On reading the article published by Bermuda Real, Home Affairs Minister Patricia Gordon-Pamplin issued a breakdown on the 1,028 work permits issued in connection with the 35th America’s Cup.

Responding to questions from Opposition MP Diallo Rabain, the Minister told MPs that 1,028 permits have been issued for the AC. She also said decisions are pending on another 13 related work permit applications.

The Minister also said 59 work permits to date, are linked to the new airport redevelopment project. The figures released do not specify which work permit applications were submitted in relation to either project.

After reading the article, which was also published online by the daily newspaper, the Minister posted the following on the BermudaReal.com link published on this reporter’s Facebook page…

“Having just read this article, it may be useful to breakdown where the permits were issued:

  • 236 for sailor and crew support
  • 344 are for event and team administration
  • 225 are for technical
  • 45 are for media
  • 79 are for contractors
  • 44 are for team hospitality
  • 38 are for event professionals
  • 13 are for AC retail liaison
  • 4 are for medical

“Of those not yet issued, six (6) are sailor and crew support, six (6) for technical, one (1) for Team Japan admin [sic]. There are also two (2) more contractors for ACEA.

“Apart from the sailors and the event administrators, permits are all short term and for the event only. I hope this will explain the distribution of the permits,” said Ms Gordon-Pamplin.

The initial post prompted a host of comments in light of the many Bermudians who are either under or unemployed in Bermuda.

As noted in our response, the questions were asked in the House of Assembly and the Minister, her Permanent Secretary and staff had time to provide a breakdown in the House where the questions were asked in advance of the written response.

On that note the Minister said: “The breakdown was included with the response to the question in the House of Assembly. The civil servants provided the detail and the entire response is in the House record.

“These were written questions, hence there was no necessity for me to speak on them in the question period. When I said having read your article it was to hopefully clear up what was clearly missing information from your article. Had you asked me for a comment, I would have sent you the entire answers. In fact the responses even broke down further into what teams required which position.”

She continued: “Sadly, it seems that you wish to support your denigration of the event by publishing half-responses. That in my humble opinion, is very poor reporting which is not what I have come to know from you.”

Apparently, she may or may not hold the same view on the same details published online without the breakdown this weekend by the daily newspaper.