The announcement of the arrival of Pinewood in Cardiff five years ago was met with excitement and anticipation. It was hoped that the brand would bring an estimated benefit of £9 million to the Welsh economy. Hopes were raised that the opportunity provided would boost the Welsh film industry on an international level, and yet, only four years later, all hopes were dashed when the Welsh Government decided to terminate the lease and the collaboration agreement it had with the company. Does this sound familiar? It should. Last year, we debated another project that was widely welcomed as it presented an opportunity to regenerate one of the most economically deprived areas of Wales. The Circuit of Wales project failed due to officials making basic errors, omissions and exercising poor judgement. Once again, hopes were raised and then dashed by the Welsh Government's botched handling of an important project.

The Public Accounts Committee report into the Circuit of Wales called for robust and effective governance and internal communication channels to guarantee that such issues do not occur again. However, in relation to Pinewood, the committee was surprised to find the Welsh Government entered into a contract that lacked clarity in terms of operating arrangements. The collaboration arrangements also failed to explicitly make clear the roles and responsibilities of each partner. Most worryingly, the committee was concerned about the inaccurate, incomplete and poor quality of advice provided to Ministers on more than one occasion. In oral evidence, Welsh Government said that an independent evaluation was carried out before the building at Wentloog was acquired, but subsequently it became clear that the reported condition of the building was inconsistent with the need to undertake essential repairs to the roof of the building, which was found to be leaking. I find it incredible that the Welsh Government took a decision not to commission a structural surveyor to survey the building prior to the purchase, which is a common practice in any business or property when you buy. The Welsh Government made an assumption that the building would have been maintained to a reasonable standard because it was being sold by an international or institutional investor. This is totally unacceptable, Deputy Presiding Officer. I note the Welsh Government has rejected the committee's recommendation with regards to acquiring surveys. We can only hope the best practice guide we are told is currently being developed will address this issue.

Another example of a lack of due diligence became clear regarding the issue of VAT on the sponsorship agreement. Under the agreement, the Welsh Government would pay Pinewood £438,000 a year to market and promote the studio. Shortly after the agreement was signed, it was noticed the VAT had been omitted. This increased the annual cost of sponsorship by £87,600 and it became £525,000 in total. This failure to obtain specialist advice on VAT implications demonstrates a lack of capacity within the Welsh Government to ensure that the development of proposals to enter into non-standard commercial agreements with private companies is sufficiently robust.

Presiding Officer, throughout their time in office, the Welsh Government's record has been littered with poor decisions that have lost the taxpayer money in such a wasteful manner: the Circuit of Wales project, land sales by the regeneration investment fund for Wales, Kancoat, Natural Resources Wales. As Nick Ramsay, Chair of the Public Accounts Committee has said in his foreword to this report, it is essential that Welsh Government learns from its past experiences and demonstrates that lessons have been learned with regards to its approach to funding for private businesses. We can only hope it does. Thank you.