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.