Beholden to No-One
Public Bodies, Patronage
and Probity

Paula Clancy

Issue 389, vol.98, Spring 2009

Many control highly significant public expenditure and employ a significant number of public sector workers. A 2006 TASC (a think tank for action on social change) research publication showed that public bodies have been developed in an ad hoc manner. Some are even not subject to Freedom of Information legislation or to Ombudsman scrutiny, nor to financial control and auditing provisions. A worst scenario would be where public bodies might be established as a matter of political expediency rather than to facilitate good governance.

 TASC has identified nearly 500 public bodies – and estimates that there are around 5000 appointments at national level, of which over half are in the gift of the relevant Minister. One step should be taken immediately : the establishment of an independent system of public appointments to the non-executive boards of such bodies – on merit-based criteria. While the absence of remuneration might have fostered a culture of volunteerism and public service, it has however resulted in an increased focus on daily allowances and mileage. There should also be a process by which the Minister can subsequently be held accountable for the appointee’s performance (or lack thereof).

There have been many outstanding appointments. But the ones that live on in the public mind are those surrounded by a whiff of cronyism – especially where personnel serve on the board of both public bodies and an overlapping private enterprise, or have made contributions to Party funds. In Britain, such circumstances are disqualifying grounds - and a stand-alone Board of Public Appointment Commissioners has been established. Also in Canada and New Zealand, public scrutiny of the appointments process has been facilitated by publicising of practice, protocols, processes and appointment decisions. In 2007 a Green Party private members bill (Appointments to Public Bodies) was defeated. It proposed the establishing of an Appointments to Public Bodies Unit within the Office for the Commission for Public Service Appointments. In 2008 Fine Gael published another private member’s bill (Public Appointments Transparency) – still to be debated. It proposes no candidate-selection criteria – and relies on a parliamentary committee to provide oversight of ministerial discretion. But there will never be full public satisfaction in this whole area, unless we ensure that the boards of our public bodies are beholden to no one (Ministers not excepted).

Paula Clancy is Director of TASC – 
a think tank for action on social change.  

To purchase the Spring 2009 issue of Studies, click here: