At one time it was agreed by Members of the standing committee on finance that we were going to deal with the capital estimates first and then the O and M secondly. Because of the commitment made by Members to go through that exercise based on that commitment, I find it very hard to look at a motion like this that suggests that the O and M of a

building should be introduced. It used to be that way that we deal with the O and M first and then before the conclusion we usually deal with the capital. But that is no longer the case.

What the motion suggests is that we are pre-empting what is supposed to be spent and reviewed in May or June. So I have problems with it. I cannot support it. It is suggesting to Members that the government or the Minister of Finance come up with the interim O and M before we approve the O and M for this year. I have difficulty because we agreed on the process already and on the one hand we are looking at reversing that process.