MORE than 30 years ago I undertook research examining the system of public appointments in the north.

It highlighted serious concerns about the operation of quangos (quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations), the process of appointments, and the diversity of the membership.

Whilst in theory the process was open and transparent, in reality it operated as a closed shop for the ‘great and the good’.

Controlled by an insular network of privileged political elites and dominated by middle-aged white men, interviewees depicted a system marked by cronyism, cosy relationships and patronage.

The merry-go-round of quango membership meant that a limited pool of individuals often held multiple paid positions across different boards, raising concerns about the concentration of influence among a small number of people.

Many of these individuals were depicted as a “safe pair of hands” – those who would not rock the boat by asking awkward questions.

The appointment process was opaque and lacked the accountability and scrutiny needed for this critical feature of the public sector.

Boards were dominated by those who had held senior positions within the public sector, with women, ethnic minorities, younger people and those from working-class backgrounds seriously underrepresented.

Quangos are a critical feature of the public sector, and are significantly more important in Northern Ireland than in other parts of the UK due to the limited role of local government.

They perform a range of functions such as regulating markets and protecting citizens, investigating complaints, monitoring performance, inspecting key services, taking major funding decisions and offering expert advice to government.

These bodies provide the means to carry out government activity in areas where direct ministerial control is undesirable.

There are approximately 1,400 public appointments here which include roles on boards, such as health, education and regulatory bodies. These positions range from unpaid to high-profile, well-renumerated roles.

Unfortunately, despite reviews and promises of reform, it seems that little has changed and the enduring challenges associated with public bodies remain.

Even a cursory glance at those who hold senior positions reveals the same names appearing again and again.

The new Commissioner for Public Appointments, Claire Keatinge, has already voiced her concerns around the system that she has been appointed to oversee.

According to her, the statistical information on board membership is extremely poor, making her role to regulate and audit appointments all but impossible.

The collection of robust and comprehensive monitoring data is a basic requirement of any oversight role. Yet, fewer than half of applicants to public boards complete monitoring forms.

Consequently, it is impossible to comment with confidence on the profile of applicants.

How can you address issues of representation, inclusion and diversity when basic data is absent? What is the point of appointing a commissioner and expecting her to undertake the role with one hand behind her back?

Over a decade ago, then commissioner John Keanie resigned, stating that the appointments system was “intrinsically unfair”, with the civil service actively opposing change.

He highlighted particular concerns about the failure to address the propensity of white, middle-aged males on the boards of public bodies, as well as people sitting on several quangos at one time. He could not hide his frustration with the insular system, lambasting the lack of diversity.

He also took aim at a lack political leadership from the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM), alongside the “reactive nature of officialdom”. Lip service was paid to his proposals to improve the processes and restore confidence.

Prior to the appointment of Ms Keatinge in August 2025, the post was vacant for four and a half years.

Her predecessor, Judena Leslie, said there was “no sensible explanation” for the delays in finding her replacement.

Between May 2021 and April 2024, more than 360 public appointments and reappointments to boards in Northern Ireland were made without commissioner oversight.

The work of public bodies and the decisions made by their board members can impact upon the everyday lives of citizens. The extent to which their boards are both representative and diverse is of great salience.

Increasing diversity in public body governance is not just the right thing to do, but evidence shows it drives increased effectiveness and performance, ultimately strengthening public service delivery.

They collectively control billions of pounds in spending and service delivery, and the commissioner’s office can shape who sits around those decision-making tables.

There are, however, no published targets for improving the representation of women, ethnic minorities, disabled people or those from lower-income backgrounds on boards.

Given the evidence, it is hardly credible to suggest that safeguarding the integrity of this process has been taken seriously by our political leaders.

Talking the language of inclusion, diversity and accountability whilst extending and colluding with patronage and clientism represents a serious weakness and challenge to good governance.

For many the public appointments system remains a mysterious, impenetrable maze. There is a continued lack of awareness and, in reality, trust in the process.

Both the existing data and absence of data expose the enduring gap between rhetoric and action.

If you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article and would like to submit a Letter to the Editor to be considered for publication, please click here.

Letters to the Editor are invited on any subject. They should be authenticated with a full name, address and a daytime telephone number. Pen names are not allowed.

© The Irish News