Why would anyone apply to serve on the board of a large public body?
Professor Matthew Flinders
Irrespective of your background sections of the print media will label you a 'gravy train, snout in the trough, crony', you will be expected to contribute large amounts of time and energy for very little (if any) financial reward, and you are likely to be unceremoniously sacked by your minister if things go wrong.
If the global economic crisis brings opportunities as well as threats then let's seize the opportunity to cultivate a more mature and realistic debate about the politics of public appointments.
Irrespective of whichever party wins the next General Election, the impact of the global economic crisis will inevitably place greater pressure on the public sector.
The need to 'do more with less' has stimulated political parties within (and beyond) the UK to move beyond 'small state versus big state' arguments and instead undertake a more sophisticated review of the manner in which public services are structured and delivered; how the behaviour and attitudes of public servants might be adjusted; and how a focus on 'up-streaming' that emphasises preventative policies can be instilled across the public sector.
Dr Felicity Matthews
The search is therefore on, as highlighted in numerous recent reports, for a 'smarter state'. Although the specific components and parameters of the 'smarter state' remain unclear, it is obvious that its construction will rely heavily on recruiting world-class individuals with the experience, expertise and qualifications to lead large and complex public sector organisations through a period of financial austerity in which tough decisions will have to be made.
The 'smarter state' needs 'smart' appointments
Research suggests, however, that widespread concern exists about the capacity of any future government to recruit and retain high-calibre individuals to serve on the boards of public bodies. This concern stems from a number of political and bureaucratic developments.
The political context in which senior public sector leaders are expected to operate is both relentless and unforgiving as 'faceless quangocrats' have assumed the role of political folk devils within media coverage and popular opinion.
And yet for most of the 20,000 or so people who hold public appointments on the boards of public bodies the positions bring with them extreme pressures, long hours and no remuneration, apart from basic expenses. For the couple of hundred ministerial appointments that offer financial incentives, generally chairing large public bodies, the rates of pay are generally well below private sector equivalents and the appointee will be expected to work full-time hours for a part-time wage.
The board of a quangos is, as Lord Nolan concluded in the first ever report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, simply not a place to go to make money.
If the boards of public bodies are not stuffed with individuals gorging on a modern form of 'spoils system' they are also not stuffed with New Labour placemen and women. The notion of 'Tony's cronies' was in most instances the product of sections of the media who never let the facts get in the way of a sensationalist story.
New Labour partisans
Conservative and Liberal Democrat politicians need not fear that the British state has been colonised by New Labour partisans who are just waiting to thwart their plans. In many policy areas, like health, ministers do not even make appointments to public bodies any more and where ministers do make appointments these are tightly regulated by the office of the commissioner for public appointments or a plethora of other independent appointment commissions.
Ministers are only involved at the very start and end of recruitment process and an Independent Assessor sits on the appointment panel to ensure that all appointees are 'above the bar' in terms of qualifications, experience and expertise.
If anything, the concern coming out of Whitehall is that over the last 10 years ministers have given up too much power over public appointments and that the independent regulatory system has become too cumbersome and inflexible.
Public sector recruitment specialists complain of a 'bureaucratic black hole' that does little to support candidates throughout the process and often makes unrealistic demands at short notice.
Ministers complain that attempts to recruit board members from a wider pool of candidates are frequently thwarted by departmental officials who impose an unnecessarily restrictive definition of 'relevant experience.'
If the incentives to join the board of a public body appear limited – public and media criticism, little or no financial reward, and an appointments process that generally long-winded and at times cumbersome – then things have arguably deteriorated over the last twelve months as select committees in the House of Commons have initiated their new 'pre-appointment' powers for around 50 of the most senior public sector appointments.
Increasing the voice, if not the formal power, of select committees in the public appointments process is a high-risk strategy. The committee rooms of the Palace of Westminster present an aggressive and partisan arena in which to try and assess the skills of a candidate. The deterioration of the pre-appointment hearing for secretary of state's (Ed Balls) preferred candidate for the position of children's commissioner in October 2009 into a sensationalist media and political campaign against 'Bully Boy Balls' exposed exactly why previous governments had rejected a formalised role of Parliament in the oversight of ministerial appointments.
The concern of many observers, including the current commissioner for public appointments, is that many strong candidates will simply walk away from an opportunity within the public sector rather risk appearing before a select committee which is the political equivalent of putting their head in the lion's mouth.
People being willing to offer their time, energy and expertise to the services of the state by serving on the boards of public bodies provides a critical and valuable organisational resource.
If the 'smarter state' is going to evolve from rhetoric to reality it is likely that any future government is going to have to some pretty smart thinking about how to secure the services of the brightest and the best.
Professor Matthew Flinders is deputy head at the Department of Politics, University of Sheffield
Dr Felicity Matthews, is a research fellow at the Department of Politics, University of Sheffield
This article is based upon research funded by the Economic and Social Research Council
From Bubb's Blog
From Whitehall Watch
Comments
There are no comments yet for this article.