English: Back in March 2017, the then Auditor General for Wales laid before the Assembly a report on the accounts of NRW, setting out his reasons for qualifying the 2015-16 regulatory opinion on NRW's financial statements. The report referred to NRW's decision to award eight high-value timber sales contracts to a sawmill operator in May 2014. As a committee, we conducted an inquiry into these matters and published a report in June 2017, concluding that: 'We believe that NRW could and should have ensured that there were good governance arrangements in place in the contracting process, and in failing to establish effective governance arrangements, it is unable to demonstrate how it acted lawfully. We do not believe there is any evidence to demonstrate whether the contracts represent value for money.' We also recommended at that time that NRW 'undertake a full evaluation of its governance arrangements relating to contracting processes, clearly setting out lessons learned'. Now, fast forward to 2018, and the committee found itself back in the same position, when the then Auditor General for Wales qualified NRW's 2017-18 financial statements for a third year in a row, and for exactly the same reasons. We were extremely disappointed that, despite the findings of previous reports by the Auditor General for Wales and the Public Accounts Committee regarding NRW's approach to timber transactions, NRW's accounts were qualified for a third consecutive year. This led to us publishing a further report in November last year, in which we raised again a number of concerning issues around the awarding of these timber contracts, a number of which remain unexplained. Not least, we were left bewildered that the decision - when awarding these contracts - to follow a process outside of the procurement rules was taken against the backdrop of a scathing auditor general's report that raised concerns about that specific type of process. Indeed, I recall Members of the committee, and one Member specifically, citing this as the crime that was committed twice, such was the concern on the committee at that time. This suggested to the committee that there has been a cultural failure within NRW in relation to governance procedures, and that a serious overhaul was needed. We could only conclude that previous concerns had been disregarded, and the decisions that followed at NRW appeared to defy logic. These were decisions made by experienced staff, and it is difficult to view these actions as a result of incompetence. We could only conclude that we will never fully understand, or have an explanation for, what happened at NRW. I should add at this point that Natural Resources Wales had a new chief executive from February 2018, and that an interim chair took up post on 1 November 2018 for a period of 12 months. Together, they've stated their commitment to turning NRW into the organisation it aspires to be. The 2018-19 annual report and accounts will be the first complete accounts fully under their watch, so previous qualifications were prior to their appointments. I think it's important to make that point. Moving forward, we fully welcomed and respected the decision of the new chief executive to commission a full independent review of the issues raised in the auditor general's report on NRW's 2017-18 financial statements. The review was undertaken by independent auditors Grant Thornton and, at the request of NRW's chief executive, was to be a no-stone-unturned investigation to fully flush out the failings within the organisation and bring about wholesale reform. The findings of the review were published on 4 February this year and considered by us on 11 February. The Grant Thornton review makes further uncomfortable reading as it explores in some greater depth the issues raised in previous reports on NRW's timber transactions. However, the report did not reveal any surprises or, indeed, anything new, but it did raise further questions about when we will see change at NRW and, more importantly: are the issues relating to timber sales restricted to the forestry division at NRW, or do these issues reflect a fundamental flaw in the organisational culture? The Grant Thornton report highlights a lack of single organisational culture at Natural Resources Wales, and there are many lessons for the whole of the organisation to learn from this. It seems unfortunate that the merging of three organisations into one has left a lasting legacy of deep-rooted cultural differences that have never been resolved. However, we welcome the commitment given to us by the new chief executive and chair of the board that work is under way to completely restructure the organisation, with a move towards a more place-based organisation that, it is hoped, will unite it more fully.
Welsh: Yn ôl ym mis Mawrth 2017, gosododd Archwilydd Cyffredinol Cymru ar y pryd adroddiad ar gyfrifon Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru gerbron y Cynulliad a nodai ei resymau dros gymhwyso barn reoleiddiol 2015-16 ar ddatganiadau ariannol Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru. Cyfeiriodd yr adroddiad at benderfyniad Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru i ddyfarnu wyth contract gwerthu pren gwerth uchel i weithredwr melin lifio ym mis Mai 2014. Fel pwyllgor, cynaliasom ymchwiliad i'r materion hyn a chyhoeddi adroddiad ym mis Mehefin 2017 a ddaeth i'r casgliad: 'y gallai ac y dylai CNC fod wedi sicrhau bod llywodraethu da ar waith yn ei broses gontractio, ac o fethu â sefydlu trefniadau llywodraethu effeithiol, ni allai ddangos ei fod wedi gweithredu'n gyfreithlon a bod y contractau a ddyfarnwyd yn cynrychioli gwerth am arian.' Roeddem hefyd yn argymell ar y pryd y dylai Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru '[g]ynnal gwerthusiad llawn o'i drefniadau llywodraethu mewn perthynas â phrosesau contractio, gan amlinellu'n glir y gwersi a ddysgwyd'. Nawr, gwibiwch ymlaen i 2018, ac mae'r pwyllgor yn ôl yn yr un sefyllfa, wedi i'r Archwilydd Cyffredinol Cymru ar y pryd gymhwyso datganiadau ariannol 2017-18 Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru am y drydedd flwyddyn yn olynol, ac am yr un rhesymau'n union. Roeddem yn hynod o siomedig, er gwaethaf canfyddiadau adroddiadau blaenorol gan Archwilydd Cyffredinol Cymru a'r Pwyllgor Cyfrifon Cyhoeddus ynghylch ymagwedd Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru tuag at drafodion gwerthu pren, fod cyfrifon Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru wedi'u cymhwyso am y drydedd flwyddyn yn olynol. Arweiniodd hyn at gyhoeddi adroddiad pellach gennym ym mis Tachwedd y llynedd, lle roeddem unwaith eto'n nodi nifer o faterion a oedd yn peri pryder mewn perthynas â dyfarnu'r contractau pren hyn, gyda nifer ohonynt yn dal heb eu hesbonio. Nid yn lleiaf, testun dryswch i ni oedd bod y penderfyniad - wrth ddyfarnu'r contractau hyn - i ddilyn proses y tu allan i'r rheolau caffael wedi'i wneud yn erbyn cefndir yr adroddiad deifiol gan yr archwilydd cyffredinol a oedd yn lleisio pryderon am y math penodol hwnnw o broses. Yn wir, cofiaf Aelodau'r pwyllgor, ac un Aelod yn benodol, yn cyfeirio at hyn fel trosedd a gyflawnwyd ddwywaith, cymaint oedd pryder y pwyllgor ar y pryd. Awgrymwyd i'r pwyllgor fod methiant diwylliannol wedi bod o fewn Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru mewn perthynas â gweithdrefnau llywodraethu, a bod angen ailwampio difrifol. Ni allem ond dod i'r casgliad fod pryderon blaenorol wedi'u diystyru, ac roedd yn ymddangos bod y penderfyniadau a ddilynodd yn Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru yn afresymegol. Roedd y rhain yn benderfyniadau a wnaethpwyd gan staff profiadol, ac mae'n anodd gweld y camau hyn fel canlyniad i anallu. Ni allwn ond dod i'r casgliad na fyddwn byth yn llwyr ddeall, neu'n cael esboniad iawn am yr hyn a ddigwyddodd yn Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru. Dylwn ychwanegu ar y pwynt hwn fod Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru wedi cael prif weithredwr newydd o fis Chwefror 2018, a bod cadeirydd dros dro wedi bod yn ei swydd ers 1 Tachwedd 2018 am gyfnod o 12 mis. Gyda'i gilydd, maent wedi datgan eu hymrwymiad i newid Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru i fod yr hyn y mae'n anelu i fod. Adroddiad blynyddol a chyfrifon 2018-19 fydd y cyfrifon cyflawn cyntaf a fydd yn llwyr o dan eu goruchwyliaeth hwy, felly digwyddodd unrhyw gymhwyso blaenorol cyn iddynt gael eu penodi. Rwy'n meddwl ei bod hi'n bwysig gwneud y pwynt hwnnw. Gan symud ymlaen, roeddem yn croesawu ac yn parchu penderfyniad y prif weithredwr newydd i gomisiynu adolygiad annibynnol llawn o'r materion a godwyd yn adroddiad yr archwilydd cyffredinol ar ddatganiadau ariannol Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru ar gyfer 2017-18. Cyflawnwyd yr adolygiad gan yr archwilwyr annibynnol Grant Thornton ac ar gais prif weithredwr Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru, roedd yr ymchwiliad i fod yn gwbl drylwyr er mwyn datgelu'r methiannau o fewn y sefydliad yn llawn a sicrhau bod diwygio'n digwydd drwyddo draw. Cyhoeddwyd canfyddiadau'r adolygiad ar 4 Chwefror eleni a chawsant eu hystyried gennym ar 11 Chwefror. Mae adolygiad Grant Thornton yn peri pryder pellach gan ei fod yn mynd ati'n fwy manwl i archwilio'r materion a godwyd mewn adroddiadau blaenorol ar drafodion gwerthu pren Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru. Fodd bynnag, ni ddatgelodd yr adroddiad unrhyw beth annisgwyl, nac unrhyw beth newydd yn wir, ond roedd yn codi cwestiynau pellach ynghylch pryd y gwelwn newid yn Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru, ac yn bwysicach: a yw'r materion sy'n ymwneud â gwerthiannau pren wedi'u cyfyngu i is-adran coedwigaeth Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru, neu a yw'r rhain yn adlewyrchu diffyg sylfaenol yn y diwylliant sefydliadol? Mae adroddiad Grant Thornton yn amlygu'r angen am un diwylliant sefydliadol yn Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru, ac mae llawer o wersi i'r sefydliad cyfan eu dysgu o hyn. Mae'n anffodus fod uno'r tri sefydliad yn un wedi gadael gwaddol o wahaniaethau diwylliannol dwfn na chawsant eu datrys erioed. Fodd bynnag, rydym yn croesawu'r ymrwymiad a roddwyd i ni gan brif weithredwr a chadeirydd newydd y bwrdd fod gwaith yn mynd rhagddo ar ad-drefnu'r sefydliad drwyddo draw, a newid tuag at sefydliad sy'n fwy seiliedig ar le y gobeithir y bydd yn ei uno'n fwy trylwyr.