Alongside these poor contractual arrangements, there appears to be a significant lack of due diligence. The Welsh Government chose to purchase a site for the studio that consisted of three very different and unusual assets costing £6 million, and failed to commission a full structural survey beforehand. Most people have a structural survey before buying a house, but this was a £6 million purchase for which the Welsh Government were satisfied with a valuation report and the fact the site was being sold by an institutional investor.

Yet, as we saw, essential repairs to the roof were not identified prior to purchase, which led to significant costs being incurred. To compound all of this, Welsh Government officials were not aware of any requirement to make good the grade II listed property on the site and had no intention to do anything to this unless instructed to, which are not exactly the actions you might expect from those with oversight responsibility for Cadw, who should, surely, be an exemplar owner of listed buildings. Although, interestingly, this building has recently been de-listed by Cadw, all of this seems to suggest, at best, a significant degree of naivety within the Welsh Government.  

Further evidence of this naivety is evidenced by the lack of clarity around the value of the works carried out by Pinewood to improve the building. We were surprised and concerned that the Welsh Government were unaware of what had been completed by the company when the Welsh Government took back ownership of the site and even more concerned that there was no detail of the value of works specified in the agreement to lease the site, and that the Welsh Government were unaware that this information, agreed in the heads of terms, had not been transposed into the contract with Pinewood.

The result of all this means that there was a lack of clarity about who was responsible for which improvements and that this, ultimately, had a negative impact on the public purse—where the Public Accounts Committee came in—as there could have been no evaluation of the value for money gained. I return once again to the theme of naivety. This appeared to the committee to be a basic error in the contract negotiations—the original contract negotiations.

We agreed, as a committee, to reserve judgement on whether the deal with Pinewood has represented value for money, as we recognise that commercial investment in the film and television industry is, by its very nature, precarious and that it can take many years to realise the economic benefits. We believe there is a balance to be struck between investing public money to maximise investment in Wales and the risk this incurs, but these risks must be managed and the decision-making and governance arrangements around them need to be robust and rigorously informed.

We welcome the Welsh Government’s response to our report, in which the Welsh Government accepts eight out of nine of our recommendations and sets out the work it has undertaken to ensure lessons are learned from the Pinewood experience and shared, as well as implementing new procedures and guidance, to prevent similar shortcomings occurring again.

However, we note that its response to recommendations 3, 4 and 5, which relate to issues of conflicts of interest, is specific to Pinewood, while the spirit of our recommendations related to the mitigation of conflicts of interest more broadly across all of the Welsh Government’s interactions with private sector business. This a matter we will follow up shortly as part of the committee’s work on the Welsh Government's financial support for business.

We also note that although the Welsh Government has rejected recommendation 8 of our report, it agrees with the general principle of the recommendation and has begun work to develop a best practice guide to acquisitions undertaken in the name of Welsh Ministers. We will keep a watching brief over compliance with this guidance once it has been introduced to ensure it is implemented and works effectively.

Dirprwy Lywydd, in summing up, it is unfortunate that Pinewood, like several other Welsh Government projects before it, including Kancoat and, indeed, the Circuit of Wales, has fallen foul to the Welsh Government’s lack of due diligence in certain respects: poor governance arrangements; as we saw it, ill-informed decision making; and a basic overall lack of transparency and a lack of clarity, particularly when it came to the formulation of those original contracts.

It was just last year that the Public Accounts Committee reported on the Welsh Government’s initial funding of the Circuit of Wales project, highlighting the need for decision-making processes followed by those charged with the expenditure of taxpayers’ money to be both coherent and properly documented. As with the Circuit of Wales, the Welsh Government’s relationship with Pinewood has involved some inexplicable decisions.

I do not know how many more times we'll have to debate the same reoccurring issues within the Welsh Government about a lack of due diligence and poor judgement. While the need to take measured risks is appreciated by all of us here, the need to be responsible with public funds must be paramount. It's essential that, moving forward, the Welsh Government learns from its past experiences and must demonstrate categorically once and for all that lessons have been learnt with regard to its approach to funding private business in Wales.