The following amendments have been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Rebecca Evans, and amendments 2, 3 and 4 in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected.

The next item on the agenda is the Welsh Conservatives’ debate on Natural Resources Wales. I call on Andrew R.T. Davies to move the motion—Andrew R.T. Davies.

Motion NDM6989 Darren Millar

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Notes the Welsh Government’s decision to merge the Countryside Council for Wales, Environment Agency Wales, and the Forestry Commission Wales with the formation of Natural Resources Wales (NRW) in 2013.

2. Recognises the hard work of frontline staff in the organisation but acknowledges their dissatisfaction and lack of confidence in the decisions taken by senior management, as regularly expressed in staff surveys since NRW’s inception.

3. Regrets that NRW has systematically failed the people of Wales through a number of high-profile scandals, including:

a) serious failings in the handling of timber contracts which auditors, Grant Thornton, stated were so bad they 'heightened exposure to the risk of fraud';

b) the 'qualification' of the organisation’s accounts by the Wales Audit Office for three years running, indicating that there were questions over whether the organisation had acted within the rules;

c) the contradictory approach led by NRW when deciding to intervene on matters of public interest such as shooting on public land and nuclear mud dumping.

4. Calls on the Welsh Government to instigate an independent review/inquiry into the organisation’s failings and to investigate alternative proposals for the management of the natural resources of Wales.

Motion moved.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Welcome to the field of dreams on a Wednesday afternoon after passing a bit of legislation and now into the debate session. It's good to see we've got a better turnout than we normally have on a Wednesday afternoon, we have here, for an opposition day debate. I don't think it might last and I think a cup of tea next door might be calling some Members. But we can try to hold you, and I am told there are a few doughnuts outside as well, if anyone wants them. 

It is a real pleasure to move the debate this afternoon looking at some of the issues around Natural Resources Wales, its creation and obviously some of the well-publicised problems that that particular organisation has gone through over recent years, and how maybe we may be able to address some of those shortcomings in such an important part of the Welsh fabric, i.e. our natural environment, and what we can do to make sure that all the tools are available (a) to protect it and (b) to enhance it.

If I can just deal with the amendments that have been tabled today, we won't be accepting the Government amendment in the name of Rebecca Evans that has been tabled. I'm not quite sure how it adds or puts anything of benefit into the debate at all other than seeking to delete points 3 and 4. Well, if you actually look at points 3 and 4, it just merely—in particular point 3—highlights the blindingly obvious that the scandals around the timber sales have blighted the reputation of NRW, and the work of Grant Thornton has highlighted exactly the points about heightened exposure to risk and fraud. So, I can't see why you'd want to delete what has actually been accredited to via the public accounts investigation and other well-documented reports into this sorry tale of ineptitude. So, regrettably, we won't be accepting the Government amendment, and, in respect of the Plaid Cymru amendments, we won't be accepting the first two Plaid Cymru amendments, which try to delete our point about saying that NRW has, sadly,

'failed the people of Wales through a number of high-profile scandals' with the words 

'Regrets the series of high profile failures in NRW'.

I'm not quite sure quite how that adds anything to the motion at all, but I'm sure we'll hear that from the speaker when he addresses those amendments, but we will be accepting the final amendment, amendment 4. It is critical that NRW is resourced to actually carry out its functions and, in particular, when you look at the legislation over recent years that has been delivered in this particular area—the Environment (Wales) Act 2016, the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015—and the obligations that have been placed on NRW, it is vital that, obviously, the resource follows the competence, if you like, that we are passing over to this organisation.

It is worth reflecting that, when NRW was created back some six years ago, there were some very high-profile figures who obviously questioned whether it was wise to put three such diverse organisations together—the Environment Agency, the Countryside Council for Wales and the Forestry Commission. In particular, Jon Owen Jones, who was chairman of the Forestry Commission at the time, highlighted the weakness of the business case that was before the Assembly at that time, looking at some of the policy objectives that the Ministers were trying to promote and indeed questioning the viability of bringing forward these three organisations into one organisation, and how true his words were, and they've come back to haunt us, to be honest with you, because, obviously, as I said in my opening remarks, highlighting the well-documented decline in the forestry sector here in Wales, but in particular the loss to the Welsh taxpayer by poor contracts that were agreed by NRW and the complete demoralisation of the staff within the organisation.

The organisation is only as good as its staff, and there are many, many talented individuals who came from the three previous organisations into NRW and have a passion and a calling for working in this particular area, but who, sadly, have been let down through poor leadership, lack of direction and just the sheer volume of work that has been placed on their desks and in their in-trays. Staff survey after staff survey has highlighted, regrettably, some of the pressures that many of these staff have faced on a year-by-year, day-by-day, week-by-week basis. Only 11 per cent of the staff had confidence in the decisions being made by senior management in one staff survey; 15 per cent believed the actions of senior managers are consistent with the organisation's values; only 10 per cent said the organisation as a whole was well managed.

In 2016, the organisation actually stopped printing the outcomes of staff surveys because the evidence was so damning. We as politicians obviously owe it to the staff to make sure that their voice is heard and, ultimately, that the improvements and the safeguards are put in place. And as recently as 2018, in a major consultation with the staff, NRW did not believe that the reorganisation that was going on in the staffing structures would provide a basis for taking the organisation forward. They believed that a lot of these new teams that were being created would create jacks-of-all-trades and masters of none, and in the highly specialist field that many of these staff work in, it is vital that the expertise is allowed to flourish and allowed to deliver those safeguards and promotional activities that we require of NRW.

In particular, Grant Thornton's report, the most recent report, which did look at the timber sale scandal but also looked at the way the organisations had merged over the previous six years, highlighted how there was still serious silo working within the organisations and that the forestry sector, the countryside council and the environment agency still very much looked at themselves as individual organisations under one banner. And this is some six years after the three organisations came together.

That has to be a major, major concern for us here as the legislature but, in particular, for the Government, because another part of the motion before us today highlights some of the Government's interference, I would suggest, in the affairs of NRW, in particular around the ban on pheasant shooting, where independent advice was sought at a cost of £48,000—NRW did the right work, they went out, they got the independent advice, they took that advice and said the status quo should prevail—and then the Minister intervened to overrule. And I note yesterday that the judicial review was dismissed, which was brought forward, because it clearly stated that NRW's board had no discretion in this particular instance when the Minister had intervened. And so the Government do carry a very heavy liability for some of the issues that have come about through the sheer lack of leadership that the Welsh Government have offered—

Will you take an intervention?

Gladly. I could see you waiting. [Laughter.]

Do you acknowledge that there is a huge emphasis now on a single organisational culture throughout NRW and acknowledge the substantive new board and leadership team that are working at the top of NRW?

The Deputy Presiding Officer took the Chair.

I met the chief executive only last week, and I'm impressed by her ability, but each time over the last six years when issues have come to a head, in particular around staff morale and the direction of the organisation, we're always told that, 'The management is getting to grips with this complex organisation and it'll be better tomorrow', and tomorrow, in this instance, never seems to come, regrettably.

There would be no one more happy in this Chamber than myself to see NRW flourishing, because, as I said, it has a huge mandate. The environment here in Wales and the potential to develop that environment for the benefit of future generations is one of the biggest legacies we can pass on, and, sadly, we have stood still for six years, I would suggest, and highlighting some of these issues, as I've done in my opening remarks to this debate, clearly shows that that is why, back in December, we called for the reorganisation of NRW, and our final point in the motion today does say that it does need to be looked at and that separation with the commercial aspects of what NRW does from the regulatory aspects, because the two do not sit hand in glove, and there is a need to go back to the drawing board and revamp the organisation because it is such a huge, huge part of the fabric and DNA of Wales, and it has had six years to develop its drive, its mojo, its very DNA, and it's failed to do that. And whilst I wish the new board, and I wish the new chief executive, and I wish the interim chair—because it is an interim chair, it hasn't been appointed on a full-time basis—all the very best, I genuinely cannot see this organisation correcting some of the wrongs because the construction back six years ago—. This organisation was wrongly constructed, as Jon Owen Jones pointed out in his remarks at the time, and many Members in this Chamber. Some Members in this Chamber will remember Antoinette Sandbach, who most probably—. I and she locked horns very many times on certain issues, but Antoinette at this point was the rural affairs spokesperson and the Member in charge from the Conservative point of view, and highlighted many of these problems that have come home to roost in this organisation. You can look back at the Record, and it points to the direction of travel that we were foreseeing some six years ago.

So, instead of us carrying on on this broken track, let's go back to the start and let's actually reorganise this organisation so that we can build an organisation that, at its heart, will develop an environment here in Wales that has the potential to be an environment that anyone across the world will look at and say, 'That is the organisation that we want within our own structures and our own frameworks.' We haven't done that over six years, and hence that's why we bring this debate to the Chamber this afternoon. So, that's why I call on the Chamber to support the motion—in particular, the ability not to leave it standing for another two, three, four years, and hope that it comes right. Hope, a long time ago, evaporated from this argument. It is now a time to actually move forward and develop the solutions that we require and not turn away from some of these demanding questions that are being put to us. And that's why I hope the Chamber will support the motion before it this afternoon.

There are huge potentials ahead and opportunities ahead with the responsibilities that will be coming to this Chamber and to the Government when we leave the European Union: forty-odd new responsibilities, many of them in the field of the environment, and NRW was never constructed to deal with these opportunities. Let's put this organisation back on track, let's turn our back on some of the failures and let's look to the opportunities. And that's why I call on the Chamber to support the motion here this afternoon.

Thank you. I have selected the four amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. I call on the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs to formally move amendment 1 in the name of Rebecca Evans. 

Amendment 1—Rebecca Evans

Delete points 3 and 4 replace with new points:

Notes the findings and recommendations of the reports by:

a) National Assembly Public Accounts Committee inquiry into NRW’s annual report and accounts 2017-2018—November 2018;

b) Grant Thornton—Natural Resources Wales—Governance of Timber Sales—February 2019.

Welcomes the appointment of a new chief executive and interim chair of NRW and their commitment to implement the recommendations of the two reports and improve the management and governance of NRW.

Amendment 1 moved.

Formally. 

Thank you. I call on Llyr Gruffydd to move amendments 2, 3 and 4, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Amendment 2—Rhun ap Iorwerth

In point 3, replace 'Regrets that NRW has systematically failed the people of Wales through a number of high-profile scandals' with 'Regrets the series of high profile failures in NRW'.

Amendment 3—Rhun ap Iorwerth

Delete point 4 and replace with:

Calls on the Welsh Government to establish an independent review to ascertain whether it is still appropriate for NRW to continue to manage the commercial forest estate in Wales and consider any potential alternative models.

Amendment 4—Rhun ap Iorwerth

Add as new point at end of motion:

Calls on the Welsh Government to ensure that NRW is properly resourced to adequately fulfil all of its duties.

Amendments 2, 3 and 4 moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am struggling, I have to say, with what the Conservatives are calling for because they wish the new chief executive all the best as well as the interim chair but then they're also saying that they're all hopeless and that we need to restart and recreate a new organisation.

Now, for me, starting from the beginning is the last thing that we need to do. We would be wasting the work that's been done over the past few years, and the reason that we've proposed one of our amendments, the second amendment, is that I don't accept the claim in the motion that there is a systematic failure:

'Regrets that NRW has systematically failed'.

Yes, there have been failings, and we regret some of those failings, but you can't try and characterise the situation as if the whole organisation is flawed from top to bottom, and I do think that it's unfortunate that you're besmirching the whole organisation because of the failings of some people within it. Now, as I say, the last thing I would want to see is full reorganisation because that would not—

Andrew R.T. Davies rose—

No, I do want more than a minute to develop my argument—I may take your intervention at the end, if I have time, and I’ve lost my train of thought now.

I’ve mentioned Brexit in the past, and all of the changes and problems that will come about as a result of that. If you introduce major institutional change at the same time, you’re asking for trouble, in my view.

Our amendment 4, of course, refers, as we always do when we talk about NRW, to the pressure on resources. The truth is that the institution has faced a cut of 35 per cent in real terms since its establishment—that’s a third of its budget lost in just five years. Now, show me any organisation that can take such a hit without there being some undesirable implications, and you’d be doing very well if you were able to do that. Simultaneously, as I regularly remind Members, the responsibilities have increased through the well-being of future generations Act, the environment Act and so on and so forth. That trajectory is entirely unsustainable: resources reducing, responsibilities increasing.

It says a great deal, I think, that NRW has been going through a whole-organisation review, given that it’s such a young organisation—only five or six years old—recognising that NRW, as a result of that, would, yes, have to work differently in certain areas of activity, but would also operate more slowly in certain areas. Well, you tell those people who are waiting for environmental licences or planning consent in certain areas and they say that they’re slow enough already, or not delivering certain responsibilities at all, according to a letter from the chief executive to the Public Accounts Committee recently. So, perhaps we should be turning to the Government and asking, 'Well, what elements of their work are you happy for them to drop, if they’re telling you that they may have to do that?'

Now, I do feel that there’s a valid question in the motion on the independence of NRW. Certainly, whatever your view as to whether the decision to ban pheasant shooting was correct or not, I think that the process, when it was unanimously agreed not to introduce a prohibition in the first place, and then, as we’ve discussed here in the past, the Minister at the time wrote a letter and expressed a clear view and in no time at all the view had changed—in my view, that does raise fundamental questions. But, simultaneously, of course, the Government was hiding behind NRW on the issue of the nuclear mud dumped off the Welsh coast. So, somehow, the Government is trying to ride two horses, and you can’t have that. Either NRW are the experts and they make the decision, or you accept certain decisions as a Government that you don’t like. I do think that we need a little more honesty in that regard.

I’ve also raised in the past my feelings about the nature of the relationship between the forestry sector and the work that NRW undertakes, and I’ve called for an independent inquiry, not into the whole organisation, as the Conservatives are calling for, but certainly into that element, as to whether they are fit to continue to manage the commercial forestry sector in Wales, specifically.

In the few seconds remaining to me, I would emphasise that we have to think of the staff. Yes, there’s a new chief executive, yes, there’s a new interim chair and a number of new members on the board. But, the staff remain there, and the staff, generally speaking, are excellent. I think it is unfortunate that this Conservative motion does seem to denigrate everybody, if you like, within the institution, and does so, unfortunately, on the basis of the failings of a few. 

Natural Resources Wales is not fit for purpose. The creation of Wales's largest quango came from an ill-conceived and poorly executed proposal to merge three different organisations with three different working strategies. As a result, leadership has been lacking, staff morale has been plummeting, public money has been wasted and confidence in the organisation has evaporated. The Welsh Government has received plenty of warnings about the serious failing of NRW but it has failed to act. For an organisation so important to life in Wales to have its accounts qualified for the third consecutive year is unprecedented and unacceptable. We now hear that the new chief executive of NRW has admitted that their accounts could be qualified for another unprecedented fourth year.

In its recent report, the Public Accounts Committee concluded that NRW's internal controls are not fit for purpose, but—and this is particularly concerning—the same issues of irregularities were highlighted three years ago by the then auditor general. This combination of incompetent leadership, lack of accountability and low staff morale led to the departure of staff with vital commercial expertise. As a result, decisions have been made that have caused serious financial loss for the taxpayer. This is demonstrated by the controversy over how timber was sold repeatedly without going to the open market. This scandal lost the Welsh taxpayer at least £1 million, and it resulted in the resignation of the NRW chair.

The situation was described at the time by Lee Waters, before his promotion to the frontbench, and he said—and these are his words—

'there should be accountability from the senior leadership...of this organisation, which does seem to be out of control.'

He went on to say that

'it does appear that the forestry section of NRW is out of control'.

There has been a consequent and widespread loss of faith in NRW. Ten timber firms recently sent a joint letter to the Welsh Government saying that they had no confidence in NRW's ability to manage forestry in Wales. They claimed that 12,000 jobs in the rural economy and £100 million of new investment over the next five years were at risk. These companies concluded that they had no confidence in the ability of NRW to deliver commercially, viably, a sustainable or commercially driven service.

In 2018, NRW gave in to ministerial pressure and decided not to renew licences for game bird shooting on land owned by the Welsh Government. This decision flew in the face of scientific evidence and NRW's own report that there was no need to change existing laws. By caving in to the Welsh Government, NRW has put a sector worth £75 million a year to the Welsh economy and 2,400 jobs at risk.

Deputy Presiding Officer, Natural Resources Wales has systematically failed the people of Wales. The current situation cannot be allowed to continue. It is time to scrap NRW and replace it with two separate bodies: one handling the regulatory duties undertaken by the organisation and the other, its commercial aspects. That's what this side of the Chamber is asking for. Only by making these changes can we deliver value for money for the taxpayer and provide efficient and effective protection for the environment in Wales. Thank you.

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.

I thank the previous Member for his contribution and support for our motion. I think that's a really important point, point 2 in our motion: we recognise the hard work of the front-line staff in the organisation, and acknowledge their dissatisfaction and lack of confidence in their senior leadership. We've seen that from the staff surveys. We say at the end of our motion that we want an independent review or inquiry into the organisation's failings, to investigate alternative proposals, and I think one option has to be doing away with the organisation and doing something different. If, however, the new management manage to finally turn around this organisation and we do see real signs of improvement, we're open to that. I mean, I myself, I started, in terms of my exposure to NRW, as the Chairman of the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee. [Interruption.] I'll give way.

I don't want this to be about me, but—. How long would you give them, then? Because on the one hand you're saying, 'We need to look at alternative models,' and on the other hand you're saying, 'Well, we hope they succeed, the new management team.' So, is it one year, two years, three years?

We are quite capable of looking at alternative models while also seeing how the organisation is doing in the meantime. We're capable of doing two things at once. I'm just saying, from my own perspective, I actually was really keen to give this organisation a following wind—a sort of benefit of the doubt. When I came in, I think it was probably the major organisation in the purview of the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee, and I heard a lot of criticism about it, but I was prepared to say, 'Look, it's a pretty new organisation, it's still bedding in; let's give it a chance.' I'm less prepared to say that two or three years on from when I did that, when the organisation had already been there for at least three years. I think there has to come a time when an organisation's failings continue and are so egregious that, actually, you do have to look at structural change. We should look at that while continuing to monitor what it's doing in the meantime.

I'd like to focus my remarks on two particular areas where I've been disappointed with the organisation, or potentially with the organisation's interface with Welsh Government, and they are forestry and marine energy. There's a huge opportunity in forestry. We've had a system with the common agricultural policy where the playing field is tilted towards agriculture and against forestry. Farming gets a subsidy on the basis simply of the land area, and that's taken away if it's given over to forestry, so that's a huge disincentive to planting trees. But as we move to our own Wales-based system, that should no longer be the case. Actually, NRW should have a huge amount of expertise that it can use to help expand the forestry sector, both within its ownership, but also, I think, by spreading best practice and building up facilities within forestry. One of those was meant to be this sawmill line. That was the supposed justification for giving these long-term contracts without proper competition, yet that sawmill line wasn't built, and we understand from the Public Accounts Committee report that NRW was likely aware of that, but didn't do anything to enforce the contract that was meant to be building up that capacity. So I ask the organisation: can't you do more to actually help farmers who want perhaps to plant some of their land with forestry, to help bring new people into the industry and expand this sector for the benefit of Wales and, indeed, in terms of our climate change objectives?

Similarly, in terms of marine energy, it should be a huge potential growth sector for Wales, and something again where we can look to our climate change commitments and reducing emissions. I understand that Welsh Government wants to prioritise this sector. I think the work that Marine Energy Wales has been doing, largely on something of a shoestring, has actually been very positive, and I understand the Welsh Government's behind it. But a lot of the problem is NRW, because if people want to try out a marine energy scheme, wave or tidal, whichever—put something on the surface of the water or on the sea bed that's trying a new way of generating energy and investigating its practicality—they have to go through an NRW licence procedure that treats them as if they're some sort of heavy industry, putting in something permanently that's got to have this great evidence base because they've done it before and can show NRW how there's no risk whatsoever. Having this precautionary-type approach and needing that degree of backup and information and evidence for something that, by its nature, is innovative and a pilot is putting a huge block on marine energy in Wales. People within the industry are tearing their hair out saying how difficult it is to get licences from NRW, and how frustrating it is to deal with that organisation. In Scotland, they instead have a deploy and monitor approach, yet in Wales every single licence thing has to be done individually. It's so difficult to do. You try and get advice from NRW and they just charge you several hundred pounds even for beginning to talk to you. Please, Ministers, if you really believe in this marine energy sector, whatever you do about NRW more generally, just see if you can help speed this process for licence applications to support marine energy, and don't let NRW be the block.

Can I assure you that it causes no pleasure to this side of the Assembly to have to highlight these controversies and note the issues that have restricted NRW since its creation? Because the body's role is critical and its purpose is crucial for the effective management and sustainability of our natural environment here in Wales.

Back in 2011, when details of the planned merger of the Countryside Council for Wales, the Environment Agency and the Forestry Commission were first announced, the environment Minister said that the move would ensure more sustainable and effective management of our natural resources, and that really has to be held as the guiding principle when we scrutinise the actual performance.

As I've said before—I'm not quite sure if I said it at the time, but I certainly said it when I was on the climate change committee—three into one was never going to be easy. It was always a challenging situation for the management team at NRW, and, as we have heard, there was also change in leadership. I did try to give praise where it was due. The staff survey that we've referred to was actually an excellent device and a really rigorous survey. And to have done that at a time when you were merging organisations, and there were inevitably people that felt slightly bruised in that process, I thought did show leadership. But I think it's been some of the other more general issues that have, perhaps, undermined our faith that they were really moving on, and the issues relating to forestry in particular have been grave because they've been repeated. Let's not forget that this wasn't a one-off; it happened again. And I do think the Welsh Government has to take more responsibility. It's an arm's-length organisation and, I have to concede, the Government would be unduly criticised if it was interfering too much, but you do need to show leadership, and you are prepared to do that on certain occasions, like issues that are of public concern, as the shooting ban perhaps indicates. So, I do think that the organisation needs clear direction of travel from the Welsh Government.

We've also heard that, from the very start, the Welsh Government was warned about these challenges of creating a new organisation. And so the change management, one has to say, has not been exemplary, to put it at its mildest. And I do think that if more care had been paid at the time when these things were mooted, then I think that some of these issues, certainly the need for a real robust commercial management capacity in the new organisation, would have probably been factored in from the very start, had you reflected on the criticisms that people were making of the original business plan. I will give way.

Thank you very much. In regard to some of the issues that you've already highlighted—there is no doubt that there have been some issues—what further to the whole-scale restructuring and reorganisation within NRW is proposed from the Conservative Party opposite? And also, in terms of the restructuring around the leadership team, the restructuring around the board, what further measures are you putting into the—?

Well, it's clear what they've got to—they've got to balance their regulatory powers, which, in fairness, they've exercised, I think, with some purpose, with their commercial ones. Some of the commercial judgments just defy any sort of analysis as soon as anyone looks at them, let alone the auditor looking at it and pointing out the alarming failures in commercial practice in treating companies fairly and tendering properly. These are not towering tasks to manage for public agencies that should be able to draw on the experience to do that effectively, and I'm sure that the Government was telling them to do it effectively.

Now, we have heard from Plaid that, somehow, this motion, instead of rigorous and due scrutiny, is a vicious attack on the staff. In fairness, I think everyone finds that slightly sceptical. You may not like the motion, you may think it's misguided, but, as an attack on the staff, when the second point of the motion goes out to praise the staff—. But then we had this utterly bizarre argument that the word 'systematic' means relating to individuals. Well, I have to say, my understanding of 'systematic' is that it relates to systems, but, I've only got an O-level in English language, and I didn't pay that much attention to the comprehension exercises. No doubt Llyr was a star pupil there and would be able to show me why I make these basic errors. 

But I do think we also need a more hopeful message. We need to make a decision through a review whether this can be fixed, and I hope it can be. I have met the new leadership team, and I do think they've got every intention of turning things around. But if that's not going to be possible, then we do have to revisit these things and just agree a new approach. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.

I'll be supporting the motion. Just to outline my experience of dealing with Natural Resources Wales, back in September 2017—the very first meeting about the nuclear mud. Honestly, I really had absolute confidence that the officials of NRW would be able to assuage my concerns about the mud and the testing regime, and so on. They knew nothing about the testing, despite being the body issuing the licence. They didn't know what kind of testing was done. They didn't know where the testing was done. They couldn't tell me to what depth. They couldn't tell me where the mud would end up. But they assured me nevertheless that it was safe, without knowing any of the detail. It was so bad it was the only time in my professional career where I offered to adjourn the meeting until I could maybe get an answer.

The Roath brook campaign—the desolation, the desecration of a park in Cardiff, and the destruction of very valuable trees. I went to a meeting with NRW with the new Minister. You could tell she was new because she just accepted what the officials were saying—that there was no alternative. [Interruption.] With respect, all the meetings I've attended—. [Interruption.] I'll give way if you wish. I'll happily give way. What we were told in the meeting was that there was no alternative. Again, in my entire career, I've never had an official tell me there's no alternative and not challenge it. That's what we were told. But, as time has transpired, as matters have moved on, we've seen that there are in fact very good alternatives to what is proposed at the Roath brook.

If we look at the wood contracts, I'll tell you what, I would commend NRW, because they've done pretty well in awarding a contract to a company that didn't even apply for it. Well done. Well done on that. Seriously, Grant Thornton found that their behaviour had heightened exposure to the risk of fraud. I remember being criticised back in the autumn of, I think it was 2017, again, when I objected to the shotgun retirement of the chief executive when there was this matter of the accounts not being qualified and, as I said, the company that hadn't applied for the contract being awarded the contract. Yet, the chief executive was allowed to swan off into the sunset with a package. I really didn't understand why I was criticised back then for attacking that. I still don't know.

On a personal level—I don't think Members will know this—Natural Resources Wales have breached my data protection personally as a politician in Wales. I phoned up one time and was considering making a complaint about a particular matter, and then I found out later that a Member of this Assembly, a politician here, was briefed about my call—unbelievable. Unbelievable, and that matter has still not been resolved yet. I know that the person was briefed because I saw the e-mail that somebody wrote about the briefing.

So, you've got all these things swirling around. This is an extremely serious matter. The nuclear mud will be coming back to—[Interruption.] I know it's a bit of a grind for some of you to listen to this, but please, please bear with me. As I said, this is a really important matter. The issue of the nuclear mud will be coming back. You may not like it coming back, but it will be coming back. I fully support this motion. Diolch yn fawr. 

Thank you. Can I now call on the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths? 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you for the opportunity to respond to this debate today. We last discussed Natural Resources Wales at a debate here on 13 February, following the Public Accounts Committee's report of NRW's annual report and accounts. During the debate, I think we all recognised, barring a few, the extraordinary work carried out by the staff of Natural Resources Wales, as well as the decisive, positive direction that has been set by the new leadership.

I absolutely recognise the concerns raised by staff, and I know the priority of the chief executive and her senior team is to ensure all staff feel confident they will be listened to when giving their views on the way forward. This is just one area in which the measures necessary to strengthen the organisation's internal structures and ways of working are already being progressed. 

As a Welsh Government, we believe the period of uncertainty proposed by the opposition is absolutely the last thing the staff of NRW need. Opposition parties call for an independent inquiry, for more discussions to take place. What we want is that change to happen now. The National Assembly for Wales have both remit and the ability to provide robust, independent scrutiny of NRW's continued progress. I welcome and commend the reports produced by the Assembly committees. Their recommendations have been accepted and are being implemented. The focus of Welsh Government and the new leadership of NRW is to grasp the present challenges and see through the changes needed. NRW has the ability to bring in independent scrutiny of its work and, indeed, this is something they've already done. The report by the auditors, Grant Thornton, has left no stone unturned in its review of NRW's forestry operations. NRW submitted the findings of the review to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee in advance of their evidence session last month, and the report was published online, along with details of the action being taken in response. And I think this is really indicative of the transparent way in which we will see this process through.

I think it's really disappointing the opposition—the Tories and UKIP—continue to suggest that the solution to the challenges faced by NRW is to undo the work of the new leadership, break up the organisation and have another reorganisation. We are firmly against the idea, as has been suggested by the Tories, that the best way to run those services is to fragment them. NRW is a single body responsible—

Will you give way, Minister?

No, you've had your say. 

NRW is a single body responsible for all of Wales's natural resources— [Interruption.] You'll have the time. You can wrap up this debate and you can have your opportunity. 

NRW is a single body responsible for all of Wales's natural resources, and this approach has clear benefits in terms of operational efficiency, in strategic planning and for taking the strongest possible action to address those critical issues that cut across Government and society—issues like climate change and protecting our vulnerable ecosystems. To suggest we need to break up NRW is to pose an unnecessary threat to our work in these areas and, unlike the Tories, we do not believe it's a risk we are willing to take at this critical time for our environment. 

To give just one example, NRW will start a project this month to create valuable wetland habitat in Myherin forest in mid Wales—an area that is managed primarily for timber production. As well as protecting vulnerable species, this project will reduce flood risk for people downstream. The fact there is a single body responsible across these issues clearly makes sense and is providing additional benefit.

Mark Reckless did make a very valid point in relation to energy licences, and, of course, NRW's reason for being is to protect our natural resources, but I do think we can improve the position around licensing and I have met with my Scottish counterpart to see what they are doing in Scotland to see if we can simplify things. 

It strikes me as very odd that Plaid Cymru are saying on the one hand NRW needs more resources but that the Welsh Govenrment should cut off the revenue the organisation earns from its forestry operations. My officials are working with NRW to look at other ways of raising income. 

I believe the scrutiny role played by the National Assembly is vital for our democracy. If it's the case the Tories and UKIP Members in this Assembly feel they're unable to fulfil their scrutiny role, admitting a public inquiry is needed because they don't have confidence in their own abilities, then it's those opposition Members who have failed the people of Wales. And I do hope opposition Members regain their confidence and will commit today to serve the people of Wales to the best of their abilities, rather than looking to Welsh Govenrment to pay someone else to do their job for them. 

NRW are an organisation of talented people who are facing up to some of the most critical issues facing our nation, and I think the people of Wales can rightly be proud of the work being delivered on their behalf. 

Can I now call on Nick Ramsay to reply to the debate, please?

I'll just regain my confidence before I speak. To be fair to Andrew R.T. Davies, he never was rounding up this debate, so when he did try to intervene, it probably was his last word, but, there we are, I'll do my best to round up. 

Can I thank everyone who has contributed to this afternoon's discussion? It's only been a couple of weeks, as the Minister has just said, since I spoke here as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee on our scrutiny of Natural Resources Wales’s annual report and accounts, accounts that have, as we know, been qualified for the third year running due to irregularities, most recently with timber contracts.

Can I make clear that this is not a criticism of the very many hard-working staff at NRW, despite what some Members may have said. And as David Melding so eloquently and simply pointed out, if it was a criticism of those hard-working staff, then point 2 of our motion wouldn’t be saying that we support those hard-working staff. And, of course, it was those hard-working staff who were contributing to the staff surveys that suggested that there was a problem at the very early days of NRW. Perhaps if those hard-working staff had been listened to at an earlier point in this process, then we wouldn’t be standing here now constantly talking about the problems that have been confronted in NRW. I think all of us need to recognise that they are hardworking and this is a higher level problem. It may well be a systemic problem. There’s not a problem in saying there’s a problem with the system, because something has clearly gone wrong with the structure of NRW.

As Andrew R.T. Davies said at the start of the debate, there may well be issues stemming from the way that NRW was put together at the start, and that came across, actually, in the Public Accounts Committee’s inquiry that we conducted: the merger of three large organisations. Okay, there was potential that that would produce efficiencies, there was potential that that would make a more competent organisation, but, sadly, as witnesses to the Public Accounts Committee told us, it did look, from outside at least, as though there was a top layer put on the three organisations, but there was never a proper bringing together of cultures. There was a cultural gap, I suppose you would call it, a cultural void within that organisation that was never really filled, and that needs to happen.

It’s not just the Welsh Conservatives who are making these points, it’s not just the Public Accounts Committee—the Grant Thornton review itself, as the Minister rightly said, left no stones unturned. That was welcomed by everyone on the committee. It’s been welcomed by this Chamber, it was welcomed when I brought that debate to the Chamber a couple of weeks ago. The Grant Thornton review conducted, in a forensic fashion, a review of NRW, exposing a number of fundamental flaws in its ways of working. And there’s wide recognition that the timber contracts that NRW entered into were, and I quote, 'novel, contentious and repercussive', and, as such, should certainly have been referred to the Welsh Government, in line with the correct procedures, which NRW was aware of and Welsh Government was aware of. But there was a lack of clarity. There was a fuzziness around the correct procedures in NRW, and if nothing else comes out of this debate, and we’re all wanting to this afternoon, after a long afternoon of having rows with each other—let’s at least make sure that, in the future, that fuzziness is dealt with and NRW knows exactly what it’s responsibilities are, and the Welsh Government assists in delivering on that.

It is time to look now to the future; there is a new team in place, and that is to be welcomed. I welcomed that a couple of weeks ago in the debate that we had. There is definitely a mood within the organisation to move forward, there's a mood here to look forward, but at the very time that the Welsh Government is removing and reducing call-in procedures for arm’s-length body organisations, those procedures are needed now more than ever. So, we call in this debate this afternoon for the Welsh Government to make sure that NRW is fit for purpose as we move forward. Welsh Government does need to work with the team that has been put in place. That team does need to work with and listen to the hard-working staff at NRW to make sure that the sorts of errors that we’ve seen in the past won’t be made in the future.

As things stand at the moment, there cannot be a guarantee that those accounts of NRW will not be qualified again, and possibly again, because, as things stand at the moment, things are not as they should be. There is a mood, there is a decisiveness to put things right, but as was said by many speakers earlier, until that actually happens, then we will not move forward. I really hope we do, and that’s why I urge the Chamber this afternoon to support this motion.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we defer voting on this item until voting time. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I intend to proceed directly to voting time. Okay, thank you.

Voting deferred until voting time.