Public agencies spend nearly one-third of State money and employ as many people as the Civil Service, writes Paula Clancy.
Earlier this month, at the launch of her annual report, Emily O'Reilly, the Ombudsman and Information Commissioner, said too many public bodies are exempted from the Freedom of Information Act.
Is the current system around how public bodies are set up and governed a help or a hindrance to democracy?
Outsourcing Government: public bodies and accountability, the latest research from Tasc, Ireland's think-tank for progressive social change, looks at untangling the "fog index" around how the country is run and reveals that there is no consistent source of information on the number and category of public bodies in Ireland.
This is despite public bodies spending around one-third of State money every year, and employing as many people as the main Civil Service departments.
Such lists which do exist are partial, overlapping and define public bodies in different ways. It seems self-evident that a State committed to openness and transparency, should at the very least provide a clear statement of who these bodies are, what their functions are, their form of accountability to the Oireachtas and the reasons for their existence. This statement should be updated regularly and made widely available to the public.
While acknowledging that many do good work, the unplanned mushrooming of public bodies combined with the lack of good information about them is bad for democracy.
By building up a database based on a diversity of sources, Tasc believes that there are about 500 public bodies operating with a national remit.
The very existence of these agencies in the fragmented manner in which they have grown, adds a further layer to the bureaucracy of government, constraining an individual citizen's ability to interact with an agency from which they are seeking a public service.
Many public bodies cover areas that in the past would have been considered the "core" work of government, such as implementing government policy, (the Health Service Executive), and managing the national debt, (The National Treasury Management Agency). They also cover many of the areas of crucial infrastructure - the National Roads Authority, and the Public Transport Forum - and public utilities including the ESB, Aer Lingus, CIÉ, Iarnród Éireann and An Post.
Food safety, broadband delivery, early childhood education and law reform are also areas which come under their remits, so public bodies clearly influence all our lives.
It is now almost 40 years since the Devlin Report identified the need for a clear strategy for the establishment of public bodies as urgent. Since then Tasc's research shows the number of public bodies has grown from 80 to close to 500.
Despite this we are no nearer to having a strategic review. Last year Ministers announced plans to create six new bodies, including the national consumer agency; the better regulation group; a taskforce on active citizenship; a regulatory body to oversee auctioneers and estate agents; an alcohol marketing monitoring body; and an archives advisory group.
The case for a transparent strategic overview has been repeatedly and persuasively made. Such an overview would include a review of the rationale for their existence as well as designing effective mechanisms for maintaining operational and strategic oversight. The research also highlights that there are around 5,000 appointments to public bodies at national level alone, the majority of which are in the gift of Government.
The involvement of members of the public, consumers, representatives of special interest groups, professions or trades, including people with specialist skills, knowledge and expertise, in decision making and advice is in itself a deepening of democracy. In this context there are strong arguments for an independent appointments system, diversity of composition of boards, merit-based appointments and a system of accountability for those appointed.
As of now, Ministers and senior civil servants are responsible for appointing the majority of members to public bodies. The influence of the Dáil in the making of these public appointments is negligible. There have been a number of controversies in this area. The appointment of Celia Larkin to the board of the new National Consumer Agency and the failure to appoint a representative of the National Consumer Association of Ireland is one example.
In this case the subtext is the absence of clear and transparent criteria of merit and experience to be applied in the making of such appointments. The findings of this research are in direct opposition to the stated intent of the Government to render the system more open and accountable. Developing a coherent and joined up rationale for the establishment of public bodies is thus an imperative for reforming government structures. This research forms part of an extensive audit of democracy in Ireland. When complete, Democratic Audit Ireland will provide a comprehensive and systematic assessment of political life in both Northern Ireland and the Republic.
Paula Clancy is the director of Tasc. Outsourcing Government: public bodies and accountability is at www.tascnet.ie