No
Place for a Woman
Northern Ireland Women's European Platform
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.
|
