Pre-election pledges on ending political cronyism ring hollow

ANALYSIS: The Coalition has reneged on promises to end feather-bedding and patronage

THE APPOINTMENT of political cronies to State boards is as old as our democracy. Complaints by opposition parties about the practice they themselves indulged in while in government are almost as old.

The current Government will be judged on the scale of its considerable promises in this area.

Fine Gael and Labour politicians have repeatedly promised a comprehensive reform of the political system and, specifically, the elimination of political patronage.

The reality is that the Government has not, or not yet, lived up to its ambitions. As this review of appointments shows, the selection of large numbers of people with political links to the Government continues.

Although there is no reason to believe any of the appointees are not up to the job, there remains little or no transparency in the process for selecting board members of State bodies.

In its manifesto, Labour promised to end the system whereby appointments to State boards were used as a form of political patronage and for rewarding insiders. In future, all appointments would be based on a “demonstrable capacity to do the job”.

The party promised to publicly advertise all vacancies, not just the chairmen, and to ensure that Oireachtas committees considered the suitability of nominated candidates.

Fine Gael, in its manifesto, promised to tackle “cronyism and feather-bedding” in politics. As well as scrapping some agencies, the party said paid directorships would be advertised.

These commitments failed to appear in the Coalition’s programme for government. The only commitment in that document is an assurance that at least 40 per cent of each gender will be represented on State boards.

Shortly after coming to power, Taoiseach Enda Kenny said he wanted to put an end to political cronyism. But what he had in mind in his Dáil speech was the rash of more than 100 appointments, some politically influenced, made by the outgoing government between the election and its last day in office.

On legal advice, the Coalition had to abandon a pledge to sack those appointed by their Fianna Fáil/Green predecessors.

In April, the Cabinet resolved that vacancies on public boards should be advertised online and that chairmen would have to appear before a relevant Oireachtas committee before their appointment was ratified.

Crucially, the committee has no power of veto and the final decision still rests with the Minister.

Minister for Transport Leo Varadkar was quick to implement the new rules, with public advertisements for the posts of chairman of CIÉ and its subsidiary companies. And most of the chairmen he appointed have appeared before committees.

At least seven other departments have yet to start advertising for posts, let alone ensuring that chairmen appear before the committees.

Five departments have begun implementing the rules; in a number of others, some posts have been filled by the new process while others have not.

The Government has also imposed a “one person, one salary” rule on the public service by decreeing that from the start of this month public servants sitting on State boards should not be paid fees.

Tasc, in a report published last July, criticised the “ad hoc and politicised manner” in which people are appointed to boards and called for reforms to address a lack of accountability and oversight.

The think tank estimated there are more than 600 public bodies, to which several thousand board members are appointed on a regular basis.

Between 1997 and 2006, for example, nearly 7,000 appointments were made.

Ministers and senior civil servants are responsible for appointing most of those serving on public boards: “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.”

Few modern politicians would concur – at least not in public – with Fianna Fáil minister Donogh O’Malley’s admission in the 1960s that, faced with a choice between two people of equal merit, he would always choose the Fianna Fáil person. However, they generally defend their right to appoint people to State boards.

Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore, for example, argued last year that government should appoint the boards as one of its executive functions. The making of appointments on a “tribal” basis would be avoided “by exercising discipline, by exercising good judgment”, he said, and people would be appointed “on merit”.

Mr Gilmore was expressing his opposition to the creation of an independent body to carry out this task, an idea favoured by Tasc, the Institute of Directors and many business groups. Tasc argues that the existing system of appointment-by-minister gives elite groups a near-monopoly over public board positions, and thus inordinate and unaccountable influence over public policy.

“Essentially, the governing party – regardless of ideological hue – is allowed to shape public boards in its own [political] image,” its report argues.

And since board terms do not coincide with Dáil elections, the governing party is able to exercise influence beyond its term of office.