I'm grateful to the Public Accounts Committee for its report. To me, it raises two far more fundamental questions, perhaps, than some of the details that we have been discussing. Both are questions—one related to the scope of the responsibilities of NRW, and the other related to the ability or the capacity of NRW to deliver against those responsibilities.

Now, the scope of the responsibilities is of course something that we have discussed from the early days before the creation of NRW, namely the ability of the organisation or otherwise to play a commercial role as well as a regulatory role simultaneously. I remember the term 'Chinese walls' being used more regularly here than anywhere else at one point when that discussion was taking place. And there are a number of voices from those days up until now who have been questioning whether that is appropriate, and another in the Western Mail today—John Owen Jones, the former Minister in the Wales Office, or the Welsh Office as it was then, and the last chair of the Forestry Commission here in Wales—who described the creation of NRW as a classic example of making bad policy, with not enough discussion with the forestry sector, in his view, as manifesto commitments were drawn up. Well, you know, I know that there's a difference of view, but it's come to something when we come to a point when Confor, on behalf of the sector, expresses a lack of confidence in the ability of NRW to deliver their responsibilities as we would want to see them doing.

And, of course, that statement of a lack of confidence is very significant, because they directly employ 4,000 people, they indirectly support 12,000 jobs in the rural economy, and they contribute £40 million in timber revenue to the Welsh Government every year. The sector is calling for the removal of that commercial timber element from NRW and the creation of a new entity within Welsh Government. For me, that justifies us asking the question, for us to take a step back and look—is it worth us having an independent inquiry? And we shouldn't fear that. It's entirely valid for us to ask the question. Five years into the existence of this organisation, are there lessons that we should be learning, and should we be reviewing their responsibilities? And if the inquiry would find that change is necessary, then there is also scope for an inquiry to suggest alternative models. Or if there is a finding that it is acceptable, then we should build on the work that has already started—and I accept that it has started within NRW—to rebuild the relationship with the sector.

So, I've touched upon the scope of the responsibilities, but then there is this ongoing issue of the capacity of NRW to deliver against its responsibilities in this area. As an organisation, it has seen a cut of 35 per cent in its budget in real terms since its establishment: a third of its budget—the non-flood grant in aid budget, I think that's the correct term—has been lost in just five years. And, of course, at the same time, we have seen the responsibilities increasing through the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, the Environment (Wales) Act 2016, and most recently, of course, through the expansion of regulations relating to the reservoirs in Wales, which also bring significant cost, never mind Brexit and the flood waters that will face NRW in that context. They are on an unsustainable trajectory, given the budget and the responsibilities. The responsibilities are expanding but the budgets are contracting. It doesn't work and it's not sustainable.