No Place for a Woman
Dr Ann Marie Gray and Caroline McCamley, 2000
Introduction
This report summarises studies of the systems of selecting and nominating people to the boards of public bodies in
Ireland, north and south. The research
was carried out between 1997 and 1999. The aims of the research were:
to establish the systems in use on both parts of the island
to investigate the accessibility and transparency of the systems
to identify the criteria and procedures used to select and nominate people to boards
to establish the policies in practice used to achieve gender balance
to establish how accountability operates with regard to the appointments process
The focus of the studies was on establishing best practice and potential developments, which would make the systems
more open to the public whose interests are represented. In this context it is important to ensure that those nominated are
selected on merit and from the widest possible pool of suitably qualified women and men. The report does not assess what happens
following appointment, concerning itself solely with the process leading to the appointment of people to Boards.
A particularly important objective of the study was to assess current and potential best practice in the light of
the creation of cross border bodies which have island wide responsibility for a number of key issues including food safety
and tourism. While the National Women’s Council of Ireland (NWCI) and the Northern Ireland Women’s European Platform
(NIWEP) welcome this development, the question of how two different systems of appointment will be merged was not addressed
in the agreement to set up such bodies. It has now become apparent that the manner of appointments to these bodies did not
reflect normal practice in either jurisdiction. This raises a further set of questions about the way in which governments
can choose to ignore existing practice and guidelines about probity and standards in public life.
It is hoped that this report will prompt discussion and make a contribution to the long-term development of open,
inclusive and fair practice in the appointment and re-appointment of members of public or state Boards.
Background
For many years women and women’s organisations on both parts of the island have pressed for a better gender
balance in decision-making in every situation and at every level. Regular reviews of membership of Boards of public and private
organisations with significant influence on the day to day lives of citizens, have shown the state of the imbalance.
In its most recent review of State Boards the NWCI reported in 1997 that of 4,620 people on 308 Boards of public
bodies in the Republic of Ireland,
just 28% were women. The report showed that some progress had been made in the five years since the adoption by Government
of a 40:60 gender balance policy but only 23% of the Boards assessed had achieved such balance.
In Northern Ireland, at March 1998 women accounted for 35 % of
the membership of non-departmental public bodies in Northern Ireland.
This figure represents an increase of 15% from the 1986 but progress has been slow.
There are also issues relating to the positions women hold on boards. Women continue to be more often appointed to
the less prestigious or powerful agencies and their representation at the highest level is low. For example, 72% of chairs
of boards are male (the equivalent figure in the south is 84%). A further issue is that some appointments are paid and some
are unpaid, and here also gender inequalities are apparent. Men account for 32% of the chairpersons receiving £10,000 or more,
while 79% of board members receiving £10,000 or more are male (Secretary of State (Northern Ireland) 2nd Annual Report on
Public Appointments, 1999)
Since state boards are acting on behalf of citizens it is particularly important that the manner of their selection
reflects Government commitment to equality and inclusion. This study has focussed on such Boards, but the issues and recommendations
can apply also to the private sector, where the record of women’s participation on Boards is even poorer than in the
public sector.
While the numbers continue to indicate an imbalance that must be monitored, attention is also on the question of
merit – matching of the corporate governance needs of the various bodies with the expertise and skills of individuals
who are selected to serve on their Boards. Both NIWEP and the NWCI fully support
a merit-based system of appointment but each believes that the interpretation of ‘merit’ tends to be more stringent
when applied to women.
A range of questions arise in relation to appointments. These include:
are the systems formal or informal?
in either case are the systems open and transparent?
how are individuals identified for consideration?
what criteria are used to assess their potential suitability?
who determines what range of skills/type of person should be appointed?
how do individuals make themselves known if they are interested in serving?
what support and training do they receive?
how and to whom are they accountable?
While these questions have been triggered by a particular interest in the participation of women, and in attempting
to understand how women’s participation can be increased, the answers are clearly of wider interest. Establishing systems
that result in people of high calibre being appointed to state and other boards has obvious implications for the effective
and successful running of the organisations.
The systems in use
In the two jurisdictions of Ireland,
north and south, different systems operate in the selection and appointment of people to state boards and bodies, which are
within the public sector, but not solely Governmental.
In Northern Ireland the term
used to describe such bodies is a Non Departmental Public Body (NDPB). This useful UK definition of an NDPB is set out in
Public Bodies (Cabinet Office 1996) as "A body which has a role in the processes of a national government, but not a government
department or part of one, and which accordingly operates to a greater or lesser extent at arm’s length from ministers".
The definition is further explained by reference to four types of bodies:
Executive
Advisory
Tribunals and
Other bodies.
Broadly speaking for the purpose of this study the relevant bodies, north and south, can be contained under these
headings. The bodies in question include those operating with local, regional and national remits.
The System in Use - Northern Ireland
Details of public bodies in the United Kingdom,
including a gender breakdown of appointments, the annual financial allocation to each body and information about remuneration,
are set out annually in the Cabinet Office publication Public Bodies. Since 1998 the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has published an annual report on public
bodies. This includes details of, and comment on, key developments in public appointments, and statistics for the year together
with information on applications for public appointments and reference to future plans. Volume 2 of the report lists the members
of each public body, details of nominating bodies, length of term of appointment and workload (information on workload only
refers to the number of meetings members are expected to attend and not to the overall time commitment required).
In addition, each year the Commissioner for Public Appointments for Northern
Ireland publishes a report. It provides information on the auditing of public bodies and
comments on the application of the Code of Practice which was introduced in July 1996.
NDPBs in Northern Ireland are responsible for a diverse range
of responsibilities and in the context of direct rule have assumed considerable involvement in the running of public and social
services in Northern Ireland. Examples
of appointed public bodies include: the Police Authority for Northern Ireland; Education and Library Boards; Health and Social
Services Boards and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. A number of the larger Executive NDPBs undertake functions performed
by local authorities in Britain. According
to Government figures at March 1998 there were 145 public bodies in Northern
Ireland with a total of 2,800 public appointments (Secretary of State for Northern Ireland,
1999).
Research on the system of public appointments in Northern Ireland
by Gray, Heenan and Cousins (1998) showed that there were a number of routes to a public appointment:
Responding to public advertisements
Nomination by external organisations
Self-nomination
Nomination by the government of the south of Ireland
(under the Anglo-Irish Agreement)
Executive search/ approaches by ministers or civil servants
Since the publication of the Nolan Report on standards in public Life in 1995, (Report of the Committee on Standards
in Public Life [The Nolan Report]), and the subsequent appointment of a Commissioner for Public Appointments and publication
of a Code of Practice in 1996, the system of public appointments has become less informal. These developments resulted in
a number of changes to the system
q Appointments to Executive bodies must be publicly advertised
‘Job’ specifications and ‘person’ specifications have to be drawn up for each appointment
(or set of appointments)
Selection panels have to be set up to shortlist, interview and consider the candidates for each appointment and these
must consist of at least one ‘independent’ member
Public appointments are monitored in relation to gender, age, community background, political activity, ethnic origin
and disability.
In July 1998, the Commissioner for Public Appointments published guidance on appointments to public bodies (OCPA,
1998) which extended the Code of Practice to cover the boards of nationalised industries and public corporations. It also
extended the application of the Code to Advisory NDPBs on a tiered basis. This required that all advisory appointed bodies
be allocated to one of three tiers depending on the average level of remuneration paid annually to its members.
Advertising
Under the new procedures advertisements are drawn up for appointments to Executive bodies and placed in local newspapers
by the governing department. Those interested are invited to request application forms and further details. Each government
department is responsible for appointments to the public bodies it governs. Although nominations can come through a number
of channels all prospective candidates should complete application forms and be included in shortlisting processes. An ‘Independent’
person should be involved in the selection process.
Nominating organisations
In Northern Ireland a large number
of appointments are made as a result of nominations by external organisations. Some organisations have a statutory right to
make nominations and to be represented on particular boards; for others it has become a customary right. Nominating organisations
include: the District Councils in Northern Ireland (these are an important source of nominations and have a statutory right
to representation on a number of important bodies including the Education and Library Boards and the Health and Social Service
Councils); the Northern Ireland Congress of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions; the Northern Ireland branch of the Confederation
of British Industry; The Chamber of Commerce and Industry for Northern Ireland, the Ulster Farmers Union and the churches.
The fact that such a large number of appointments are filled in this way has created difficulties in relation to
the implementation of the Code of Practice. The Commissioner for Public Appointments has pointed to a variety of the problems
stemming from the practices of nominating organisations. Some of these relate to the internal selection procedures of organisations,
which may not be in keeping with the spirit of the Code of Practice. It is also the custom of a number of organisations to
provide ministers with only a minimal number of nominees for each post – thereby leaving selection panels no choice.
For example, the study by Gray et al (1998) refers to the reluctance of district councils to allow ministers a choice. This
appears to stem from the belief that, as an elected forum, it should be councillors and not a minister or an unelected civil
servant making the decision about who should ultimately fill these nominations. However, it is known that some councils have
developed a practice of nominating along party lines, which seriously detracts from the principle of nominations being made
according to a meeting of ‘job’ specification with ‘person’ specification, and appointment on ‘merit’.
In his Third Report (covering the year 1997-98) the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Northern Ireland reported
that the audits of some of the Departments ‘… revealed that the quality of application forms completed by nominated
candidates was significantly lower than those completed by self nominees’ (p.14/15). The auditors recommended that departments
supplement efforts to improve the calibre of candidates from nominating organisations and extend the working of the Code of
Practice to nominating organisations.
The use of a wide range of external organisations could be seen as one way of increasing the diversity of the membership
of public bodies, but this requires that a sufficiently wide range of organisations be asked for nominations. However, to
date this has not been the case. For example, while various governments have recognised and acknowledged that women are under
represented in public appointments, and in nominations from external organisations, nominations are not routinely sought from
any of the main women’s organisations in Northern Ireland.
Trade union organisations and employer’s organisations, interviewed for the research conducted by Gray et al,
did acknowledge that Departments had made them aware of the need to increase the number of female nominations. On the whole,
however, they felt this was a situation which could not be easily remedied, especially given the increased difficulty of finding
people willing to agree to be nominated. A number of nominating organisations illustrated the problems - especially for people
in early or mid career. It was stressed for instance that many public appointments require that members be available for meetings
during the working day, which obviously necessitates employer support and flexibility. Additional deterrents mentioned by
nominating organisations included a lack of information about posts – eg: comprehensive details of the work of the board,
information about the specific role of members, and accurate details of the amount of time involved, not just meeting time,
but background reading etc.
It was felt that these were fundamental issues that should be addressed if a broader range of people is to be attracted
and appointed to public bodies.
Self nomination
The Central Appointment Unit in Northern Ireland
maintains a database of details of people who have expressed an interest in being appointed to a public body. It contains
basic information – age, experience, employment history, voluntary experience and interests. Any member of the public
can request an application form from the Unit. A difficulty noted by Gray et al (1998) was that the database appeared to be
rarely used by the government departments, with most departments carefully guarding their own lists and preferring to use
their own records or other methods of finding members. This can in part be attributed to a reluctance to consider people unknown
to them. Despite efforts made by the Unit to attract wider interest, including changes to application forms to reflect broader
experience and a number of publicity campaigns, it is likely that since the introduction of public advertising even fewer
appointments stem from the database.
Executive search/approaches by ministers or civil servants.
It is still possible for individuals to be approached by a minister or civil servant and invited to submit their
names for nomination. People approached personally regarding an appointment for a public body which falls within the remit
of the Commissioner (an Executive or National Health Service body) are required to complete application forms and be part
of the same selection process as candidates coming through the other routes.
Gender balance
It is interesting to reflect on the characteristics of a typical public appointee in Northern Ireland. Based on data collected in 1996/9767 percent of appointees were
male;
62 per cent aged 45 and older;
83 per cent married (although female members are significantly more likely than males to be separated, divorced or
widowed);
72 per cent educated to higher education level
72 per cent are in full time work with 42 per cent and 48 per cent respectively holding managerial and professional
posts.(Gray et al, 1998).
These statistics highlight the unrepresentative nature of the membership of Non-Departmental Public Bodies in Northern Ireland when compared to the general population.
This has important implications in Northern Ireland
where the expansion of public bodies has, to a large extent, been at the expense of locally elected government.
The research cites the following factors as relevant in explaining the under-representation of women prior to the
introduction of the Code of Practice:
1. There were a number of routes by which an individual could obtain a public appointment but certain types of individuals
were more likely to traverse those routes. For example, nominating organisations were more likely to put forward male nominees;
women were less likely to put themselves forward for public appointment and were less likely to be accepted; appointees were
more likely to hold third level education qualifications and to be employed in business or parts of the public sector. Those
responsible for making appointments may have had their own notion of ‘suitability’ and ideas about what constitutes
‘relevant’ experience. Therefore some kinds of paid employment may be regarded more highly than others, or than
voluntary work, or work in the home.
2. There also appeared to be a reluctance to appoint new blood – a marked preference for the tried and tested.
Once in the system individuals were likely to remain in it and be offered future appointments. As people are retained and
circulated within the system there is less room for new members to enter it.
3. Members of public bodies interviewed for the research identified the lack of transparency and access to information
as a problem. Many reported not being aware of why they had been appointed or what criteria had been used to assess them.
They spoke of receiving very little information about the body or its work prior to taking up the appointment and the vast
majority received no induction or training. It also emerged that women were more likely to be put off by this and to comment
on it as an obstacle to public appointment whereas they were more willing to put themselves forward and accept appointments
if they had what they regarded to be sufficient information.
Impact of reform of the public appointments process
The formalisation of the appointment process has not had a positive impact in terms of the representation of women.
The new system has clearly not resulted in an increase in the number of women applying for or being appointed to boards. The
following statistics relate to applications received by each of the Northern
Ireland departments between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998 and to appointments made.
APPOINTMENTS TO PUBLIC BODIES 1998 - 1999
% applications % appointments
Government Department from women of women
Department Economic Development 26 29
Department of Health and Social Services 43 43
Northern Ireland
Office 36 48
Department of Environment 10 20
Department of Education 24 28
Department of Finance and Personnel 38 38
Department of Agriculture 0 21
Source: Northern
Ireland Secretary of State’s 2nd Annual Report on Public Appointments, vol.1, 1999
The figures cover all bodies –
not just executive appointments, on the grounds that all are encouraged to work within the spirit of the Code of Practice.
The statistics raise a number of interesting issues.
1. Applications
The following factors are important in attempting to explain why the proportion of applications from women has been
so low:
Advertisements for public appointments are usually placed in the job pages of newspapers. Therefore they are most
likely to be read by people seeking employment than by a general readership. Other forms of advertising , such as local radio
or television are not widely used.
The ‘job’ specification and ‘person’ specification criteria have tended to be very detailed
and often very technical. In a number of advertisements it was much more technical than could probably be considered necessary.
Such descriptions may suggest that applications are open only to a narrow range of professional people.
The application forms are not very user friendly. They tend to place emphasis on work experience and educational
and professional qualifications.
There would still appear to be something of a mystique around public bodies. As a result they may be perceived by
women as requiring attributes, skills or experience which they may feel they do not possess.
2. Appointments
Despite the low level of application for appointment from women, women actually achieve a higher rate of appointment.
However, they are still not being appointed in a balanced proportion.
How can the under appointment of women be accounted for? The fewer number of applications may be a factor, but in
the absence of information concerning the ‘success to application ratio’ for men and women, this cannot be assumed.
These figures might indicate that a substantial number of women who apply are appointed and that encouraging women to use
this route is a worthy suggestion. But if the success rate of women who apply is low, then there may be other issues involved
which will not be addressed by increasing the quantity of women who seek appointment. This data should be published, but in
the meantime there are a number of considerations.
Role of independent members on panels
The Commissioner for Public Appointments has raised some points regarding the use of independents on panels. For
instance, in his 3rd Annual Report he commented that in some departments there was only one independent and ‘little
evidence of any truly active participation in the appointments process’ (Commissioner for Public Appointments for
N.I, 3rd Annual Report, p.13). The use of independents for shortlisting and interviewing was to be one of the safeguards built
into the system and deficiencies in this respect are therefore of particular concern.
In the revised guidance for Public Appointments published by the Commissioner in July 1998 (OCPA, 1998) he identified
independent scrutiny as an area of concern. He re-iterated that the Independent Assessor was expected to play an active role
in the appointments process to ensure that procedures are fair and applied consistently. The role of independents is an important
one, although this depends on the ultimate powers which they have in relation to overseeing and influencing the selection
process. The actual role and influence of assessors remains unclear for a number of reasons. It is left to Departments to
decide at what stage of the process the Independent should be involved. They may be part of an advisory panel that reviews
all appointments within a Department or/and part of a scrutiny panel established for individual appointments. It is also Departments’
responsibility to decide the criteria for selecting their independent assessors, the method by which they are selected and
the training needs of their assessors. More information on who independents are and exactly how Departments choose them would
be helpful in terms of increasing the openness of the system. For example, are Departments recognising the need to have female
independents and what measures are they taking to achieve this?
Ideas about suitability
Ideas about what constitutes ‘suitability’ may be influencing job and person specifications and resulting
in them being more relevant to men than women.
Accountability
In his third report, the Commissioner for Public Appointments indicates that
the reasons for some decisions relating to appointments were not always clearly visible and that practices within Departments
varied considerably (p.15). This raises concerns about the transparency and openness of the system.
An inability or unwillingness to justify decisions will attract criticism that a closed shop is operating and that
there continues to be a golden circle from which appointments are made. People can only have confidence in the system if it
is, and is seen to be, explicitly fair and impartial. The fact that the Commissioner addressed the issue of transparency and
the importance of accurate record keeping again in his 4th annual report (OCPA, 1999) does little to instil confidence.
Induction
The research conducted by Gray et al (1998) shows that there was no uniform practice regarding induction or training.
The majority of members interviewed had not been offered any formal induction or training but felt very strongly that this
was a deficiency of the system. This lack of induction and training also applies to chairs – some of whom will have
little/no previous experience of chairing meetings. Given the role of the chair in the overall working of the body and in
the appraisal of members this is a significant inadequacy.
The information available to members should have improved as a result of the formalisation of the system but considerable
variation between Department and Boards still exists.
Appraisal
The Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments Guidance requires that re-appointment be subject to an appropriate
standard of performance being achieved. Each Department can decide on the system of performance assessment best suited to
their bodies. The auditors of the Commissioner for Public Appointments have consistently raised concerns about the insufficiency
of some appraisal systems. In the revised guidance for public appointments (OCPA, 1998) a number of requirements are set out.
These suggest that the chairs of bodies, assisted by the Chief Executive, are best placed to carry out the appraisal. The
minimum requirement is defined as ‘a brief resume of an appointees contribution with an overall assessment of their
performance, covering the whole period of service, should be available (p.17). On an interesting note it is stated that ‘the
quality of these appraisals should form of the criteria on which the chair’s own performance is judged’. This
indicates how the role of the chair is central to the appraisal process, yet chairs may receive no training on assessment
and appraisal. Neither is it clear that each board must have explicit criteria for appraisal. There would seem to be little
consistency between Departments and bodies in this respect or with regard to the openness of the appraisal system. It is vitally
important that members are aware of the criteria for performance assessment; that the assessment process is transparent and
that they receive full details of their appraisal and reasons for any non re-appointment. An inadequate appraisal system also
means that members are not receiving any positive feedback on their performance which may demotivate them.
Future developments
Efforts have been made by Government to provide more information about public bodies and public appointments. Volume
2 of The Secretary of States Annual Report for 1997-98 contains information on membership of public bodies, duration of employment,
and statistics on gender, community background etc. It refers only to the amount of time required for meetings and gives no
indication of the overall time commitment. The Secretary of State also refers in her report to a number of measures to be
introduced in an attempt to increase the proportion of women on boards.
These include:
Reviewing and changing the application forms to afford women the opportunity to demonstrate that they have gained
valuable skills and experience outside the work place and ‘thus help to ensure that they do not undervalue themselves’.
However, while this is to be welcomed it does not tackle the problem that those making the appointments may not see these
skills as suitable or as transferable. It is not always a case of women undervaluing themselves but of others not recognising
some skills and experience as valuable.
It is noted that an internal review group has looked at the issue of under-representation and its main concerns relate
to the appropriateness of job and person specifications. The review group’s recommendation are to be included in an
Action Plan drawn up by the Central Appointments Unit in consultation with the government departments and the Northern Ireland Office.
In 1999 the Central Appointments Unit circulated lists of forthcoming vacancies to a number of groups, including
women’s organisations and groups working with younger people and other sections of the population under represented
on public bodies. It is as yet too early to assess the full outcome of this exercise.
Some Departments have been making increased efforts to provide more information about appointments. For example,
the former Department of Health and Social Services has included the names and contact numbers of the Chairs of Health and
Social Service Trusts in advertisements for vacancies inviting prospective applicants to contact them to discuss the work
of the Trust.
Each of these measures is welcomed as an attempt to address the problem. But if the government is serious about reaching
its stated target of increasing the proportion of public appointments held by women to 45% by the year 2001 additional and
more radical actions need to be introduced.
Conclusions
Since the mid 1990s changes have been made to the system of public appointments in the United Kingdom. These came about as a response to concerns and criticisms that
too often appointments were the result of political patronage or networking rather than being based on merit. In Northern
Ireland, probably as a result of the so called democratic deficit, appointments were less politically controlled but were
largely in the hands of Government Departments which appeared to prefer to rely on ‘tried and tested’ members’
and personal knowledge and recommendation. The aim of the changes introduced since 1996 is to make the system more open and
transparent, to broaden the membership and to formalise the appointments process. These have included:
the appointment of a Commissioner for Public Appointments
the publication of a Code of Practice in 1996 and revised guidelines in 1998
the public advertising of executive appointments using ‘job specifications’
the introduction of interviewing for shortlisted candidates
How is the new system working to date?
To date the advertising of positions has increased public awareness and understanding about some public bodies and
contributed to greater transparency. Some advertisements have attracted considerable response. However, significantly fewer
women than men are applying and the number of women appointed to public bodies has not markedly increased since the new procedures
were introduced. Several reasons have are put forward to account for this. Some of the ‘job specifications’ are
very technical and seek a higher level of expertise and specific experience than would realistically be required. Some seem
to seek qualities traditionally associated with male dominated professions. Those responsible for shortlisting and appointing
may have fixed ideas about ‘suitability’ in terms of personal and professional attributes which more men than
women meet. It has also been difficult to get nominating organisations to work in accordance with the spirit and guidance
of the Code of Practice and they often continue to forward nomination lists which include no women or fewer women than men.
Deficiencies in the system are still evident especially with regard to the selection process and actions by Departments to
address inequalities and under-representation.
Despite the changes we would argue that the system is still regarded as something of a closed shop. The attitude
remains that some people are more likely to be appointed because of who they know, their political affiliation - or lack of
it and persistent and often outdated ideas about the skills necessary to be a successful board member.
Systems in Use - Republic of Ireland
There is no formal independent system of public appointments to state boards as has been described in Northern Ireland. Vacancies are rarely advertised or applications
sought from the public. In a narrow band, which includes Health Boards and Vocational Education Committees, some seats go
to elected local representatives, who select from their own number following a local election, or to specific interests who
may use election systems.
In the main, it is the Government Minister who makes appointments to the Boards of those organisations within their
departmental ambit.
Depending on the organisation the Minister may:
have the power to appoint all members
have a statutory requirement to accept some nominations from other organisations or local Government
be required to seek nominations for other organisations but not be bound to appoint those put forward
choose to seek suggestions
In rare cases the appointments are not at the disposal of a single Minister but require agreement from colleagues
or a full Cabinet decision, although the Cabinet will be advised of appointments of importance. In some limited areas, particularly
relating to the Courts, bodies are made up of people who are the holders of certain positions, and there is no Ministerial/political
involvement. However bodies such as these are relatively few in number.
There is no single register of all the Boards, bodies, task forces and other agencies in the Republic of Ireland which are state sponsored
and responsible for managing large aspects of public policy, programmes and service delivery.
Unlike Northern Ireland there
is no process laid down in law or in a procedure, no annual reporting structures and no formal system of appraisal or accountability
in relation to individuals appointed. Indeed the only explicit Government policy in relation to such appointments is the commitment
to a 40:60 gender balance in appointments. Formal reports by Government on this commitment appear irregularly in the reports
of the Monitoring Committee on the Report of the 2nd Commission on the Status of Women.
In order to assess how names emerge and appointments are made the NWCI initiated two parallel investigations in 1998,
one looking at how direct Government appointments and the other at how nominating bodies made their decisions. The aim was
to identify the degree of transparency, and whether criteria used to reach decisions underpinned a merit based system with
the object of good governance at its heart.
Government appointees
To establish how Governments and individual Ministers make decisions in this area, the five parties that were in
Government in the period 1992-1998 were interviewed. The parties involved were:
Fianna Fail 1992-1994 and 1997 - present
Progressive Democrats 1997 - present
Fine Gael 1994 - 1997
Labour 1992 – 1994 and 1994 - 1997
Democratic Left 1994 - 1997
In each case a senior advisor or politician was interviewed.
Nominating bodies
The second strand of the study involved non-governmental agencies that regularly have a role in nominating people
to state boards. Over the past ten years the number of organisations which are part of the nominating process for a range
of state boards has increased, in line with the widening of social partnership. Nine organisations were invited to respond
to a questionnaire about their policy and procedures in identifying and putting forward nominees. Eight responded:
Irish Business and Employers Confederation
Irish College of General
Practitioners
Irish Congress of Trade Unions
Irish Farmer’s Association
Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed
National Women’s Council of Ireland
National Youth Council of Ireland
University College Dublin
Ministerial and government appointments
Many outside observers view appointments to State boards and bodies by Government Ministers as rewards for political
party loyalty and commitment. To a degree this remains a factor in determining where such appointments go. All five of the
parties studied for this paper acknowledged that party membership is an issue, but were careful to point out that it is not
the determining factor. Put bluntly, Government Ministers and Governments as a whole, will tend to favour their own party
members, or the ‘non aligned’ individual, and when in power are slow to appoint leading or publicly acknowledged
members or associates of the opposition parties.
The system was described by those interviewed as being, in part, a ‘low
level honours system’, and a ‘reward for long service’. Those interviewed indicated varying degrees
of comfort with this, ranging from seeing it as a natural follow-on from the political system to being ‘as good a
system as any other’. One interviewee argued that "It does not follow that favouring those who share your politics
means making bad appointments".
It was also pointed out that in most cases a Minister or Government only appoints a proportion of the seats on a
board, and that the inclusion of those nominated by other organisations broadens the actual representation.
So how are the appointments viewed by those who make them and what process is followed in arriving at suitable appointees?
Selection and nomination system
Common to all of the parties is a relatively informal system. There are no written guidelines or procedures and,
in Government, all five parties interviewed, essentially followed the same approach:
The Minister is aware of up coming appointments and seeks suggestions as to who could be suitable.
In coalition Governments there are ‘sharing’ or quota arrangements so Ministers of different parties
may be asked for suggestions.
The search is largely co-ordinated by the most senior Ministerial advisors who may consult with a range of people.
Generally there is no written specification or guidelines and in the vast majority of instances no public or other
announcement of the vacancies/nomination process
Civil servants may put forward names.
Depending on the nature of the appointment the Minister may be lobbied by colleagues – TDs or Senators or party
members - to appoint someone from a particular constituency, although this appears to be less influential that it may have
been in the past.
There is no general rule of consulting with the Chairperson/Chief Executive of the organisation in question to establish
particular expertise that might be needed although consultation can take place.
All parties say they look for compatibility of the person’s skills, experience, background and competence,
with the organisation’s remit and needs
Interest in and aptitude for serving is sought as is willingness to make the time available
Political affiliation or at least political ‘neutrality’ is a factor. (In exceptional circumstances where
a particular and scarce skill or expertise is needed, then this last point may be ignored.)
There are no central banks of information about suitable people which can be searched, although individual parties
do have their own lists.
An individuals access to consideration is haphazard – generally by ‘being known’:
Ø for a particular skill or expertise and/or
Ø within a political party and/or
Ø if not a party member by having a respected mentor or champion within a party who will
put you forward and/or
Ø by putting yourself forward.
Gender balance
All of the parties work to implement the 40:60 gender balance policy and the indications are that while this does
not always happen in practice there is a general acceptance that it is required. Identifying ‘good’ women continues
to be a ‘problem’ which appears to stem from:
lower participation of women in political parties
limited networks being used to identify candidates
different assessments of the value of the work that women do (and therefore their capacity to contribute to a Board)
unwillingness of women to put themselves forward.
Some parties actively use their women’s group to identify candidates, but this is also constrained by the level
of activity of these groups and their own access to a wide network. It was acknowledged by a number of the parties that when
asked to identify women it was not uncommon for TDs and other party activists to claim not to know of any ‘suitably
qualified’ women.
Two issues arise.
men may genuinely believe that they do not know women because their circle of close contacts are male, which begs
the question why ask people with such limited knowledge in the first place?.
the use of the term ‘suitably qualified’, and whether this criteria becomes more rigorous when searching
for women than for men
Women were variously described as "diffident", and "wait to be asked rather than making themselves known"
One respondent observed that women are "far more likely to want a lot of information, to know what they are being asked
to do, before they will agree to be nominated". On this last point, the speaker referred to women, more so than men, generally
taking a proposed appointment very seriously, and giving consideration to what is involved before agreeing to take
a position.
All five parties interviewed pointed out that difficulties of identifying ‘good’ women also apply to
finding ‘good’ men now, as fewer people join political parties and there is a wariness about taking on potentially
onerous, time consuming and generally un or under paid positions. Increasingly the appointment of people to Boards is becoming
more complex and the respondents identified a number of reasons for this:
Ministers take appointments seriously in the light of the responsibilities involved and want to be seen to appoint
able people.
Individuals see the responsibilities of Board members as onerous, particularly in the light of recent tribunals and
investigations such as that carried out by the Public Accounts Committee of Dail Eireann.
People are less willing to put in the work required for no, or a very small, payment
People cannot afford the time or may not be able to get the time off to serve
Increasingly, quality of candidates is important and the system is not particularly well structured to identify a
wide range of people with the required skills.
The focus on the responsibilities of directors and the role of corporate governance, is influencing the system to
change as is the requirement for gender balance. Forcing a wider trawl for potential nominees raises questions about the current
relatively narrow pool from which all parties have traditionally drawn their nominees.
One obvious source of appointments would be the pool of people who have experience of serving on public bodies, but
there is no central list of such people, the nature of their experience or the history of their public service in this area.
In the absence of such a list and with no formal assessment system, there is no systematic attempt to build on experience
– for example taking people who have served successfully at local or regional level and considering them for appointment
to more senior or national bodies.
A further source could be the lists or ‘talent banks’ drawn up by other organisations, but the history
of such lists suggests that they are not actively used by Ministers.
The only official central list of serving directors/board members is that collated under the Ethics in Public Office
Bill 1995. Directors of certain specified bodies are required to make an annual return of a declaration of interest to the
Public Offices Commission. The Statutory Instrument which lays down which bodies are included, lists some 113 or just over
a third of the number covered by the NWCI study "Who Makes the Decisions in 1997".
Appointment
Once selected there is generally an informal approach to the person to check their interest and availability, and
sometimes to indicate if there is a specific reason that they are being approached. If agreeable to the approach then a formal
invitation to serve is made by the Minister and some background papers may be provided.
Induction
On appointment there are no clear procedures or guidelines to prepare a board member for their new responsibilities.
The existence of any form of ‘induction’ is a matter for each organisation, and anecdotal evidence suggests that
it ranges from nothing, to initial briefings, to on going support and specific training in a few instances. All of the parties
accept the need for, and would encourage, an induction process, but believe that this is a matter for each organisation .
Assessment
Following appointment there are no formal assessments required by Government of those nominated. This in part reflects
the independence of the individual boards. However informally there is an awareness where someone is contributing particularly
effectively or, conversely, not making a contribution, knowledge that could influence future decisions on other appointments.
Assessment by organisations of their board members is not required and the NWCI is not aware of any bodies which
carry it out.
Who is serving?
The absence of a central registry of those appointed by Government has a number of consequences.
it is not possible to establish at any time the total numbers serving and the gender breakdown.
it is not possible to establish accurately how many people hold multiple positions
it is not possible to assess what proportion of those appointed are in receipt of payment and the level of the payments
made to individuals.
As already pointed out, it is not possible to identify people gaining experience who might logically then be available
for more onerous responsibilities in the future.
Nominating bodies
A very large number of organisations throughout Ireland
are asked to nominate people to Boards and other bodies. They range from significant policy bodies and national services to
regional and local agencies for economic and social development.
In recent years the numbers of nominating bodies has grown as a wider range of organisations has been asked to participate
in an increasing number of state Boards and bodies. Many organisations, including the NWCI, have lobbied hard to be included
in the social partnership which has determined who makes important decisions and controls critical resources.
The sample of bodies which participated in the study included 3 traditional social partners – Irish Business
and Employers Confederation, Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Irish Farmers Association; 1 professional body –
Irish College of General Practitioners; 1 educational body – University College Dublin: and 3 representative organisations
the Irish National Organisation for the Unemployed, National Youth Council of Ireland and the NWCI itself.
Summary of responses
As with the political parties there was a significant degree of common approach across the different organisations.
Broad similarities are evident in:
the methods used to identify potential nominees
the extent of the pool from which potential nominees are drawn
the point of decision.
All but two of the organisations restrict their trawl to consultation with Executive/sub committees/staff and use
the individuals in these positions to identify suitable nominees. Two indicated that they advise their member organisations
and seek nominees from them, with one also preparing a profile of the person required. Whether this information goes beyond
the Executive Committees of the member organisations is unclear. One organisation – the INOU – has developed guidelines
to promote participation by its members who are unemployed. Occasionally members are asked for expressions of interest or
to submit CVs, and there is a formal selection process which includes interviews.
In the case of all eight organisations, the decisions as to who will represent/be the organisation nominee, are taken
by the national Executive/Board or a sub group set up for this purpose. Nominees are most likely to be existing office holders,
people active within the organisation, or staff members.
Achieving gender balance
5 of the 8 respondents have policies in favour of gender balance in their nominations and use informal and formal
mechanisms to implement the policy. Some do so as an aggregate over a year, others by an extension of their commitment to
gender balance in their own decision-making structures. The difficulty of implementing the policy is acknowledged, particularly
when nominees are most likely to be the holders of certain senior positions, and these are most likely to be men. Of the three
organisations without a policy on gender balance one refers to the fact that its external representation is carried out mainly
by the chairs of committees, another that its policy is ‘to appoint the best person’. The NWCI as a women’s
organisation has as its raison d’être the promotion of women’s participation.
Informing members
Most of the organisations rely on their elected executive and other bodies to inform people where vacancies arise
for positions on state boards and bodies. Two organisations provide written information which would alert their members.
Developing and encouraging the pool of women
The respondents have tried a range of methods to widen their pool of women and identify individuals for specific
consideration. These include setting up talent banks, targeting women to participate and take on certain tasks, discussion
at staff and executive levels and assessment of candidate’s skills and competence.
Talent banks
As methods of developing acknowledge base of suitable candidates, three organisations use formal talent banks, one
of which is specifically a women’s talent bank and another the organisation staff list.
Support for those nominated
Every organisation offers some form of support ranging from staff availability to assist, to formal meetings, seminars
and training, and other material. While there is no consistent pattern, those appointed to Boards by such organisations can
expect some level of support, whereas the direct Government nominees appear to have access to none.
Just one organisation – the NYCI – offers a more formal system, in the form of a report template. It
asks representatives to fill in key items of interest to NWCI, details of the meeting and any follow up action required.
Follow up assessment
Again there is no single method employed but in every case there is an informal or formal reporting relationship,
and an expectation that the persons appointed will relate to their nominating agency.
Conclusions
The absence of transparency in how appointees are selected by government is striking. The system relies on people
being in, or known to, relatively limited circles at senior levels within political parties and Government. The process is
highly subjective in having this as its base, and the absence of clear criteria and systematic approaches to assessment suggests
a similarly subjective approach to selection.. The selection pool is self-limiting in a number of ways that distorts the real
pool of talent and competence available. One argument that was raised against this analysis was that Ireland is a small country and that the overlapping circles are more inclusive
than in other places. However this argument falls when put beside the response that identifying women is difficult. In the
light of hundreds of women’s organisations of every conceivable type, clearly some circles have yet to touch, let alone
overlap!
The nominating bodies generally believe that they operate reasonably effective systems that take account of the need
for quality candidates and gender balance. Their systems straddle the formal and informal. They have some explicit procedures,
and some good practice is evident. There is also an implicit accountability in the processes of most organisations studied,
since assessment and decision making tend to lie with officers who have been elected by the membership of the organisations.
However in terms of opening the process to a wide pool of potential candidates all of the organisations would benefit from
more explicit procedures at every stage.
An external factor inhibiting the process for nominating bodies is the timing of requests for nominations, which
may leave inadequate time for a wide trawl for candidates. However it should be noted that with the exception of vacancies
which may arise mid term, or new bodies being set up, most organisations know which bodies they nominate to and the terms
of office of their representatives.
Among the deficiencies that are apparent in the system and which to varying degrees affect both direct Ministerial/government
nominees and those from other nominating organisations, are:
The absence of a central register of boards with a calendar of dates of re-appointment.
The lack of a system of announcement that a board is due to be appointed, other than to
invite relevant nominating bodies to propose people
The more informal procedures used which inhibit transparency
For Ministerial/Government appointments, that names are sought from an ad hoc and generally
small group of people and depend on the extent of their networks.
The lack of formal criteria or person specifications and ‘requirements’ may
be being applied differently to women and to men.
Curriculum vitae are not requested as a matter of course.
The absence of any record of who was considered, how many were considered, and the basis
of decisions.
The lack of guidelines on induction or training for those appointed.
The lack of any formal assessment of performance.
Room for improvement?
Since the Government ultimately controls the majority of appointments the political party representatives interviewed
were asked whether they saw room for improvement. All accepted that there were steps that could be taken to improve the system
of appointments. Among the suggestions they themselves put forward were:
A reliable data bank of people and their qualifications, experience etc.
A system of opening the process to tap into more people who would be politically ‘neutral’
Development of criteria for positions particularly where there is a single vacancy on a
board
A specific system for identifying the requirements for Chairpersons and appropriate people
to fill such posts.
More use of representative and professional bodies as sources of competent people
Use of party links into the wider community
None of the parties suggested the establishment of an independent system such as a Public Appointments Commission
to take over the system, although some saw merit in such a body filling some seats. There was a general feeling that there
was no single reliable method of identifying people of calibre. Opening up the process by public advertisement would not necessarily
bring forward better candidates and, in the case of women, might not counteract the diffidence already reported. In addition
some concern was expressed about "raising expectations which could not be fulfilled" by wider advertisement, publicly
or within a party.
The nominating agencies
There are similarities between the different agencies in how they approach decisions as to who to nominate. In some
respects the systems are remarkably similar to those used by Government. Generally there is no systematic approach of informing
members, setting out criteria or a job description, seeking interest, and making an assessment against agreed and available
criteria. This process is inhibited, it must be said, by the way requests for nominations are received. All too often the
request from Government comes with a short time-scale within which the organisation must respond. However most agencies appear
to make appointments from a limited circle of office or post holders or people known to a small circle of senior officials
or officers.
Between the responding organisations there are elements of good practice including:
systematic information to members as to the agencies to which the organisation can nominate
open requests for expressions of interest
information outlining the responsibilities and nature of the role
support and mentoring structures.
Cross border implementation bodies
In December 1999 the governments of the north and south of Ireland
agreed appointments to the new Cross Border Implementation Bodies. It is not clear how the appointments were made -the procedures
used do not appear to be based on the systems in place in either jurisdiction or have applied policy on gender balance. Although
these are high profile positions none of the posts were advertised and no job or person specifications were made public. The
policy commitment to gender balance does not appear to have been applied. It is unclear as to whether any nominating agency
was asked for suggestions and if this happened which agencies were so consulted. This change in practice contravenes any guidance
or codes in place and reinforces the view that the whole system of appointments is undemocratic, unrepresentative, elitist
and unfair. It does little to instil public confidence.
This is unfortunate since the cross border bodies represent an opportunity for new ways of working which could have
been enhanced by an open and transparent appointment structure. The issue of balance appears to have been concerned solely
with a narrow political focus.
Systems of public appointment must be transparent, explicit and accountable. None of the systems studied for this
report meet this standard. That is not to say that the systems in use are failing or that those appointed do not carry out
their responsibilities as effectively as possible. But it does mean that the potential for public sector governance is not
be achieved, nor is it be handled in a way which is fully accountable to the public interest.
It is notable that in this study two quite different approaches to appointments did not appear to achieve different
outcomes. The concerns remain similar:
How to expand the pool of potential appointees?
How to have fair assessment and selection?
How to achieve gender balance?
How to have good information on public sector governance?
How to achieve high standards of governance?
Certainly the system in Northern Ireland
offers a greater apparent transparency in its procedures, but of themselves procedures do not guarantee the balanced outcomes
that may be intended. Human judgements are at the core of both this formal system and the more informal and explicitly political
approach in the south, and it is in the area of such judgements that the systems can either succeed or fail. In either system
it is possible to create the open and accountable approaches needed by greater use of explicit criteria, openness to identifying
and using new ways of reaching potential candidates and monitoring of the process.
Nominating agencies in the south appear to operate a combination of the formal and informal, and they too need to
review their practice. They form an elite group of agencies which have the power to influence public policy. As such they
are responsible not simply to their own memberships interest but to the wider public who fund public bodies.
Recommendations
Overall we recommend that the process of nomination and selection of members of boards should be clearly governed
by written policies and procedures. All those involved in data gathering, selection and appointment, must have the necessary
training to implement policy and make appropriate decisions. Those appointed to represent the public interest in governance
of these important bodies should have clear guidance on their role and responsibilities and support to carry out their task.
The standards should be set by both Governments and should apply to all involved in the nominating process as well as to the
public bodies themselves.
Specifically the policy and procedures should address the following:
Information
In neither jurisdiction is there an adequate central record of all those serving on public bodies. A knowledge base
should not only be a required matter of accessible public but would serve as a base for government to monitor developments
and changes to membership.
We strongly recommend that in both jurisdictions comprehensive information systems be set up, and in the light of
greater cross border co-operation the systems should be mutually compatible and have the long term potential for linkage.
We further recommend that Internet resources and local media be used to make such information available and to inform
the public about the membership and work of public bodies. The greater availability of information may result in greater interest
and would help to remove some of the mystique still associated with the whole system.
Potential appointments database
We recommend that central databases of names of people willing to serve on public bodies should be maintained north
and south using a common system. The public should be clear about how they apply to have their names included and the system
should have realistic and explicit criteria so that those accepted for inclusion can reasonably expect to be considered for
appointment. The information should be accessible across departments and between the two jurisdictions where cross border
bodies are being appointed.
Decisions
People putting themselves forward or being considered deserve acknowledgement and should receive a response and feedback
on the outcome. Politicians, departments and nominating bodies must be able to justify decisions made against criteria established
at the outset.
Advertising
Advertising, already in use in Northern Ireland,
should be used as one mechanism for attracting wider interest. The impact and success of advertising on recruitment generally
and on the recruitment of women in particular should be monitored to ensure that effective advertising opportunities are being
used. The use of local radio, voluntary sector news-sheets or magazines, public libraries and local recreation centres should
all be considered and the nature of the content of advertisements evaluated in terms of appeal to and applicability to women.
Widening and linking the circles
In both jurisdictions, additional ways of identifying and recruiting more women must be introduced. This includes
closer links with women’s voluntary and professional organisations
innovative actions such as using women already on public bodies to help recruit other women
using multi-media promotional mechanisms
the introduction of more flexible working practices by Boards – for example, the timing of meetings, the prompt
repayment of expenses.
The role of employers
Younger people and women are less likely to be in senior positions in employment where they have control over their
own time It is therefore more difficult for them to attend meetings during working hours and to spend time on the work associated
with public appointments. Employers need to be encouraged to make commitments to allow employees toaccept public appointments,
not simply from a public service perspective but because the individual will gain new skills, knowledge and contacts which
will enhance their contribution at work
Payments
While public service must be encouraged as a primary motivator it important that there is a recognition for the work
and responsibility taken on by those serving. We recommend a review of payments in both jurisdictions is needed to establish
a fair system which reflects the value of the work involved and a clear criteria within and across different bodies where
payments are made.
Induction and training
Induction and training are important in ensuring that members can make an effective contribution to the work of the
body. The knowledge that they would be provided with appropriate induction and on going training is likely to encourage more
people to put themselves forward for appointment. We recommend that the Governments draw up clear guidelines for all bodies
requiring that they:
make explicit the responsibilities of their board members
provide induction programmes to those newly appointed
develop on going training as needed by members
set up appraisal systems.
Appraisal
An effective appraisal process that is transparent, impartial and directly involves members
is vital.
To motivate members and provide valid information for decisions regarding re-appointment.
To provide a record of contribution and help ensure that particular skills can be most
effectively used.
The development of appraisal systems in the interest of the individual and good governance
We recommend the development of appropriate information and training for those involved
in carrying out such appraisals.
Independence and impartiality
Any perception of unknown people of an inner circle making unaccountable decisions must
be addressed. We recommend that in Northern Ireland
attention be given:
to the role of independent assessors in the process
to the criteria used in selecting independent assessors
to the training available to them
to how they participate in the process
to their accountability
In the south the system of independent assessment should be considered as a mechanism for
introducing balance into an overwhelmingly politically driven process
Rotation
The issue of rotation needs to be addressed. While it may be recommended that members should
serve on a maximum number of boards at any one time this does not prevent people continuously moving from one board to another
- becoming long term 'quangocrats'. This effectively blocks the introduction of new blood. In both jurisdictions a central
database of those serving on public bodies would ensure that the extent of involvement of individuals is known. We also recommend
that a limit should be placed on the number of bodies that an individual can be a member of at any one time and that a code
of practice should be drawn up to ensure that there is a balance between utilising experience and bringing new people into
the system.
Nominating Agencies
Nominating organisations should be required to meet the same standards of transparency
and accountability, which we recommend the Governments set for themselves. However they should also seek to develop best practice
in terms of their support for those they nominate, training for potential nominees and succession planning which passes knowledge
from experienced members to those potential or newly appointed.
Reviewing progress
The performance of Government should be regularly monitored and assessed. Similar annual
reports should be published, north and south, and should contain comprehensive information which would:
monitor progress
inform good practice
encourage participation
promote public service.
Published reports such as those currently prepared by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or the Commissioner for Public Appointments
should include details of actions taken by Departments to enhance equal opportunities and an analysis of the success of these.
