Debate contribution: Waste and Inefficiency in Government

Debate contribution by Mr Colm Gildernew on 23 March 2026.

MLA: Mr Colm Gildernew
Party at the time: Sinn Féin
Date: 23 March 2026
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Private Members' Business
Heading: Waste and Inefficiency in Government
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5465935

Text

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
Tackling the wasteful and inefficient spending of public money should and must be a key priority for the Executive at all times but even more so in the current fiscal climate. At a time when budgets are strained, there is an onus on all Ministers to stretch their budgets as far as they can go. That will require a concerted effort by all Ministers to minimise wasteful spending while protecting front-line public services. Whilst it is right and proper that the Executive strive for efficiencies, it must be said that making efficiencies alone will not solve our financial woes. The simple truth is that the British Government continue to underfund the North, and that is having a severely negative impact on our ability to maintain our public services to an acceptable standard. Only when the British Government end their policy of austerity and deliver serious investment in the North will our public services be placed on a sustainable footing. We also need to transform the way in which we deliver our public services to allow us to improve outcomes for people whilst removing duplication and inefficiencies. We often hear the criticism that our public sector is overladen with red tape. Although I am sure that much of it is necessary, we should do anything that we can to remove unnecessary bureaucracy in the system. The review of arm's-length bodies, on which the Minister of Finance is leading, will be key to rationalising public administration. We hope to see a much more streamlined and efficient system going forward. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), I am concerned about the findings of the Audit Office report on the Civil Service, which shows that its transformation has been far too slow and that serious issues of capacity and capability remain. In particular, the over-reliance on agency staff to deliver services is of huge concern. I welcome the progress that has been made on that issue, such as the confirmation that the outsourced aspects of recruitment will be brought back in-house from March 2027. The Civil Service is, however, only one part of the jigsaw puzzle. Similar problems exist in all areas of the public sector, not least in health and education. Transformation there is equally, if not more, essential. Although public-sector reform has been too slow to date, it is important to recognise some of the positive steps that have been taken, the benefits of which will be transformational in the long run. First, I welcome the progress that has been made on delivering fairer funding to the North via the interim fiscal framework. If we are to have any hope of transforming our public services, we need the upfront investment that will allow us to achieve that. More work, however, is needed in order to agree a final fiscal framework that will accurately reflect the true level of objective need in the North. Speaking as a member of the Communities Committee, I say that we also urgently need to see borrowing powers granted to the Housing Executive to allow it to build more homes. Secondly, I welcome the recent confirmation of the open-book exercise that will take place in cooperation with the British Treasury. It will provide a much clearer picture of the unsustainable pressures that the Executive face. Thirdly, I welcome the establishment of the public-sector transformation board and the funding allocations that it has already made. The six projects that have received funding include £61 million to the Department of Health to enable the roll-out of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) in GP practices and £27·5 million to tackle the unsustainable trajectory of special educational needs (SEN) spending by prioritising early intervention. Further such opportunities for transformation will be made possible through the digitalisation of the public sector. Digitalisation is the future, because it will remove much of the administrative cost of running government and make it easier for the public to access services. The quicker we embrace technological advances, the quicker we will feel the benefits and potentially cut costs. I have to say, however, that the level of hypocrisy that the DUP has exhibited in tabling the motion is truly staggering. It is the party that brought us the renewable heat incentive (RHI) or "cash for ash" scandal, which has cost the taxpayer millions of pounds. It did not seem to care too much about tackling wasteful spending when it signed off on that scheme; indeed, it encouraged participants to fill their boots at the expense of the taxpayer. The DUP is the party that, together with the Tories, brought us Brexit. We all continue to suffer the consequences of that act of self-harm daily. As we debate the motion today, community groups are issuing their staff with redundancy notices as a direct result of the underfunding of the local growth fund and the failure of the British Government to replace in full the funding lost as a result of Brexit, a Brexit that the DUP championed at every turn. The DUP is the party that is involved in more legal cases than it can even count, consistently using taxpayers' money to block progressive change through the courts. It is the party that prioritises pet projects such as spending over £5,000 of taxpayers' money to prove JD Vance's Ulster-Scots heritage, which did not exist. Were it not so serious, it would be almost laughable that the Minister for Communities instructed officials to make that a top priority while failing to deliver on so many other issues of real importance. If the DUP is serious about tackling the wasteful spending of public money, perhaps it should start by taking a closer look at the actions of its own Ministers. It might then have some credibility when it seeks to pontificate to the rest of us.

974 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification