This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-34500460

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Welsh government 'cannot prove' £21m land sale got best value Auditor says land sales show RIFW deal not good value
(about 2 hours later)
The Welsh government has admitted it cannot prove the biggest sale of publicly-owned land in recent years in Wales achieved best value for money. A company which bought 15 publicly-owned parcels of land for £21m has nearly made its money back after selling just three and a half of them, a public spending watchdog has said.
A senior civil servant made the admission in a letter to the assembly's Public Accounts Committee as part of an inquiry into the Regeneration Investment Fund for Wales (RIFW). The Wales Audit Office gave the written evidence to AMs investigating RIFW, the Regeneration Investment Fund for Wales.
In 2012, 15 sites were sold as one portfolio for £21m. The watchdog has said the taxpayer may have lost £15m over the original deal.
But the Wales Audit Office said they should have made at least £15m more. The Welsh government has admitted for the first time it cannot prove the deal was value for money.
WeaknessesWeaknesses
The sites varied from former industrial land to more than 100 acres (40 hectares) of valuable farmland earmarked for housing on the edge of Cardiff.The sites varied from former industrial land to more than 100 acres (40 hectares) of valuable farmland earmarked for housing on the edge of Cardiff.
They were sold in March 2012 to a Guernsey-based company called South Wales Land Developments, owned by Sir Stanley Thomas. They were sold in March 2012 for £21m to a Guernsey-based company owned by Sir Stanley Thomas.
The proceeds were designed to be invested in regeneration schemes. But the District Valuer, in the Wales Audit Office report, valued them at £36m if they had been sold separately.
Auditors said there were flaws in the sale process, potential conflicts of interest, and weaknesses in the professional advice given to the board.Auditors said there were flaws in the sale process, potential conflicts of interest, and weaknesses in the professional advice given to the board.
In the letter to the public accounts committee, auditor general Huw Vaughan Thomas said the company had started selling off some of the land.
"That strategy has to date yielded total gross receipts for South Wales Land Developments of £16.93 million from onward sales of just 3.5 of the 15 assets that they purchased from RIFW," he said.
"I remain of the strong view that my report provides a considerable and detailed body of evidence to support my central conclusion that neither the Welsh government nor RIFW can demonstrate that value for money was achieved from the portfolio sale transaction," he added.
Until this point, the Welsh government has defended its actions on the grounds of conflicting valuations and tough economic conditions.Until this point, the Welsh government has defended its actions on the grounds of conflicting valuations and tough economic conditions.
In a letter to the public accounts committee, deputy permanent secretary Owen Evans said: "With the benefit of hindsight we are clear as to the significance of the decision to dispose of RIFW's land assets without a public sale.In a letter to the public accounts committee, deputy permanent secretary Owen Evans said: "With the benefit of hindsight we are clear as to the significance of the decision to dispose of RIFW's land assets without a public sale.
"This means that we are unable to demonstrate conclusively that the sale has achieved best value.""This means that we are unable to demonstrate conclusively that the sale has achieved best value."
However, he said the Welsh government still believed the RIFW board acted reasonably given the technical advice it received at the time amid economic uncertainty. However, he added: "Neither do we believe that the valuation evidence available in this case points conclusively to there having been a sale at under value."
"It is important to note that neither do we believe that the valuation evidence available in this case points conclusively to there having been a sale at under value," the letter added.