Can I just start by offering my heartfelt thanks to the Public Accounts Committee for accepting the invitation from the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee to pursue further inquiries into Welsh Government's relationship with Pinewood? It's an excellent report. I don't even know where I want to start on it, but I think I'll start with the point that you were talking about, Bethan, which is about transparency, because I think that's pertinent to Government as a whole.

After, like everybody else, welcoming the Government's initial announcement about the new arrangement with Pinewood, and after about a year or so, I asked some fairly anodyne questions about progress and key performance indicators, by way of routine scrutiny really. Edwina Hart's responses were short and as uninformative as we'd come to expect at that point, but even then commercial confidentiality was making an appearance. We were hearing nothing about these arrangements for bringing £90 million into the economy. By March 2017, which is some years later, the then leader of the house, in response to my requests, said that a statement would be forthcoming. Nothing happened.

I'm not going to rehearse all this, but I then went on to ask a range of questions, not even clear at this stage about the difference between the media investment budget and the Screen Wales budget—so little information was there available on the various websites—and what I got were incomplete or very delayed responses, again peppered with references to commercial confidentiality. And by now, I was sharing my disquiet with other Members. I’d even contacted the Information Commissioner when freedom of information requests were refused. Long story short, the Chair—Bethan—of the culture committee was in agreement that this needed further investigation, and I'm very grateful to you for taking that opportunity.

Because it now emerges that by 2016, when I'd started to ask these questions, a huge amount of worrying and expensive change had been taking place in that relationship. The smouldering conflict of interest had ignited and the financial forecasts were way off and nobody knew about it. Despite further questions from myself and Adam Price, it was only, as we know, when the auditor general became involved last year that this was exposed in any way at all.

I want the Welsh Government to know that we do understand and respect commercial confidentiality. But Ministers need to respect their duty to be candid when scrutinised by this Assembly, and they may also want to remember that some of us might be familiar with the concept of commercial confidentiality from our previous lives. I know exactly what it means. The Welsh Government is not Harry Potter. It does not have an invisibility cloak and it must stop treating commercial confidentiality as if it is one.

At no point, until committee scrutiny, did a Minister or Deputy Minister offer the explanation that Pinewood had vetoed answers to questions, because if they had, I and others could have considered redacted answers, for example. And while there is no recommendation on commercial confidentiality in this report, I look forward to the committee's findings after its forthcoming inquiry into Government support for business.

Talking of previous lives, I was very pleased that the committee looked further at the lack of a building survey of the studio building and the lack of a schedule of works covering tenants' improvements. Where is the Government's evidence that spending £1 million on this roof would have added equivalent value to this holding? How did it not hear alarm bells that having the cottage on site was a liability when the seller insisted on it being part of the sales package? I am pretty sure that had I advised clients in this way, when I was in private practice, with an acquisition of this nature, with what we know of the contract, there would have been a claim against my firm by the buyer, possibly the lender, and I'm pretty sure that I would have been sacked. And I am curious to know who was carrying the can in this instance.

Because what confidence can we now have, on hearing that Welsh Government has just bought a warehouse to store medication in case we have a 'no deal' Brexit? How can we be sure that they've even made sure the place is watertight? And, again, why can we not be told the terms on which Welsh Government has acquired that warehouse? I think I can feel Ministers reaching for that invisibility cloak again.

As it happens, I agree with the Government’s rejection of recommendation 8. A building survey needs to be sought on buildings of values lower than £1 million, even if they are due to be demolished, because that’s how you identify issues that will be material to estimating the costs of demolition. So, I'm hoping perhaps the Welsh Government would accept that recommendation.

I think what we've all learned from this sorry tale is that it's not just Jeremy Corbyn that presents donkeys and unicorns as thoroughbreds. When you present your next money-making race winner, Ministers, you'd better prove its pedigree upfront. And when you engage in bespoke arrangements—and let's remember that the Bad Wolf deal is a bespoke arrangement—please make sure that you have procured the necessary negotiating expertise. A director of Bad Wolf, herself a former Government insider, said that capacity was lacking in that department. And Jenny, you're quite right, if you're dealing with Darth Vader, you don't send Bambi in to negotiate the deal.

So, finally, you have been held firmly to account here, Welsh Government. I want to hear today that you will accept responsibility for this, and then demonstrate your accountability. Thank you.