Debate contribution: Waste and Inefficiency in Government

Debate contribution by Mr Stewart Dickson on 23 March 2026.

MLA

Mr Stewart Dickson

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

23 March 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Waste and Inefficiency in Government

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5465990

Read the official Assembly record

Text

My colleague Eóin Tennyson and, indeed, others in the Chamber have outlined their view that, while much of the motion's text is common sense, fine words are one thing, but actions are another. The motion would, perhaps, have been better directed at the Executive Office — of which Committee I am a member — in which, of course, the proposer's party has two Ministers and numerous special advisers. Unfortunately, the record of efficiency there is extremely weak: a full 23 years on from the first election in which the DUP qualified for a ministerial role in the Executive Office or, as it was then called, the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) there is no evidence of improvement. An obvious issue emerges when we look at the motion. Let us look at the Strategic Investment Board (SIB), which was set up in the first Assembly mandate precisely to provide expert guidance on strategy and investment. Its very coming into existence as a small but expert organisation was designed to ensure that the catalogue of blunders that we had seen in capital projects, as outlined by the Audit Office, would not occur. Bizarrely, however, the SIB has morphed into something quite different, and it rarely has much to do with strategy or investment. Indeed, the SIB seems to have a role in transformation. That is certainly prominent on its website. If capital projects have failed and transformation has stalled, as the motion clearly implies, what does it say about SIB? To be clear, I do not mean to be critical of the people carrying out their roles; I mean to point to the obvious systemic failure arising from fairly blatant mission creep. The motion goes on to focus on the Civil Service. However, once again, it was a DUP First Minister who insisted that the Executive Office Ministers appoint the head of the Civil Service. The supporters of the motion should know that the Civil Service is structured to consist primarily of generalists and, therefore, necessarily has to engage outside expertise on specific issues. If they wish to change that, they need to take that up with the head of the Civil Service, whom their party had a role in appointing. On the units in the Executive Office that purport to bring effective delivery across all Departments, it was, again, a DUP First Minister who presided over the separation between the head of the Civil Service and the permanent secretary of the Executive Office. That has added to costs but reduced accountability. Let us look at Maze/Long Kesh as a prime example. Prime development land is being held to ransom by the actions of successive DUP First Ministers and deputy First Ministers and their failure to deliver solutions. Problem-solving, not problem-making, should be the mantra of the Executive and of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. Problem-solving should be at the heart of efficient government. The supporters of the motion want to engage in 20% cuts, but, inevitably, that will mean cutting jobs. They should be clear about exactly who will be cut in that eventuality. In the meantime, my colleagues and I would much rather use the personnel whom we have more effectively and efficiently, with the goal of delivering for the public and making their lives better. After all, that is why we are here. It is certainly why I am here: to deliver for my constituents and make their lives better. Frankly, that means an end to the politics of blockage and a shift to the politics of progress.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:08 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

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

Challenge this classification