Something of a double edged sword this:
Revealed: the executives who determine public sector pay
Ministers refusing to negotiate on wages say they must follow official review bodies – but who sits on these boards and how accountable are they?
Hmm, well. The real point being made here is that when the quangos produce a result not liked then they must be accountable. Accountable to those who would be able to make them change their decision.
Of course, when the same bureaucratic structure produces decisions liked then it’s entirely different. The Climate Change Commission doesn’t have to be accountable because it pushes lunatic ideas which are liked. Indeed, the entire point of the CCC is to insist that those accountable – the elected politicians – cannot in fact bring in policies that those doing the accounting would like. So too with all those “legally binding” targets for this and that. They’re insistences that accountability not happen.
This can all turn on a sixpence too. Note how who was on the EHRC only became an important subject for accountability discussions when they showed signs of wrongthink on the subject of race.
The whole and entire point of boards and commissions and sub-committees is to push the decision making out of the accountability arena. So don’t come whining when they produce a decision you don’t like……