7. 6. Debate on the Report by the Public Accounts Committee on Natural Resources Wales: Scrutiny of Annual Report and Accounts 2015-16

Part of the debate – in the Senedd at 4:18 pm on 19 July 2017.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Jenny Rathbone Jenny Rathbone Labour 4:18, 19 July 2017

Thank you, David Melding, for your historic perspective, which is very useful. I think that the specifics of this contract, and the failure of NRW to see that there was anything wrong in the way in which they proceeded, have been very well covered by the Public Accounts Committee report. I just wanted to add my voice to why the failure of NRW to understand that the way in which they were proceeding was inappropriate has some bearing on the wider issues of the importance of forestry and the timber industry in Wales.

Because during the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee inquiry on forestry, we went out and met, obviously, many members of the industry, and I certainly remember going to the Crumlin sawmill and being told that they were extremely upset that the contract for the larch had not been put out to public tender, and, indeed, were extremely surprised that it had not been put out to retender after the auditor general had raised his original concerns. So, I think, if you like, the crime was committed twice, in that not only was the original contract not put out to tender, but then, when the error was pointed out to them, they dug an even bigger hole.

I think it’s very concerning, because NRW plays a very strategic role in controlling the price of wood in Wales, and understood that role because they used to release wood onto the market to stabilise it. So, I find it inexplicable that, for example, the contract that they said they offered to tender between May 2012 and May 2013 wasn’t taken up. It’s very difficult for a lay person to understand how it was that the industry didn’t take it up at the time, because they’re today saying they’re very upset that they weren’t given the opportunity to bid for it.

I suppose the second point that is difficult for me to understand is why it was not possible to deal with the diseased larch on a more moderated basis, rather than push the whole lot onto the market, which, obviously, was going to suppress the price of the wood; that’s completely obvious. I don’t understand why—if you fell the wood, is it not possible to leave it and then clear it as required? Because there’s a huge market for larch. It’s used for cladding, it’s used for flooring, and it’s used to substitute for oak. And, given that we’re the third largest importer of wood in the world, there has to be a market for domestic wood. I just don’t understand it; it simply add doesn’t add up—