10 Steps Guide for Parliaments

As mentioned previously, the leadership within Parliament may decide it is a good idea and a good time to undertake a self-assessment. This may be because there is a desire to develop a new Strategic Plan or an election year is approaching, and it seems like a good opportunity to self-reflect on the workings of Parliament.

Likewise, the CPA Headquarters Secretariat or other development partner may have reached out to the Parliament to encourage a self-assessment ahead of future planned technical development projects.
Either way, at this point it is important to ask some key questions:

1. Will this be a unicameral or bicameral self-assessment?
2. Who is involved in the decision to undertake a self-assessment? Is it the Speaker/President and Clerk or should it include the Government and Opposition, and do other public servants need to be involved?
3. When will it occur?
4. Will it be a facilitated self-assessment delivered in partnership with the CPA, or will the Parliament choose to undertake the self-assessment internally and independently?
5. Should the self-assessment focus on one specific area, or on all the Benchmarks?
6. Does the Parliament want to measure itself against the ‘minimum’ standards or the ‘additional’ standards as well?
7. Who will manage the day-to-day logistical arrangements and planning for the self-assessment within the Parliament?
8. What are the cost implications for doing this?
9. If there isn’t a House or Administration/Parliamentary Service Committee/Commission in place, would it be worth establishing a temporary internal committee for the purposes of the self-assessment and post-assessment process?

Once the above considerations have been taken on board and a determination for the way forward made, now is the ideal time to arrange planning meetings to discuss how the process will work.

If a decision has been taken to pursue a facilitated self-assessment in partnership with the CPA, then the process will involve three elements:

1. Parliaments complete a CPA Workbook, assessing themselves against the Benchmarks whilst providing commentary and evidence to support their findings. As survey may also be circulated for Members and Clerks to complete.
2. An external expert team visit the host Parliament and conduct interviews with key stakeholders to gain further information, ask questions and build relationships which help to evaluate the political ‘reality on the ground’.
3. Post-deployment, a report is produced which summarises their findings and provides the Parliament with a set of recommendations that it is encouraged to take forward as part of its democratic reform.

At this point, a key consideration for the Parliament and the CPA team will be confirming a timeline for when the Parliament would like to start the self-assessment process and a deadline for the final report to be completed.  When it comes to determining the dates for the in-country visit of the expert team, it will be essential for all key stakeholders to make themselves available to be interviewed. The dates will need to be based on the business in the Parliament that week, and how to avoid conflicting priorities and pressure points for the Parliament. A careful balance needs to be made.

Once everything has been agreed between the Parliament and the CPA, the next stage will be for the Clerk, in consultation with the Presiding Officer(s), to complete the Benchmarks Workbook.

The Workbook is an MS Word document which contains answer tables for all of the Benchmarks. The Clerk, or a delegated alternate, should go through the entire document and assess how well, from an internal perspective, the Parliament meets all the Benchmarks. The Clerk must provide evidence as part of the answers given. For example, referencing evidence in the Constitution, Standing Orders, HR policies, Codes of Conduct, etc.

The Workbook provides an invaluable basis from which the deployed expert team will be able to begin the self-assessment process. It is therefore essential that it is completed and shared with the expert team well ahead of the in-country programme.

At the same time as the Workbook is being completed, the CPA may ask the Clerk to circulate two e-surveys to Members of Parliament and to the staff employed in the Parliament. The surveys will be confidential and anonymous. The views from the survey, alongside the Workbook and in-person interviews can collectively paint a picture for the expert team when drafting the report.

The CPA Headquarters Secretariat will put together an expert/resource team to undertake the self-assessment. This will nearly always comprise of two people. One of whom be a member of the CPA Headquarters Secretariat. The other person may be a clerk or official of a neighbouring Parliament. One that is similar in size and cultural characteristics. Alternatively, they could be a technical expert consultant or academic.

Typically, the CPA team will manage the financial and logistical arrangements associated with the deployment of the expert team. The CPA will seek the advice of the Parliament on logistical matters like accommodation and in-country transport support.

A sizable number of individuals will be involved in the self-assessment process. This is essential to ensure that the process is inclusive and consultative. It is important to emphasise at this point that it is a ‘self-assessment’. The Report produced should not be about what the CPA believe, but should be a synthesis of the feedback the expert team has received throughout the entire process. Furthermore, it is important to stress that the Parliament has final say on the contents of the Benchmark Report and accompanying recommendations.

Therefore, it is important that the expert team meet with and hear from a range of individuals who work in, for and alongside the Parliament. Most important will be Members of Parliament and parliamentary staff, but there will also be a range of external entities like the public service, civil society and the media who regularly interact with the Parliament.

When planning the in-country programme, the expert team will wish to meet with as many of the below stakeholders as possible.

• Presiding Officers (and Deputies)
• Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition
• Majority/Minority Leaders
• Backbench Members (Government, Opposition, Independent) (Upper and Lower Houses)
• Clerk (and Deputies), Heads of Departments and junior staff of Parliament
• Attorney-General’s Office (including Parliamentary Counsel)
• Elections and Boundaries Commission(s)
• Government Communication/Information Service
• Head of the Public Service and Commission
• Right to Information Commission
• Complaints Commission or Ombudsman
• Auditor-General’s Office
• Civil Society groups (women/youth/PWDs)
• Media outlets (print/broadcast/digital)

Beyond the groups of people to be engaged, it is critical to consider other factors in ensuring those engaged can provide the inputs for an effective assessment. These include:

• Diversity - As much as possible, the group engaged in the self-assessment should reflect society at large. This means ensuring appropriate gender and ethnic balance. Ideally, women should make up 50% of the participants. Ethnic, religious, racial and other minorities should be well-reflected in the assessment groups. Other marginalised groups should also have a voice during the process.
• Leadership - The Parliamentarians and staff engaged in the review should be well-respected by their colleagues and have the capacity and authority to ensure that they reflect the views of a broader group and not just their own opinion. It is important that these individuals can move beyond the natural partisanship that occurs in any Parliament, to take a longer view of their institutional and democratic development.
• Experience - Each person engaged in the self-assessment will come with different experiences. For example, it should not be only those MPs or parliamentary staff with over ten years’ experience who are engaged. The perspective of new staff and MPs, of women and marginalised groups will provide different and important perspectives that need to be included in the process.

The programme will be arranged by the Parliament and should cover a four-to-five-day period. Most of the programme period will include meetings with those stakeholders listed above, either as groups or one-on-one. It is important to stress with group meetings that there are sensitivities on who should be included. For example, there may be conflicting political views and a need for confidentiality. Therefore, it is best to avoid having a group meeting with the Government and Opposition leadership simultaneously and likewise Members of Parliament with members of the press. Sufficient time should be allocated to each meeting, and meetings should take place in suitable venues that can provide confidentiality and easy access for all.

The CPA can also share a ‘Participants’ Guide’ which is a short leaflet which explains the purpose of the Benchmarks and how their involvement as stakeholders being interviewed can feed into the process.

The programme should also include some flexibility as there may be last-minute meetings to schedule and inevitably stakeholders, especially busy parliamentarians may need to reschedule. It is also important that some space is allocated each day for the expert team to plan and write some parts of the report.

A draft outline of the programme timetable should be shared with the CPA at the earliest juncture and updated versions should be communicated at regular intervals.  

Once the in-country programme is over, the expert team will begin the process of drafting a self-assessment report. The report will follow the structure of the Benchmarks. Included in the report will be a set of recommendations.

Throughout the drafting process, the expert team may seek clarification or corrections from the Parliament. These will tend to be factual in nature.

The draft once completed will then be shared with the Parliament for review. This will tend to be for the Speaker/Presiding Officer and Clerk to take forward. Where amendments are required, the expert team will incorporate those amendments. A final draft will then be sent for formal approval. The CPA may then reformat and redesign the report for publication.

The internal approval process within the Parliament will be jurisdiction specific. It may simply require sign-off by the Speaker or approval by a committee. Alternatively it may require the Report being laid in the Parliament for a formal resolution.

A key consideration/sensitivity can be around the publishing and public access to the Report. Publishing of the final report is strongly encouraged. For one thing, many people would have fed into the Benchmarks self-assessment and may wonder what has become of the Report, which in turn raises questions of trust and transparency by the public. Then again, the parliamentary leadership may have concerns over the content of the report and its level of criticism.  

If approval is given for publication, the CPA will publish the Report on its website and share with relevant stakeholders.

Once the Report and its accompanying recommendations have been approved and published, the parliamentary leadership will need to begin to consider what it wants to do next in delivering on some or all of the report recommendations.

The CPA may, through a formal agreement, support the Parliament with funding for a Technical Assistance Programme over a year or up to a three-year period. The Parliament will need to be clear on milestones and timelines for achievement.