PARLIAMENTARY PERFORMANCE AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGY
The group of participants and CPA Secretariat staff from the meeting in May.
Nonetheless, as the Secretary- General said, the Benchmarks were designed to “help Parliaments measure themselves in their own reform and modernization efforts aimed at making Parliaments more effective and democratic institutions”.
Refining the Benchmarks The Study Group met in London from 7 to 9 May 2013, and agreed on the following recommendations:
• 1.1: The Benchmarks should con- tinue to evolve to reflect changes in society with a view towards meeting the needs of citizens in the Com- monwealth. The Study Group recom- mended that the CPA convened a
formal review of the Benchmarks. The Benchmarks helped to facilitate the sharing of good practice among Commonwealth Parliaments and to reflect their shared values. The Study Group recommended that the Benchmarks be maintained online with the purpose of enhancing its role in sharing good practice within the CPA. This online version could be used as a method of collecting good practice from its Members with respect to meeting the Benchmarks. PMOs could also be able to share information with the CPA on good practice through such an online tool. • 1.2: Parliaments and PMOs shared the objective of enhancing citizen understanding of, and engage-
ment in, Parliament’s work. There was a need to promote greater dialogue between Parliaments and PMOs, in order to ensure that PMOs had an understanding of the challenges faced by Parliaments and used ap- propriate methodologies to monitor the work of Parliament. Discussions over the Benchmarks, and future efforts to refine them, provided an opportunity to continue dialogue between the CPA Parliaments and Commonwealth PMOs. • 1.3: The Study Group identified a number of specific areas for possible future refinement of the Benchmarks and recommended that Benchmarks not become overly prescriptive. In ad- dition to the subjects below, additional
refinements of the Benchmarks could include discussion of gender, political inclusion and citizen engage- ment in the legislative process.
Parliamentary openness
• 2.1: The Study Group noted the CPA’s long-standing commitment to transparent governance, referencing an earlier study group held in Accra, Ghana in 2004, which adopted the several recommendations designed to “address the culture of secrecy”. In particular, Recommendation 10.1 provided: “There should be a concerted effort by government and public bodies to address the problem of a culture of secrecy. This should
The Parliamentarian | 2013: Issue Three | 207
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76