ADAPTION, ENGAGEMENT, AND EVOLUTION OF PARLIAMENTS IN A RAPIDLY CHANGING COMMONWEALTH
however, any Member could table a motion on anything. It is a character of the UK parliamentary system that the government is in control of the agenda. Delegates broke into three smaller working groups and suggested a number of recommendations for Commonwealth Parliaments as follows: • The Youth Parliament is a cardinal medium used to engage youths throughout the Commonwealth. • The accountability system is used in most countries where, specifically the Public Accounts Committee Members engage with entities that have been invited to respond to queries. • A number of Parliaments hold a ‘Parliament Week’ where several activities are held by the public at Parliament to engage the public in parliamentary debate. The importance for Parliaments to reach out to the public and how to get them involved in issues that concern them. • Enforcement of decorum in the House – it was noted that many Speakers put errant Members to order, however in some cases, they may not be aware of the comments made in the House. • Some Parliaments have full-day training sessions and others train for just a few hours. Publication of a mandatory list of those
that have attended training sessions creates a list of shame for those who don’t and compels them to attend subsequently. • The importance of confidentiality was discussed and whether harassment was worse in Parliaments or similar sized institutions. Going forward, it was agreed that there should be openness in cases of inappropriate behaviour. • Implementation of modern technology in Commonwealth Parliaments - Parliaments should use technology if they hadn’t started already in order to advance core business. One of the challenges in implementing technology has been that different Parliaments have noted that people in rural areas were not able to access this kind of technology. • Many Parliaments have started using the technology and applying it to their rules and procedures. It was noted that many Parliaments are trying to go paper-less. Parliamentary Clerks at the meeting also heard from McGill University about the International Professional Development Program for Parliamentary Staff and its impact in building capacity. A presentation was given about the CPA launching a new online professional development course for parliamentary staff that has
been developed and will be delivered in collaboration with the School of Continuing Studies at McGill University, Canada and the International School for Government at King’s College, London. Delegates at the SoCATT meeting heard from the CPA Headquarters Secretariat about the updated CPA Recommended Benchmarks for Democratic Legislatures and the selfassessment and technical assistance programmes available to assist Parliaments. Parliaments were encouraged to self-assess against these CPA Benchmarks and it was noted that the total number of benchmarks had increased from 87 to 132 and that many of these were on areas that were presumed to be sensitive some years ago. The updated Benchmarks also assimilated many of the suggested Benchmarks from different Regions and they were agreed to and owned by the CPA membership. The following early observations on the CPA Benchmarks assessments were made: • The importance of Presiding Officers in the process. • The self-assessment must be owned by Parliament. • Different entry points for self-reflection should be built into the process. • The importance of flexibility in methodology. • Recognise the difficulties in engaging civil society All Commonwealth Parliaments were encouraged to undertake the CPA Benchmarks assessment given that the CPA Benchmarks form the basis of the CPA’s Technical Assistance Programmes to Parliaments. The final session of the SoCATT meeting was a continuation of the discussion on parliamentary procedure, privilege and practice. Mr Mark Egan (Jersey) submitted that the situation in
Jersey is very different to the Westminster model to which most Commonwealth Parliaments subscribe. Deputies are elected as individuals and so there is no concept of collective responsibility, with Ministers arguing against each other on government policies. The system is based on consensus but in practice this is often difficult to achieve although many politicians think it is a good indicator of democracy. Mr Eric Janse (Canada) spoke about the relationships between the federal and territorial Legislatures of Canada. He spoke about the concept of collective responsibility and how it is managed by communicating and explaining the position of government on policy matters, through arguments with Ministers. Collective responsibility was widely introduced in 2005 but criticised in some Assemblies as a factor that binds people and stops legislation linked to ‘free will’. A delegate from the Scottish Parliament suggested that there is institutional memory in their Legislature, which helps with the interpretation of procedures, precedents and past practices. A delegate from Pakistan noted that the example of a Chief Justice also being a Presiding Officer might not help in developing institutional memory as they would everything on their own merits as a judge. At the conclusion of the meeting, Ms Lynn Gardner, SoCATT Secretary (United Kingdom) outlined a number of SoCATT reports and decisions, and proposals for the agenda for the 56th SoCATT General Meeting were agreed. The Clerk of the Parliament of Uganda was thanked by the delegates for the generous hosting of the meeting. Rapporteurs: Martha Kaganzi, Gilbert Ainomugisha, Ronald Bagaga, Kato Wilberforce, Catherine Namuddu and JB Kagoro (Parliament of Uganda)
The Parliamentarian | 2019: Issue Four | 100th year of publishing | 343
