Debate contribution: Waste and Inefficiency in Government

Debate contribution by Mr John O'Dowd on 23 March 2026.

MLA

Mr John O'Dowd

Party at the time

Sinn Féin

Date

23 March 2026

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Waste and Inefficiency in Government

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5466003

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

The topic of the motion is wide-ranging. Nonetheless, I welcome the opportunity to engage in the debate. If we are to make real progress, our discussion must be grounded in facts, not headlines, and in practical, working solutions from across the Executive. Those who tabled the motion have again mistakenly given me, as Finance Minister, additional powers. As I have said before, I suspect that some of their party colleagues in the Executive would not be keen on me being given extra powers. Let me be absolutely clear from the outset: I fully support the objective of delivering a more efficient and genuinely transformative public sector that is focused on saving, getting better value for money and, ultimately, delivering better outcomes for our citizens. However, that is the collective responsibility of the Executive and needs the agreement of every Minister. If responsibility for transformation is left to one Minister, Department or permanent secretary, the opportunities that it offers will not be realised. Transformation will need to be embraced by every Minister, working with the Civil Service, if we are to deliver the changes that, we agree, are necessary. We should acknowledge, however, that civil servants undertake their jobs in increasingly challenging circumstances. While it is easy for some to criticise and lay blame, most Members, I believe, would want to join me in putting on record our recognition and appreciation of their work, which they do alongside us every day of the week. While some engage in simplistic sound bites, we should always remember that the people who deliver our public services are our greatest asset. The evidence from the World Economic Forum and the OECD, for example, is clear: organisations with inclusive practices and workforces outperform their peers in innovation, decision-making and employee engagement; and societies that promote equality, respect, inclusivity and protections for minorities have better socio-economic outcomes. If those in the Chamber who constantly attack minorities — they should not do so at all — want to ease themselves in some way, they should think of that: societies with protections for minorities have better socio-economic outcomes. Those principles are good for individuals and society. I note that the motion highlights the Scottish Government's commitment to reducing operating costs by 20% by 2030. Over the five years to January 2025, the Scottish Government's staff headcount increased by close to 40%. In the same period, our Civil Service grew by a little over 7%. That contrast matters —

— and we are not comparing like with like. I will, yes.

The Fiscal Council goes on to elaborate on rurality and state that a lot of services in England are privatised. We have resisted privatisation. When people compare like with like, they need to take a deep dive into the figures and look at exactly why the differences are there. I am comparing with the Scottish figures here. Those who want to start off with the Scottish example need to understand that the Scottish Government's workforce increased by 40%, whereas ours increased by 7%. All those things require a deeper dive to be taken. I have answered questions for written answer on agency workers, and I have said this figure in the Chamber on multiple occasions, so the figure is out there, and people know it. People keep throwing up the figure of 4,939 agency staff, saying that there has been a dramatic increase over the past number of years. In doing that, they fail to mention the fact that 2,539 of those staff are employed directly by the Department for Work and Pensions in Britain, not by us. The funding for those staff members does not come out of the block grant. There is no cost to our public service: it is like a major multinational coming in and giving us jobs. Despite that, for their own reasons or using their own rationale, people keep using that figure, as if the Civil Service — or I, or somebody else — has done something wrong. Of those 4,939 staff, 2,539 are employed by the Department for Work and Pensions. Please factor that in when you quote that figure.

I will in one second; I just want to finish this point. I ask the sponsors of the motion what they would do to mirror a 20% reduction in Scotland. To achieve a cut of that scale purely through staff costs would equate to 5,000 people in the Civil Service alone; across the wider public sector, it would be close to 47,000 job losses. Go ahead.

No, no, no. I suggest that the Member goes back and reads the responses to his questions for written answer. I am the one who signs off on them, and I can assure him that those figures are included in the responses. Based on a figure of 20%, the sponsors of the motion are proposing up to 47,000 job losses. They may be comfortable with that. Their former leader was comfortable with 40,000 job losses resulting from Brexit, and they may be comfortable with 47,000 job losses, but that is for them to defend. Do they suggest that we make redundancies on that scale across the public sector, removing jobs from our local communities at a time when demand for services, particularly front-line services in health and education, continues to grow? Perhaps the Members opposite are suggesting that an alternative would be to pursue sweeping reductions in estate costs, meaning the closure of regional offices and public amenities and the limiting of local access to public services, with a disproportionate impact on rural communities. It is easy to talk, but it is much harder to deliver the painful cuts that the motion would require, or, indeed, for those Members to face their constituents, whose access to essential public services would be limited by those cuts. I would welcome clarification from the Members opposite on what practical actions they propose. Let us turn to what we can do and to what is, in many cases, already being done. Ministers do not need a motion like this, or targets from me, to drive efficiencies in their Departments. It is their job to manage their Departments, including their finances. On finances, I have argued consistently that the policies of previous British Governments and the current British Government have created this situation. They have consistently cut finances to public services in real terms. I have made the case and will continue to make the case for more funding for our public services. That may upset some in the Chamber and some in the media, but I will continue to do it. Let me be very clear: the best chance of successfully getting proper funding from the Government lies with everyone in the Executive and the Assembly working together to consistently send that message to the British Government. Sound bites, point-scoring and calling the Executive to bail out British Government-funded programmes does not cut it. Members have a choice between continuing to shadow-box and role-play and getting down to the real work of making politics work for all our people, giving leadership and hope in what is, at present, a very worrying world. The work of managing Departments and driving effective, efficient government should be happening as a matter of course in Departments. If the Ministers in the party that tabled the motion support the scale of cuts suggested by their party members, I expect that they have taken steps to control spend and workforce numbers in their respective Departments. Perhaps the sponsors of the motion can spell out how that has been done. The reality is that the scale of bids that my Department received in the recent Budget process indicated that Departments wanted more money, not less, and more staff, not less. Indeed, when we look at the Education Authority, for example, whose workforce is more than double that of the Civil Service, we see an 18% increase in full-time equivalent staff over the five years to April 2025. That is an extra 8,900 people who have been employed in the last five years, which is a growth rate far above that of pupil numbers. I am fully committed to Civil Service workforce renewal. In that regard, the people strategy 2025-2030 is my Department's key programme. Launched in April 2025, it focuses on three priorities: skills and capacity, experience and environment, and leadership and inclusion. The strategy will deliver clearer roles and career paths, faster targeted recruitment, stronger workforce planning, more consistent people management, better employee experience and well-being, and stronger leadership and inclusion, including rights for all employees based on our equality legislation. All those will, I believe, lead to better outcomes for public service delivery. The multi-year Budget is an opportunity to provide the certainty needed by Departments for long-term planning and to create the conditions to drive transformational change. At its core, transformation is about changing how we work so that our services become more effective, more resilient and more sustainable. That means designing services around citizens, not organisational structures; cutting duplication and unnecessary complexity; planning our workforce better so that skills are used where they add the most value; using data wisely to guide decisions and support early action; focusing on prevention, not just managing demand; and making sure that every pound we spend delivers the greatest possible impact. That kind of reform is not optional. With pressures continuing to grow, doing more of the same is simply not an option. The Executive recognise the need for transformational change across many of our public services and the need to fund that transformation. That is why I am seeking Executive approval to earmark a further £135 million in the multi-year Budget to continue driving forward the transformation of our public services and build a system that truly works. Delivering our Programme for Government priorities will require the Executive collectively, and individual Ministers, to take challenging decisions to prioritise the available funding in order to deliver the desired outcomes. One key strand of my Department's transformative budget sustainability work is the development of five-year departmental plans to set out each Department's strategic direction over the medium term, outline the cost involved and identify efficiencies and other opportunities to reduce spending. My officials have provided and continue to provide support and guidance to all Departments as they seek to put in place their five-year plans. Departments are being encouraged to identify and set out clear proposals for efficiencies and transformation initiatives that can be taken forward over the five-year project, with the aim of driving down costs, improving service delivery and ensuring that resources are targeted where they are most needed. The implementation of mandatory targets, as proposed in today's motion, will not, however, necessarily deliver any additional efficiencies beyond those that are already being delivered or have been identified for delivery. In addition, it would potentially introduce a further layer of bureaucracy. I note the concerns raised by the Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee on cost overruns and delays in major capital projects here. Those issues are not unique to public-sector projects. We see examples of major projects across these islands that have been disrupted due to inflationary pressures, legal action, planning issues and other factors outside the direct control of the relevant Department or arm's-length body. Having said that, I believe that we have become too risk-averse and spend too much time on processes and bureaucracy rather than focusing on delivery. For example, many reports have outlined that we spend too much time developing a business case and submitting it to multiple layers of checking, which is not improving decision-making.

I am committed to driving efficiency and tackling unnecessary bureaucracy. I have already simplified procurement processes and reduced red tape and low-value procurement in grant funding. On the example that Mr Burrows used, I have changed the procurement process for schools. My concern is that that information has not been filtered down to schools. There is an urgency for the Department and the EA to ensure that schools are aware of the new procurement process, because it removes bureaucracy and has the potential to save schools significant amounts of money. The motion raises concerns about the levels of spending by Departments on arm's-length bodies. Scrutiny in that space is not optional. It is essential, as ALBs represent 74% of our total resource budget and employ the majority of our public-sector workers. I encourage Ministers, where they have powers, to ensure that their arm's-length bodies are being run effectively and efficiently. Our arm's-length bodies spend the vast majority of our public funding, so they require careful scrutiny. Efficiency is essential to protecting front-line services and ensuring that public money is directed to areas that matter most. Real and lasting reform will be achieved only if we embrace it together with a shared purpose and shared accountability to drive meaningful change.

2,152 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