I'm pleased to contribute to this afternoon's debate, and I've got to say, just listening to that last contribution from Rhianon Passmore, I do find it a bit rich when the Welsh Labour Government have constantly called on the UK Government to provide more funding to this place and more funding for public services in Wales at the very time that they just received an extra £4 billion to support public services and the Welsh economy. We get contributions that then say that the Conservative Party is economically incompetent. You can't have it both ways, Rhianon Passmore. You can't on the one hand call for greater borrowing and greater support and then, when that is provided, turn on the hand that has given you that money. So, I, for one, and the Welsh Conservatives on this side of the Chamber, are more than happy that the UK Government is borrowing money at the moment. It is supporting the UK economy, and it is supporting the Welsh economy and people in Wales, and I think, in next year's Senedd election, the people of Wales will see that that support has been offered. 

Point 1 of the motion goes to the heart of what this motion is all about: the successful management of taxpayers’ money depends on clear objectives, agreed outcomes and rigorous scrutiny. How often in this Chamber and virtually over the last few months have we spoken about the importance of building back better after the pandemic, and developing a more sustainable economy and transport infrastructure? Well, that process of building back better must involve eliminating waste, increasing efficiency and delivering value for money for the taxpayer. And let me be clear what I mean by 'value for money', because that doesn't mean always going for the cheapest option and settling for less than best. But it does mean embedding and developing an anti-waste culture at the heart of Government, ensuring that there is always a watchful eye over Government spending across departments, and one which flags up Government waste at the earliest opportunity. 

I certainly don't see our proposals for a new department as working in conflict with existing mechanisms for scrutiny—far from it. I see them as complementing those existing mechanisms, including the Senedd's own Public Accounts Committee, which was referred to by Angela Burns, Audit Wales and the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales. In June 2020, Audit Wales produced a report on the Welsh Government's rural development grant scheme, finding that £53 million of grants were made without ensuring value for money or effective competition. The Auditor General for Wales found that key aspects of the design, operation and oversight of the Welsh Government controls over the programme were not effective enough to secure value for money. The failures listed included inviting funding applications from certain organisations without documenting why, giving additional funds to existing projects without first checking their success, and exercising insufficient project oversight. 

There were, of course, earlier examples of lack of efficiency which have been referred to by other Members—Communities First, for instance. Communities First's strengths, including a strong brand and trusted employees, were a good thing, but, unfortunately, they were overshadowed by a lack of co-ordination and duplication of delivery work. There was a lack of an anchor to that project, and there have been similar programmes since. Quite simply, it wasn't value for money and it wasn't picked up quickly enough. 

The problem doesn't just include the Welsh Government itself; it does extend to Welsh public sector bodies too, as Angela Burns mentioned. Audit Wales reported that Natural Resources Wales would have its accounts qualified as a result of its handling of timber contracts, again referred to earlier, which auditors Grant Thornton stated heightened exposure to the risk of fraud. And in January 2020, the auditor general qualified the organisation's accounts for the fourth year in a row due to doubts as to whether NRW acted in accordance with its statutory duties and public law principles. 

We need to build greater resilience into the system, and that doesn't just mean financial resilience; it means resilience in data handling too. Flaws were only recently exposed in the Welsh Government's handling of personal data with the three significant data breaches culminating in the details of 18,000 individuals being posted on Public Health Wales's website for 24 hours. This included, as we know, details of nearly 2,000 care home residents. 

So, it's not just a question of financial resilience; it's a question of resilience across the Welsh Government, and across the public sector, which is why we are proposing some of the changes that we've put forward. This is a motion that is basically about giving the people of Wales confidence—confidence that, when they vote, whichever party or parties form the Welsh Government, resilience and value for money will be built into that process and into that system from the start, not added as an afterthought. We need to build resilience, ensure value for money for the taxpayer, and promote, all-importantly, a new culture of efficiency. That is what this is about: increasing scrutiny and casting a light on some of the darker corners of Government, as we start on the long journey of building back better.

And in conclusion, Llywydd, Neil McEvoy said—and I agree with him—we need to reconstruct; I think you said we need to change the culture of Government, by removing the darkness—. I've got your quote quite wrong there, actually, by the way, Neil McEvoy; I should never try to quote you—you do it far more eloquently yourself. But you said that things can't go on as they were before, and we need to make sure, I believe, that we do not remove the very democracy that provides the opportunity for change that we are trying to seek.