A recent Slugger OP argued for increasing the number of elected political members on the boards of our public bodies. Instead, I propose abolishing this outdated aspect of post-conflict governance. The sectarian frameworks of the institutions we entrust to provide our public services exemplify the “ugly scaffolding” that continues to support our unparalleled system of government more than a quarter-century after the Good Friday Agreement. It is time to depoliticise our public bodies and prioritise the quality of our services and the capability of those directing them, rather than the balance of factional headcounts.
Reform and Transformation
The ‘Reform and Transformation of Public Services’ is one of the nine priorities identified in the Northern Ireland Executive’s recently agreed Programme for Government (PfG) 2024-2027. It received an 86% approval rating in the public consultation exercise. However, transforming these bodies will require a comprehensive evaluation of their functions and funding, and, importantly, progressive reform of the nature and composition of their governing bodies. Second only to Health in terms of expenditure, the Education Authority serves as a case study that highlights the need for such transformation.
A comprehensive review of the EA in 2022 noted, “The EA board is large. Its composition is representative and diverse, so the review considers whether the board’s size and composition reflect the organisation’s requirements. This highlights the curious feature of the EA board: apart from the Chairperson, DE, the Minister has minimal input into the nominated sectoral representatives, and in the case of political representation, none whatsoever.” This “curious feature” arises from the application of consociationalism, where a governance structure can prioritise sectarian and political balance over merit-based appointments or effectiveness, leading to Mark Durkan’s “ugly scaffolding” metaphor.
The EA Board consists of a chairperson appointed by the Minister and 20 members: eight political nominees selected by party officers and 12 members nominated to represent trustees of maintained schools, transferors of controlled schools, and stakeholders from the Irish-medium, integrated, voluntary grammar, and controlled grammar sectors. This structure reflects a segmented and fragmented education system—one where oversight responsibility is centralised, yet actual authority is dispersed across legally protected sectoral bodies. However, although this legacy mismatch undermines strategic coherence and impedes reform, its resolution lies beyond the scope of this OP.
Although the EA uses the terms ‘nominated’ and ‘appointed’ interchangeably, it remains unclear whether any representatives are selected through a process that aligns with the guidance from the Commissioner for Public Appointments (CPA). Such selections ought to be merit-based and should involve criteria such as:
- Professional experience,
- Community involvement,
- Understanding of education or governance.
This process would be accessible to the public, subject to formal scrutiny, and grounded in the principles of openness and fairness. However, as the names of political members are submitted to the Minister following their selection—apparently at the sole discretion of the party’s nominating officer—they do not meet these standards.
Committee on Standards in Public Life
The Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL) is celebrating the 30th anniversary of establishing the Nolan Principles by publishing a series of blogs about the work of various standards bodies. The latest blog is authored by Sir William Shawcross CVO, the Commissioner for Public Appointments. It focuses on the shift away from ‘tap on the shoulder’ appointments to “a more open, fair and merit-based system. Ensuring that these roles attract the widest possible pool of talent – while still allowing ministers the freedom to make informed choices on the basis of merit.”
The CSPL was established in response to growing concerns about the behaviour of politicians following the cash-for-questions scandal of the mid-1990s. The committee primarily focused on MPs, Ministers, Civil Servants, executive Quangos, and the NHS, which has since been described as the world’s largest Quango. Its first report was published in May 1995, leading to the drafting of the Seven Principles of Public Life, known as the Nolan principles after the committee’s chair. In March 2025, NHS England was abolished, and its functions were returned to the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC).
Quangos
Executive Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPB), or Quangos, are arm’s-length public entities endowed with executive powers. Government ministers appoint their boards. In 1995, nearly 9,000 board members across the UK collectively spent approximately £40 billion per year. By 2023, this amount had risen to £383.6 billion. More than 300 Quango chief executives receive remuneration exceeding the Prime Minister’s salary of £172,153, which is five times the UK average of £37,430. In 2010, the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition government axed hundreds of NDPBs in what was dubbed ‘the bonfire of the Quangos’.
The Northern Ireland Events Company Scandal
Organisations such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) frequently target Quangos, primarily due to their perceived lack of accountability and failure to uphold the Nolan Principles. One of the most egregious oversight lapses involved the Northern Ireland Events Company (NIEC), which was funded by the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL). In 2007, NIEC collapsed at a cost to the taxpayer totalling nearly £3 million, a situation attributed to a comprehensive failure to uphold the Nolan Principles by the Auditor General. The Audit Office noted that DCAL could have identified problems sooner if whistleblower complaints had been addressed more effectively.
The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) was “appalled” by the “mismanagement and impropriety” associated with the NIEC debacle, describing it as “the biggest scandal that has yet arisen in the history of the Committee under devolution; the level of scandal involved is completely shocking.” Key recommendations for appointments to public body boards, as outlined in its 2016 report, included implementing a transparent, criteria-based selection process that focuses on skills, experience, and diversity. Additionally, regarding oversight and governance, the PAC emphasised the need to reassess board composition when structural government changes occur.
Oversight
In the same year, Alan McQuillan, the former deputy chief constable of the PSNI and head of the Assets Recovery Agency, announced that he did not intend to seek any further public appointments in NI due to the level of cronyism in public life. He added that NI did not “have anything like the level of transparency in Britain” and that “too many jobs are filled by people who simply have the right political connections.” Alliance MLA Naomi Long called for all public appointments to be overseen by the Commissioner for Public Appointments (CPA) “if the whiff of cronyism and corruption is to be addressed to the satisfaction of the public.” In addition to the seven principles of public life, the Nolan Committee also recommended appointing an independent CPA. However, there has not been a CPA in post in NI for almost four years.
Nolan is not a panacea for probity in public life; it did not prevent the MPs’ expenses scandal, which the Daily Telegraph exposed in 2009. The Ipsos MORI ‘Trust in Professionals’ survey for that year revealed that only 13% of people trusted politicians to be truthful, the lowest figure in the poll’s history. Nolan’s failure to prevent such shocking behaviour exposes a more profound truth: standards alone cannot compensate for institutional opacity and unaccountable power.
Conclusion
The EA highlights how the language of representation can obscure a deeper democratic deficit: party nominees who are neither elected, scrutinised, nor appointed through any public process. While some might argue that political appointments ensure representation for diverse communities, particularly in post-conflict governance, genuine representation should not come at the expense of transparency or effectiveness.
Other jurisdictions maintain inclusion without resorting to political nominations, prioritising instead expert-led and publicly accountable governance. In NI, the absence of independent scrutiny in public appointments enables cronyism, inefficiencies, and opaque decision-making.
Public accountability must take precedence over sectoral loyalty. Appointing individuals through open competition, based on merit and subject to public scrutiny, strengthens governance and rebuilds trust. Reforming the appointments process does not weaken representation; it revitalises it by ensuring that those who lead our public bodies are chosen for their contributions to the public, rather than for whom they serve in private.
If the Executive’s commitment to “reform and transformation of public services” is to be credible, it must start by dismantling these outdated nomination practices. These roles should be filled through open, merit-based appointments, overseen by a re-established Commissioner for Public Appointments. The alternative is a continued reliance on the ugly scaffolding of compromise — a structure no longer fit for democratic purpose.
El Cavador is a Slugger reader from Belfast with a particular interest in education
Discover more from Slugger O'Toole
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
