GSD Questions TNG Global Deal

The GSD has issued a statement questioning the Government’s Bayside land deal with TNG Global.

A statement from the GSD follows below:

The Government’s statement of yesterday on the £21M Bayside land deal with TNG Global raises more questions than  answers. 

The basic concerns here are about whether there has been value for money and whether the “donation” influenced  the deal or the negotiations. Additionally after years of reckless financial management and borrowing the Government  is negotiating from a weak position when selling the family silver.  

We now know that the Government is going to make other announcements in respect of other sites being given to  TNG Global. Those facts should be put in the public domain. Did the “donation” influence not just the Bayside deal but  the wider negotiations and in relation to which plots? What other value is being delivered to the Government and the  developers from other plots and which are they? 

The Government have confirmed that the “donation” was pledged [but not paid] before the negotiations were sealed.  We are then being asked to believe that magically a couple of months later major land concessions are given to an  entity ultimately owned or controlled by the same person who had, in a completely unrelated gesture made the  previous “donation”. The donation went to bail out the Government’s cash flow problems. 

The Government assert that TNG Global were the highest bidder in an expression of interest process. But how is it  possible that TNG Global was the highest bidder in an expression of interest process when that entity had not been  established till a month ago and many years after the expression of interest process closed? The original expression of  interest process closed in 2017. 

Why are the schools now going to cost almost 40% more than the Government originally expected? In answer to  questions posed by the GSD the Government had estimated the anticipated cost of the two schools at a figure of  around £20.86M. Now it is £29.2M. Why the increase of nearly £9M and who pays for any costs above £29M - is it the  developers or the Government? 

Leader of the Opposition, Keith Azopardi said: “This is a cash-strapped Government with cash flow problems  negotiating under financial distress with someone bailing it out from its financial mistakes. Has real value for money  been obtained for the land when the Government says that it cannot know what profit the developers will make for  the land until the planning process is over? Has that resulted in the land being sold for less than could have been  obtained? And what else have the developers got which the Government has yet to announce?”