Diego Martin West MP Dr Keith Rowley yesterday called for an "immediate" apology from Prime Minister Patrick Manning on the Parliament floor for misleading that august institution on the issue of an alleged missing $10 million.

At a news conference in the Parliament Committee Room, Rowley presented documentary evidence to show that Manning's contribution to the Parliament on October 1, in which he spoke of the missing sum from the Cleaver Heights housing project, was at variance with the facts as revealed in the Government's own documentation.

This documentation, spanning the period 2002 to 2008, was forwarded to him (Rowley) by the Housing Ministry under the Freedom of Information Act.

Rowley announced that he planned to request that House Speaker Barry Sinanan refer the Prime Minister to the Privileges Committee for, what is his view, constituted a contempt of Parliament.

Reminded yesterday that the Privileges Committee has a majority of Government members, Rowley said all members of the Committee sat there in their individual right. "Whether the Government has the majority or not, is not the point. Members are required to look at the facts and to come to a conclusion," he said, adding that their own credibility would be on the line in the face of the compelling evidence.

Saying that his contribution in the Budget debate clearly "displeased" the Prime Minister, Rowley said Manning's presentation had the effect of portraying him (Rowley) as dishonest and as someone who betrayed his oath of office by favouring a particular contractor, resulting in the loss of $10 million.

But Rowley, who presented copies of the documents to the media, pointed out that the Request for Proposals for Joint Ventures with the then NHA, which included the Cleaver Heights Project, (a joint venture project between NH and the Housing Ministry), predated his assignment to the Housing Ministry.

He also pointed out that there was no submission to the Cabinet by him on Cleaver Heights, contrary to what the Prime Minister alleged. Manning told the Parliament three times on October 1, that the Cabinet took the decision to approve the project at a cost of $143 million on the basis of a submission made to it by Rowley.

However the Cabinet minute does not reflect this. Quoting from the minute, Rowley showed that it dealt purely with setting out the policy for the joint venture programme "because just before that, there was one joint venture project in which the contractor was allowed to sell the houses and that became an issue". After reading the minute which made no mention of any specific project, Rowley stated: "I want you to tell me where in this Cabinet minute is there any reference to Cleaver Heights as a project, NH as a contractor or any sum of money for any contract, to allow any person to come to the Parliament (as the PM did) and say that it was on the basis of a submission by the Ministry of Housing that the Cabinet approved the project for Cleaver Heights".

Rowley said the documents also showed that the Board of the HDC "by unanimous" agreement approved the project at an "approximate" cost of $143 million.

He said the documents also showed that "every single offer to the contracting group or entity was under the heading 'approximate budget'. And in the case of NH, that approximate budget was $143 million," he said. Every single payment certificate made it clear that the administration of the payment to the contractor was based on the figure of $133 million (not the approximate figure of $143 million), he emphasised. (The 'missing' $10 million referred to by Manning arose out of the difference between these figures).

Noting that what the contractor earned was dependant on the number of units built, he said the documents also showed that there was a provisional sum of $10 million for contingencies. "And if the contractor did work in any...contingency then those administering the contract would first draw down from this $10 million," he said.

He said what surprised him with the "inferences and innuendoes" drawn by the Prime Minister was that all HDC's payments were made on the basis of individual sign offs by a quantity surveyor, a project manager and the managing director, all of which were further checked by internal check staff at the HDC. "So there was never a question of money flying through the window, $10 million or otherwise," he said, adding that all the information he now had was easily available to both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Housing.

"Not for the first time I have found myself the subject of deliberate attempts at character assassination based on concoctions and distortions of the public record. What I have just described with the Ministry of Housing and the Prime Minister's presentation and interpretation in the Parliament is exactly what happened with (me and) the Integrity Commission," he said.

(Trinidad Express)