I would agree with the opening of the Member’s comments there. We are an eclectic mix on the Public Accounts Committee. I chose my words carefully there. We do have a robust exchange of views. We work together where necessary, but also individuals have their own views. You are right as well, Neil, that this is a committee with an incredibly serious workload, a huge workload, looking at the value for money of public spend across a wide range of areas in Wales. We could probably meet—I’m not suggesting this, by the way—every day and still not have enough time to get through the workload involved.

Okay, going back to your basic points there, you’ve mentioned Kancoat, and I mentioned it in my opening statement. We know there have been issues there. What I would say, as you know, is that the Public Accounts Committee, in terms of its operation, is primarily concerned with the operational decisions of Government, which is why we take evidence from a wide range of officials, right up to and including the Permanent Secretary—the last Permanent Secretary, and the new Permanent Secretary will be coming in in the near future. That’s our standard practice. Now, we can of course call anyone, but I would have to say that we would have to be clear, there would have to be a clear indication in the evidence we receive from the officials, operationally, that calling particularly an ex-Minister would be beneficial to our inquiries. You clearly believe that evidence we’ve taken to date does warrant that. Witnesses are, of course, a matter for the committee as a whole to consider, and I think it would be breaking with precedent for me or any other Member in this Plenary to say that that should happen. So, this is a matter for the Public Accounts Committee, and you know that, Neil McEvoy. If you want to bring that request to the committee, we will all consider it and I’m sure we will make a considered response. But I would say that, in the first instance, we are responsible for scrutinising the officials. We’re not a subject committee, we’re not looking at policy; we’re looking at operational activity. In that sense, you would have to have very clear evidence that we were calling in witnesses for the right reasons. But, as I say, it’s a matter for the committee to consider and not a matter for this Plenary.