Thanks to the Conservatives for bringing today's debate on Natural Resources Wales. We've been talking about NRW quite a bit in this Chamber over the past couple of years, so perhaps it is appropriate to have a more wide-ranging discussion, as we're doing today, on the organisation's overall stewardship of the natural environment of Wales.

The Conservatives' motion criticises decisions taken by senior management and cites failings in the handling of timber contracts, the qualification of the accounts by the Wales Audit Office for three years running, and the inherent contradictions over attitudes to intervening on the one hand, on the issue of shooting on public land, and on the other hand, the issue of the dumping of the so-called nuclear sludge in the Bristol channel. Although, of course, that particular issue doesn't just involve NRW; it involves the Welsh Government as well and its interaction with NRW.

All these matters are substantial issues, they are well-documented and I think it's right to call them failings and quite severe failings. The Conservatives also cite the staff surveys carried out within NRW, which were the first indication of discontent within the organisation. The early staff surveys were the first hint that perhaps that organisation, which was an amalgamation of the three separate bodies, was not a very happy institution from the outset. Andrew R.T. Davies pointed out also in his contribution that some Members were trying to alert the Welsh Government's attention to its failings from an early stage. Unfortunately, matters had to move on and the failings had to become more transparent before any action was taken.

Now, to be fair, the Welsh Government—. The point that Rhianon made: the Welsh Government has appointed a new chief executive and an interim chair, so there has been acknowledgement of past failures and the need to do things differently in future. We did have a scrutiny session with senior NRW figures on the environment committee recently, so we did hear about how things are unfolding in the organisation from their point of view, and that was a useful session. One problem that NRW had at the outset was the need to bring in specialist knowledge from outside Wales because there was not enough expertise within the organisation. So, that was a problem in how the body was set up to start with.

It may be, as Llyr Gruffydd is suggesting as a possibility, that the organisation now settles down and begins to carry out its remit more effectively. I think, to some extent, that's true, and we do need to give it a chance. Now, I looked at the Conservative motion and I thought, from your motion, that you were actually allowing for that possibility, because you don't state in your motion that NRW has to go, although I'm mindful of the contribution that Oscar Asghar just made. But looking at your motion, you don't say that the NRW has to go; your motion calls on the Welsh Government to instigate an independent inquiry into the organisation's failings and to investigate alternative proposals. So, on that basis, we were supporting you, and that remains the case, because we have to go along with the motion, not necessarily with everything that you say. I think we do need to have a thorough independent review of what's gone wrong in the past, and so therefore we do support the motion.

The Welsh Government amendment is stating that they have appointed a new chief executive and chair. It acknowledges that we have had poor reports on NRW, but it says that the organisation is now trying to implement the recommendations of two existing reports, which is fair enough as far as it goes. It doesn't cover any possible wider review to see if NRW is actually fit for purpose, which the Conservative motion achieves.

The various Plaid amendments: amendment 2 softens the Conservative motion, and amendment 3 focuses it more narrowly so that it's just critical of NRW on forestry matters. Well, the problem is that NRW's failings have been wide-ranging. They haven't been merely confined to the forestry issues. I appreciate Llyr Gruffydd had misgivings that the Conservatives had, in his view, denigrated all of the staff, but I don't believe that's actually the case, and if you look at point 2, they do actually recognise the hard work of front-line staff in the organisation. Their view was that they'd been let down by management, so—.

So, we do prefer to support the Conservative motion today, and we won't be supporting those amendments that I mentioned. We will be supporting Plaid's amendment 4, which rightly raises the issue that NRW does need to be properly resourced. Diolch yn fawr.