — the PLP would ask the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to investigate “these dubious and highly unethical activities”.

But a spokesman for Governor George Fergusson said yesterday: “The Governor has seen the press reports. He is not considering a Commission of Inquiry on this issue.” 

Free flights a no-no in UK, US

Both UK MPs and Congressmen in the US are normally banned from accepting free flights under strict ethics rules.

The UK Ministerial Code says: “When Ministers travel on official business, their travel expenses shall be borne by the departmental vote. Offers of free travel should not normally be accepted. The only exception to this is in the case of an offer of transport from an overseas government provided no undue obligation is created.”

Under ‘Gifts and Hospitality’, the UK code adds: “It is a well established and recognised rule that no Minister should accept gifts, hospitality or services from anyone which would, or might appear to, place him or her under an obligation. The same principle applies if gifts etc are offered to a member of their family.”

The US Congress equivalent says: “In general, as noted about, clauses 1-3 of House Rule 24 prohibits the acceptance of private support — both monetary and in kind — for official House activities. Accordingly, as a general rule, travel, the primary purpose of which is to conduct official business, must be paid for or authorized by the House. Put another way, Members and staff may not accept expenses or in-kind support from a private source for such travel.”

Research by Raymond Hainey