THE LACK of accountability and oversight of ministerial appointments to public bodies is “a pressing concern that should be prioritised for reform”, an independent think tank has contended.
In a new report, Tasc has examined what it says is the “ad hoc and politicised manner” in which people have been appointed to the boards of public bodies in Ireland.
The report recommends there should be more meritocracy, transparency and diversity in public appointments.
It also suggests a number of models that involve more independent systems of selecting members and chairs of the boards of State agencies, companies and other public bodies.
However, the paper also argues that because a person is a political activist for the party of a Minister they should not automatically be disqualified from appointment.
It accepts that appointing political activists can be problematic but says there is “no doubt that political activism is crucial to the development and maintenance of a vibrant civil society”.
It adds: “It can be resolved by requiring candidates for public appointment to complete a political activity questionnaire, which is subsequently made public.”
The report highlights the danger of “groupthink”, whereby divergent or contrary views are rejected by groups eager to reach consensus.
The report, Public Appointments: Options for Reform, was written by Tasc director Nat O'Connor and former director Paula Clancy.
“Since the early 1990s public bodies have become central to the Irish system of government; that needs to be reflected in an improved and more consistent process for making appointments to the boards that govern them,” it says.
“Public mistrust of this essentially politicised approach to governance . . . is compounded by the lack of transparency in the way boards of public bodies are appointed,” it adds.
The paper estimates that there may be more than 600 public bodies, most with non-executive boards and chairs, which means there are several thousand board members. The authors, however, argue against a wholesale cull of so-called “quangos”.
Currently, Ministers and senior civil servants are responsible for appointing the majority of those serving on boards of public bodies, the report says. “In many cases, appointments are entirely at the Ministers’ discretion, requiring neither justification nor any evidence that appointments have been made on the basis of . . . qualifications.”
“The mere fact of ministerial patronage, and the potential for abuse involved, is compounded by an opaque selection procedure,” it concludes.
