6 Strengthening Westminster and UK
Institutions
Strength of the Westminster Brand
111. The Westminster brand of parliamentary strengthening
is powerful. Anthony Smith, the new Chief Executive of the Westminster
Foundation for Democracy, noted that the Westminster brand is
trusted around the world,[249]
partly because it is, as Bond noted, the oldest major parliament
in the world, which serves "as an example and useful case
study for other parliaments".[250]
The UK branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association highlighted
the considerable demand for Westminster activities, referring
to "the pulling power of the Portcullis."[251]
It added that as parliamentary development has emerged as a distinct
field Westminster is increasingly recognised for its contributions,
past and present.[252]
UNDP said that there is "great unrealized value in the Westminster
brand"[253] and
the World Bank that the Westminster 'model' of parliamentary governance
is recognized and valued around the globe. This model has been
adopted and adapted by parliaments across the Commonwealth and
beyond.[254] As the
UNDP noted, the depth of the UK's parliamentary tradition is of
particular importance for Anglophone countries and those that
have adopted Westminster parliamentary practice.[255]
112. Westminster-based organisations have a long
history of parliamentary diplomacy—hosting visits from international
parliamentarians, responding to enquiries from peer parliaments
and championing international parliamentary networks. There are
long-standing institutional links with overseas parliaments and
inter-parliamentary organisations.[256]
More recently, more extensive programmes strengthening parliaments
around the world have been established. Westminster's capacity-building
work for developing parliaments has grown significantly since
the 1990s, particularly following the establishment of the Westminster
Foundation for Democracy.[257]
113. In this chapter we use the term Westminster
and Westminster-based organisations broadly. One key characteristic
of UK parliamentary strengthening work is the diversity of organisations
involved. Compared to many counterparts like France, where the
Assemblée Nationale is the sole provider of parliamentary
strengthening,[258]
the UK has a wide range of specialist institutions; the World
Bank notes that the UK has several world-class parliamentary organizations.[259]
There is range and depth of experience, covering the full range
of parliamentary business. This range of providers includes:
· Departments of the two House administrations
(the Overseas Offices of the House of Commons and the House of
Lords)[260];
· The National Audit Office which reports
directly to Parliament and works with audit offices and PACs abroad;
· inter-parliamentary networks (the UK branches
of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and Inter-Parliamentary
Union (CPA UK, BGIPU));
· UK public sector specialists (Westminster
Foundation for Democracy, ERIS);
· UK public sector bodies working on development
or relevant international capacity building (the British Council);
· private sector parliamentary specialists
(e.g. Global Partners Governance);
· private sector development agencies with
a focus on governance (e.g. Adam Smith International);
· developmental charities (BBC Media Action,
Thomson Reuters Foundation, the International Bar Association);
and
· academic centres and thinktanks (Centre
for Legislative Studies University of Hull, Overseas Development
Institute, Hansard Society, Department of Government University
of Essex[261])
114. Several of these organisations, including the
Overseas Offices, CPA UK, BGIPU, WFD and Global Partners draw
on a similar pool of personnel, including MPs and former MPs and
parliamentary staff.
115. This diversity means that the UK's strength
is not in a narrow "Westminster model" or a particular
institutional blueprint to lecture on, but in its variety of different
approaches, knowledge and lessons to share.[262]
WFD observed that the UK has a rich, heterogeneous experience
of parliamentary systems, with Westminster, devolved assemblies,
and powerful municipal assemblies. Westminster institutions are
able to draw on a range of UK political parties and institutions,
including the devolved assemblies, to find appropriate counterparts
to the institutions they work with in other countries.[263]
The World Bank observes that focusing on specific practices implemented
by the UK and Scottish Parliaments and the National Assembly of
Wales enhances the relevance of the UK experience beyond Commonwealth
parliaments.[264] Moreover,
the UK has world-class media and legal expertise which can be
used to support its parliamentary strengthening work.
116. The submissions we received suggest that the
UK strengths in parliamentary strengthening can be divided into
four main areas.
Parliamentary Culture:
the UK has a strongly inclusive parliamentary culture, with members
from different parties working together effectively across a variety
of committee and legislative tasks. Lord Norton of Louth told
us:
The most significant contribution that the Westminster
Parliament can make is not in offering a particular structure,
but in facilitating the emergence of a strong and continuing civic
culture, with strong links between citizens and their representatives
in Parliament.... in creating a rules-based structure within which
parties can compete and, concomitantly, a neutral organisational
framework, including research resources available to all members."
[265]
WFD's submission notes that UK democratic culture
has enabled us to manage internal and external conflict, represent
the wishes and ambitions of separate nations within a single state,
and develop one of the most successful economies in the world.[266]
Antony Smith highlighted the way in which Westminster culture
includes political opposition:
We have huge strengths in this area as a country:
our own democratic traditions, obviously, the Westminster tradition,
but also the way in which the country has managed the political
ambitions of four nations, has dealt with internal and external
conflict and managed that.[267]
This culture is continually evolving, with new Assemblies,
the Scottish Independence Referendum, and the Speakers Commission
for Digital Democracy. UK expertise is in continually building
democracy and rethinking parliament's role. Alistair Burt MP told
us:
We have been here for 1,000 years. In the last
few years we have had a referendum on the shape of our country;
we have had a referendum on our voting system; and at the beginning
of this Parliament we re-organised the election of senior members
of the House on our major committees. After 1,000 years we keep
making changes. We are dealing with developing institutions as
well.[268]
Where Commonwealth parliaments founded on the Westminster
system look to the UK as a point of reference, the variety of
UK experience results in a variety of responses.[269]
Peer Working: as Greg
Power observed: "Parliamentary support needs to engage with
the daily challenges of being an MP, and be based around the practical
problems that MPs and staff need help solving."[270]
Westminster institutions are able to draw on experienced members,
clerks and committee staff, the people who actually "do"
the democracy promoted. Antony Smith, Chief Executive of WFD told
us:
Clearly, the thing that people like in the area
of parliamentary strengthening when they work with British institutions
is the peertopeer contact, the ability to hear about
those experiences first hand and to get longterm relationships
of support, which they can use to adapt in their own ways in their
own countries. That is the most effective thing that I have seen."[271]
The strength of peer working allows for the benefits
of "mutual recognition", and a shared background engendering
relationships founded on a common experience and understanding
of "what it is really like" to deal with a certain aspect
of political business.
Public Reporting and Engagement:
the BBC and Thomson Reuters are global brands, and can demonstrate
how good journalism can strengthen parliaments. Tim Fenton told
us of the positive role played by Westminster organisations using
BBC and Reuters journalists to help journalists in Fiji[272]
better report on their parliament's proceedings and improve public
awareness and engagement. BBC Media Action identified the importance
of the media to connect democracy—and its many democratic
institutions—with the public, including those who may not
see parliamentary politics as central to their concerns: "Strengthening
parliaments' communication with society is a vital element of
parliamentary strengthening." [273]
BBC Media Action notes this has four dimensions: communicating
what is happening in parliament; improving media access to and
transparency of parliaments; engaging mass audiences in the political
process; and covering key events in the political calendar. This
strength in engagement also includes digital engagement with parliament;
we were informed that the Speaker's Commission for Digital Democracy
was attracting significant global interest.[274]
Scrutiny and Accountability:
Westminster is seen having a real strength in its select committee
system, and scrutiny its committees provide of the executive—as
Antony Smith described it us: "We have huge strengths in…
the way in which our system delivers strong oversight of the executive
but also enables the executive to deliver policies effectively."[275]
The Commons Committees are entirely focused on oversight whereas
in other parliaments' committees often concentrate on legislation.
A particular strength of scrutiny work is in financial accountability,
and the strong relationship between its Public Accounts Committee
and the UK National Audit Office. CAPAC highlighted the importance
of initiatives to share the UK's experience through peer networks,
such as peer networks for PACs, which could be replicated for
other types of parliamentary committee.[276]
117. These four "Westminster" strengths
reflect DFID's priorities for its parliamentary strengthening,
which are focused on building a democratic culture, effective
institutions of scrutiny and legislation, public engagement and
representation, and financial oversight and propriety.
Failure to Use Westminster as
a National Asset
118. However, many witnesses note that the Westminster
brand is an under-used asset in the UK's work strengthening parliaments
and promoting democracy. DFID's failure to use Westminster is
considered a missed opportunity. Anthony Smith told us that the
UK was "under-promising and underperforming"
in this area, reflecting: "I have been surprised at the
low profile that we have as a country in dealing with these issues."[277]
Charles Chauvel of the UNDP highlighted:
Significant reservoirs of knowledge… exist
across the existing and former personnel of the Westminster Parliament,
both on the elected side and with officials. The potential to
add value to parliamentary strengthening work in any number of
countries on procedural and substantive matters is vast, and there
remains much untapped potential.[278]
119. Other witnesses from CPA UK and BGIPU stated:
It is… seeing us in modern parliaments as
a resource. We are a resource. Who knows better how to do this
work than we do?... I see us being available to the Government
here and governments elsewhere as a resource for the work they
need to do, sometimes in quite touchy and difficult places.[279]
From my experience, parliamentarians talking
to other parliamentarians is often a better way of advancing causes,
even though it may take time, than heads of government talking
to heads of government, because they are much more in the spotlight.
The role of parliamentarians is undervalued at the moment.[280]
The soft power of Westminster, as both parliamentary
colleagues have mentioned, is immense, but I do not think it is
understood. The Foreign Office probably understands it; I am not
sure that DFID does… The soft power that this place emits
is immense and we should use that.[281]
120. Witnesses, and not just those based in Westminster,
argued that HMG would benefit greatly from treating Westminster
as an asset and building up its capacity to deliver parliamentary
strengthening programmes. This would enable DFID to provide better
the type of long-term and flexible ways of working described in
chapter 4 rather than rely on the outsourced capacity of foreign
multinational providers. As Charles Chauvel told us, it would
also reflect the practices of other countries:
A number of donors have expressly made parliamentary
strengthening a flagship part of their overseas development assistance,
gaining significant kudos in partner countries as a result. Examples
include Belgium, Japan, and the Nordic countries for the extensive
assistance they provided to governance programming in the wake
of the "Arab Spring", including most notably to the
successful constitutional, parliamentary, and elections programming
implemented by UNDP in Tunisia. Others—such as France and
India—appear to have been very successful at marrying ODA
effort with the work of their domestic parliamentary institutions.
The former offers significant outreach—mainly, but not exclusively—to
francophone countries, via the Assemblée Nationale and
the Senate, and through support to the Association Parlementaire
de la Francophonie. The latter's lower house—the Lok Sabha—operates
a training centre for parliamentary staff and MPs whose programmes
are increasingly well-regarded internationally. On the basis of
this experience, opportunities for better branding by, and coordination
between, DFID; Westminster; and Commonwealth Institutions based
in London; seem apparent. [282]
121. However, while DFID noted that: "UK
expertise is a valued part of the range of tools available to
DFID in supporting parliaments", it also makes clear
that the value of Westminster institutions from DFID's current
perspective, is rather narrow, as sub-contractors for small scale
peer-to-peer technical assistance or peer support networks.[283]
DFID has been cautious of using Westminster institutions to build
up a UK strategic capacity and influence, noting that building
UK influence and "soft power" is not a development goal.[284]
On the other hand, the new Operational Plan for DFID's Governance
Department encourages sharing the "Best of British"
practice and experience in promoting good governance.[285]
The FCO acknowledged that more could be done to raise the profile
of the Westminster brand,[286]
adding that there was a particular opportunity with the Magna
Carta celebrations for DFID to increase the profile of the British
brand of democracy.
What DFID Needs to Strengthen
122. Witnesses argued that to make better use of
Westminster, DFID needed to address the following shortcomings:
Funding and Commissioning:
We were told by Alina Rocha Menocal that small specialist institutions
with stable and secure funding are the most effective providers
of parliamentary strengthening.[287]
DFID does not provide any grant in aid for specialist UK institutions
(the FCO does for WFD), though it does provide organisational
grants to two UK organisations involved in parliamentary strengthening,
of £1.9 million to WFD and £21.4 million to BBC Media
Action in 2013-14,[288]
the former of which is included in the figures DFID reported on
parliamentary strengthening and the latter not. Its commissioning
of parliamentary strengthening favours large projects and large
international suppliers. DFID's limited awareness of its overall
commissioning of parliamentary strengthening and the impact this
has on the parliamentary strengthening sector means that it is
likely to miss this fact. In response to our concerns expressed
in our report on Burma, DFID has included a reference to the Westminster
institutions in its How to Note providing guidance to country
office staff on possible suppliers, but there has not been enough
thinking by the DFID governance team centrally about how to use
Westminster or an attempt to build a UK strategic capacity around
Westminster, as the CEPPS programme has done in the US. This strategic
aspect of commissioning Westminster-based institutions is not
something that can be simply delegated to country offices—as
DFID's current approach to commissioning does.[289]
Coordination: Better coordination
between DFID's central governance team and Westminster's international
parliamentary organisations would ensure a better-informed network
of parliamentary strengthening stakeholders.[290]
Submissions also highlighted the need for stronger coordination
between Westminster and embassies and DFID country offices.[291]
WFD told the Committee that it needed to improve its links with
Embassies so that they are more aware of Westminster's capacity.[292]
We were also told that there are no structures for involving Westminster
or keeping them aware of what DFID is up to globally, apart from
general online resources. Yet as discussed chapter 5, 80% of parliamentary
projects have been awarded by the time they are published online.
Knowledge of Parliament:
The IDC has previously noted the limited direct experience of
parliament and parliamentary skills amongst DFID's governance
advisers or those contractors implementing technical programmes.[293]
While DFID governance advisers handle a variety of projects and
are necessarily drawn from a variety of specialisms, none of the
DFID governance advisers in the countries with the 10 biggest
parliamentary strengthening programmes have a parliamentary background.[294]
The UK branch of CPA argued that DFID should be better informed
of the UK network or community of parliamentary strengthening
practitioners.[295]
DFID appreciates the need for change and the new Operational Plan
for DFID's Governance Department talks about developing communities
of practice to encourage sharing practices and lessons in areas
like parliamentary strengthening.[296]
What Westminster Needs to Strengthen
123. Despite the fact that DFID funding for parliamentary
strengthening has increased hugely in recent years, Westminster
organisations have not yet been entrusted with very much of it.
DFID has reservations over Westminster organisations' capacity
to manage major projects. All of the DFID parliamentary projects
we reviewed in chapter 5 have a budget larger than the annual
turnover of each of the Westminster providers. DFID has also identified
reservations over the effectiveness of implementation of Westminster
institutions[297] and
their lack of "development" experience, as compared
to private sector suppliers.[298]
124. Nonetheless, DFID expressed support for strengthening
the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. WFD told us that it
accepted the recommendations of the draft Triennial Review and
DFID welcomed WFD's new approach.[299]
125. Different witnesses suggested that Westminster
needs to strengthen in the following ways:
Coordination: A number
of submissions and witnesses argued that it would strengthen "Westminster's
offer" if the organisations were better coordinated.[300]
Poor coordination limits Westminster's capacity to take
on major projects and carries a risk of rivalries between organisations.
WFD noted that acting together, the UK could offer expertise and
programme experience as strong as that of any other country. In
2011, the Houses considered consolidating their international
work, but in the end decided not to proceed with consolidating
at that time; this puts a premium on effective coordination. Crispin
Poyser of the Overseas Office informed us:[301]
It has some advantages in that we can let 1,000
flowers bloom. The fact that we have a CPA UK, a BGIPU, a Commons
Overseas Office, a Lords Overseas Office and a Westminster Foundation
means that they can all do their different things in a way quite
flexibly and quite imaginatively, but it does lack a certain cohesion
as a result. I do sometimes wonder how it looks to the outside
world when they do not really know who they are interacting with
when it comes to trying to get hold of the UK Parliament.
What can we do in the absence of what would have
been an international relations department? It does come down
to more systematic co-ordination and good personal relations between
all the players involved. We have over the last few years tried
to develop a more systematic, regular set of meetings... We are
putting in place such structures as we can to try to make sure
that we do all know what each other is doing and we are contributing
as effectively as we can within that.
CPA UK also thought that in recent months the coordination
mechanisms between Westminster organisations have been improved.
The WFD is looking to rebuild the Westminster Consortium as an
established network of organisations that collectively can provide
a stronger breadth of experience and expertise, and so UK providers
can better access external funding. It argued that better coordination
would also ensure a more coherent UK approach.[302]
DFID informed us that a Westminster network, including coordination
with the devolved assemblies, would allow it to raise the profile
of Westminster and UK institutions across its network of governance
advisers, and would help DFID draw more effectively on the resources
in Westminster.[303]
Skills and capacities:
Westminster organisations need to strengthen their specialist
skills and capacities in key areas—the different organisations
have different strengths and weaknesses. First, programme management:
Westminster organisations need to ensure they have sufficient
project management skills for larger, long-term development projects
rather than just short term visits. WFD recognises it needs to
strengthen its project management skills, since its shift from
being a funding organisation to an organisation implementing programmes
in 2009.[304] Secondly,
WFD indicated that Westminster organisations needed to "build
up UK expertise to be more coherent and better coordinated";[305]
currently UK expertise is dispersed across government and across
the variety of Westminster organisations. Similarly, structures
for learning knowledge sharing and professional development should
be improved. WFD thought a revived Westminster Consortium could
help achieve this, and help strengthen Westminster's parliamentary
strengthening community. Thirdly, WFD have no permanent staff
who have worked in a UK Parliament. The House of Commons Overseas
Offices told the Committee that Parliament would be willing to
consider whether it would be possible to assist WFD in strengthening
its parliamentary skills, including possible secondments.[306]
Capacity: Westminster
organisations will need to ensure they have sufficient capacity
to meet expanded demand. Much of the work of Westminster organisations
requires working with current or recent parliamentarians and parliamentary
staff, and draws on the same body of practitioners, many of whom
also have a day job. This capacity would be further stretched
by significant expansion of DFID's use of Westminster. As Antony
Smith told us:[307]
It certainly is right that there is very strong
pressure on Members of Parliament. We have still seen ourselves,
but CPA and IPU say the same thing, a strong interest from many
Members in doing this type of work, but it has to be rationed
very carefully. That means ensuring that we have not just kept
drawing on the same individuals who have done this work in the
past, but also ensure that others who might have an interest and
time have an opportunity to do it. It means looking at politicians
from the other assemblies, because sometimes that works quite
well with some of the countries that we are in; the Scottish Parliament
has had strong relationships with certain countries that we work
with. We are looking a bit at former Members of Parliament as
well.
The House of Commons Overseas Office stressed that
while parliamentary strengthening is a priority for the House
of Commons, having been identified in its new Corporate Plan,[308]
ambitions to increase Westminster's parliamentary strengthening
work are limited by its current capacities.[309]
It might be necessary for the House to increase its current headcount
if required to staff additional parliamentary strengthening work
with the additional costs offset by project funding. Other key
UK bodies, such as the NAO, might also need to be resourced to
have adequate capacity to support an increased UK offer.
Impact: Westminster needs
to improve its ability to monitor and demonstrate its impact if
DFID is to make more use of it. DFID prides itself on commissioning
based on evidence and Value for Money and insists its partners
monitor their impact. With DFID planning to move its funding to
a Payment By Results model, the need for parliamentary strengthening
practitioners to demonstrate their impact and results is likely
to become more and more pressing. This means Westminster organisations
need to work with DFID to find appropriate measures for the outcomes
of its parliamentary strengthening work. The new Operational Plan
for DFID Governance Department talks about encouraging implementing
organisations like WFD to have an increased results focus.[310]
This is a challenging task—since genuine impact in strengthening
parliaments takes many years. Moreover, this is an area where
different areas of government evaluate impact quite differently.[311]
Global Partners Governance note that the standard approaches to
evaluating parliamentary strengthening work often:
Over-emphasise quantitative measures, such as
whether an implementer has spent the money they said they would,
trained the requisite number of people or produced the estimated
number of publications. These measures tell us something about
activity, but very little about impact. Compared with other parts
of government, business or the public sector, the development
field is still reliant on some fairly rudimentary measurement
techniques that reveal very little about impact or effect.[312]
Similarly, CPA UK observed that the credibility of
Inter-Parliamentary bodies currently suffers because of the difficulties
in evaluating the impact of small-scale programmes.[313]
There needs to be flexibility in setting evaluation criteria,
and realism in recognising the limitations and difficulties in
assessing parliamentary development work. UK organisations are
attempting to meet this challenge. The UK branch of the Commonwealth
Parliamentary Association and British Group of the Inter Parliamentary
Union have been closely involved in the development of the IPU's
Common Principles (see Figure 3 in chapter 4) which among other
things aim to help provide assurance over the quality of parliamentary
strengthening programmes.[314]
The CPA has also developed its 'Benchmarks for Democratic Legislatures'
which allow parliaments to self-assess against regional benchmarks
and monitor their progress against these benchmarks over time.[315]
Global Partners Governance is developing its own new measures
that capture political and behavioural change.[316]
Conclusions and Recommendations
126. The Westminster 'brand' is a national asset
and Westminster institutions are in demand, especially, but not
only, in countries with a Westminster-style parliamentary system.
Moreover, Westminster institutions are well placed to work with
'southern' partners. However, DFID is failing to make adequate
use of Westminster-based institutions. This is largely a matter
of scale. DFID is used to working with large contractors; the
average budget for the 37 DFID programmes which include a parliamentary
strengthening component is £14.1 million, which is far larger
than the total annual budgets for all of the Westminster organisations
combined. In addition, sometimes its governance advisers' rarely
have a parliamentary background and lack knowledge of Westminster.
We believe that DFID has failed to support the development of
a world beating UK capacity to strengthen parliamentary institutions
abroad, and have failed to capitalise on the global respect and
demand for the Westminster brand. We believe that DFID should
address these failings. We recommend that
· DFID and the FCO recognise that
the Westminster brand is a national asset for its parliamentary
strengthening work and make this clear in advice to its governance
advisers, particularly in their joint How to Note.
· DFID make more use of Westminster
organisations, especially where there is a demand for their expertise.
· DFID should set a goal for the delivering
a significantly greater proportion of its parliamentary strengthening
work by UK-based institutions within 5 years
127. However, changes should also be made at
Westminster. DFID and the FCO are confronted by a host of institutions
at Westminster. We recommend that
· the organisations at the Houses
of Parliament be better coordinated with a single point of contact.
Consideration should be given to revisiting the establishment
of an International Relations Directorate
· the Houses of Parliament and other
UK institutions ensure that they have adequate capacity to undertake
parliamentary strengthening work as this grows. The Public Accounts
Commission consider whether the NAO has adequate capacity to do
parliamentary strengthening as Parliament directs
· consideration be given to the establishment
of a Westminster 'hub' which would bring together UK institutions
with different kinds of expertise, including the media, the law,
and financial scrutiny, and enable them to cooperate rather than
compete, and would be able to undertake larger projects
· as DFID places great emphasis on
'its suppliers' demonstrating evidence of their impact, Westminster
institutions work with DFID to establish sensible non-bureaucratic
ways to demonstrate the value and impact of their work.
128. We welcome the changes which WFD is undertaking
under its new CEO. To assist these reforms we recommend WFD form
closer links with the Houses of Parliament; and that options be
explored to second staff from Parliament to WFD and vice versa.
129. During 2015, the FCO and DFID should use
the occasion of the anniversaries of the Magna Carta and the Simon
De Montfort Parliament to promote the rule of law, the importance
of parliaments and the value of Westminster organisations.
249 Oral Evidence, Anthony Smith Q63 Back
250
Bond and UK Aid Network Submission, paragraph 18 Back
251
Oral Evidence, Andrew Tuggey, UK Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association
Q23 Back
252
UK Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Submission,
paragraph 9.03 Back
253
Charles Chauvel, UNDP submission Section on Westminster Value Back
254
World Bank Submission, Section 8 Back
255
Charles Chauvel, UNDP submission, Section on the Priority of Parliamentary
Strengthening Back
256
There have been a number of waves to this work: The Inter-Parliamentary
Union was established in 1889 by the British MP William Randal
Cremer and French MP Frederic Passey to help foster international
peace. Westminster MPs developed the Commonwealth Parliamentary
Association in 1911 (initially as the Empire Parliamentary Association,
becoming the CPA in 1948) to support parliamentary links and development
across the Commonwealth. The House of Commons established its
Overseas Office in 1967 to manage the House's official relations
with overseas parliaments and parliamentary assemblies which had
grown in scale. Back
257
The UK's main delivery body of parliamentary strengthening, the
Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD) was founded in 1992
after the fall of the Berlin Wall, initially to support the creation
of new political parties and civil society organisations among
former communist countries transitioning to pluralist democracies.
Though its board largely comprises of parliamentarians, it was
formalised as a non-departmental public body of the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office. Its initial delivery method was for UK political
parties to provide direct assistance to like-minded parties, which
subsequently evolving to provide a wider "democracy offer"
to foster inter-party as well as sister-party relations and help
build effective Parliaments. Back
258
Oral evidence from Francois Duluc, Assemblée Nationale, 18 November 2014;
Q38 Back
259
World Bank Submission, Section 8 Back
260
There are also active international offices of the different Devolved
Assemblies. Also parliamentary organisations like the Parliamentary
Office of Science and Technology (POST) are also active in parliamentary
strengthening. Back
261
University of Essex were members of The Westminster Consortium,
though it did not submit evidence to this Inquiry Back
262
Bond and UK Aid Network Submission, paragraph 19; WFD Submission,
paragraph 14 Back
263
WFD Submission, paragraph 14 Back
264
World Bank Submission, Section 8 Back
265
Submission from Lord Norton of Louth, paragraph 17 Back
266
WFD Submission, paragraph 14 Back
267
Oral evidence from Antony Smith, Chief Executive Westminster Foundation for Democracy,
25 November 2014, Q57 Back
268
Oral Evidence from Rt Hon Alistair Burt MP, 18 November 2014,
Q30 Back
269
CPA UK Submission, paragraph 9.01 Back
270
Greg Power submission, paragraph 2 (ii) Back
271
Oral Evidence from Antony Smith, Chief Executive Westminster Foundation for Democracy,
25 November 2014; Q57 Back
272
Submission from Tim Fenton Back
273
Submission from BBC Media Action Back
274
The Commission notes: "We appear to have struck a chord internationally
with a considerable number of parliamentary bodies as well as
individuals and organisations in civil society who are working
on parliamentary openness and innovation… The work of the
DDC has also provided a point of contact for academics, businesses
and interested individuals with ideas, expertise, tools and platforms
for digital democracy that they are interested in sharing or developing
in partnership with Parliament and Members. As a result the DDC
has been able to pilot various technologies for use within Parliament,
which we have or will be able to share with others in the field."
See: Submission from Speakers Commission on Digital Democracy,
Paragraphs 5 and 6 (vii) Back
275
Oral Evidence from Antony Smith, Chief Executive Westminster Foundation for Democracy,
25 November 2014, Q57 Back
276
Submission by Steering Committee of the Commonwealth Association of Public Accounts Committees,
paragraphs 3.03-3.04, 4.02, 7.02 Back
277
Oral Evidence from Anthony Smith, Chief Executive, Westminster Foundation for Democracy
25 November 2014; Q57. See also: http://www.wfd.org/wfd-news/latest/news.aspx?p=109776
Back
278
Charles Chauvel, UNDP Submission, Section on Westminster Value Back
279
Oral Evidence from Rt Hon Alistair Burt MP, 18 November 2014,
Q31 Back
280
Oral Evidence from Rt Hon Sir Alan Haselhurst MP, 18 November
2014, Q21 Back
281
Oral Evidence from Andrew Tuggey, CPA UK, 18 November 2014, Q33 Back
282
Submission from Charles Chauvel, UNDP, Section on What DFID can
learn from other donors Back
283
DFID Submission, paragraphs 19, 21 Back
284
How to Note: "We may consider working with key political
organisations, such as parliaments and political parties, in order
to promote the UK's soft power. For example to promote understanding,
influence, attraction (toward the UK) build international capacity
(around democratic systems). Whilst an important consideration,
this should not be the overriding consideration (and cannot be
when considering UK-AID expenditure)." Back
285
Operational Plan 2011-116 for Governance, Open Societies and Anti-Corruption
Department (updated December 2014); p. 13 Back
286
Oral evidence from Rob Fenn, Head of Human Rights and Democracy
Department, FCO, 25 November 2014, Q119: "The second
big opportunity… is next year's Magna Carta celebrations,
which I think are going to raise the profile of the British brand.
What the Palace of Westminster is doing is going to be extremely
empowering for the Foreign Office itself in our soft power and
public diplomacy, and we are certainly already planning to make
sure that WFD benefits from that." Back
287
Alina Rocha Menocal and Tam O'Neil, ODI submission paragraph 35 Back
288
WFD's 2013-14 Annual Report and Accounts report WFD received an
accountable grant of £1.9 million from DFID. BBC Media Action's
2013-14 Accounts report that BBC Media Action received £21.4
million from DFID's global grant. See WFD Accounts: http://www.wfd.org/upload/docs/WFD%20Annual%20Report%20and%20Accounts%202013-14%20.pdf
(Note 2) See BBC Media Action accounts: http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends35/0001076235_AC_20140331_E_C.pdf
(Note 16) Back
289
Oral Evidence, Minister of State Desmond Swayne MP, 25 November 2014
Q107 Back
290
UK Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Submission,
paragraph 11.03 Back
291
WFD submission paragraph 12 Back
292
Oral Evidence from Anthony Smith, Chief Executive, Westminster Foundation for Democracy
Q69 Back
293
Democracy and Development in Burma HC821 Back
294
While some governance advisers are long term DFID employees who
have worked in a variety of sectors, a number are specific governance
specialists with backgrounds in public audit or public sector
reform, rule of law and human rights, or elections monitoring
and promotion. Back
295
CPA UK identified the need for better coordination between DFID's
central governance team and Westminster's international parliamentary
organisations to ensure a better-informed network of parliamentary
strengthening stakeholders. UK Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Submission,
paragraph 11.03 Back
296
Operational Plan 2011-116 for Governance, Open Societies and Anti-Corruption
Department (updated December 2014); p. 17 Back
297
When discussing the possible use of Westminster institutions,
the How to Note states: "We are unlikely to promote soft
power when working with an organisation that is unable to perform
effectively (in terms of supporting democracy) or influence the
broader system in that country. We are likely to best support
soft power, by providing effective international cooperation (for
example, it is the UK's effectiveness as a development actor that
is seen as a key soft power asset, not its size). As a result
it is worth ensuring we are confident of positive change when
providing support. We should also be confident that we are providing
the most effective means of support." Back
298
The How To Note highlights a preference for using development
specialists. "Increasingly donors are using the 'technical
approach' (using a private sector service provider) which has
some benefits in terms of the delivery agent being more able and
likely to have broader developmental expertise." Back
299
Oral Evidence from Anthony Smith, Chief Executive, Westminster Foundation for Democracy
Q69 Oral evidence from Jonathan Hargreaves, DFID Head of GOSAC,
Q108: "I was listening, as the Minister was, very carefully
to what Anthony Smith said earlier in terms of the plans to improve
the Westminster offer overall through the improvements to the
offer of WFD itself, which we very much welcome, and we are looking
forward to seeing the outcome of the Triennial Review and the
response to that come through, and what kind of improved offer
by WFD itself may emerge. That is very encouraging for us, but
we are also interested in whether it is possible to link up better
with other UKbased organisations and provide a more united
and combined offer. That will be tremendously interesting to people
in country offices who are looking for the best providers. We
do need providers who can provide, as we have discussed, both
longterm and flexible provision of assistance. That is just
the reality of the kind of work that we need to do and the kind
of work that we think is going to be effective. If there is a
stronger offer coming from the UK… that will be satisfying
both a development outcome and possibly the more diplomatic win
that is potentially there." Back
300
WFD submission paragraph 15: "If the range of relevant British
official organisations-such as WFD, CPA, BGIPU, Overseas Office
of the House of Commons, British Council, the NAO, the BBC and
others - can collaborate effectively, then the UK's contribution
to democracy-strengthening work internationally could increase
significantly." Back
301
Crispin Poyser, Clerk of the House of Commons Overseas Office oral evidence,
Q52. See also: Overseas Office submission, paragraph 24: "Although
the House recently decided (for the time being) not to centralise
its various international units, this is one of the areas where
a more centralised approach to international work might have delivered
particular benefits. The absence of a combined capacity-building
body places an added premium on effective cooperation and coordination
between the House administration and CPA UK and BGIPU, as well
as with WFD and NAO; in addition to our day-to-day contacts, we
have in place an informal but structured programme of contact
group meetings between the two Overseas Offices and CPA UK/BGIPU
and are seeking to extend this to include WFD and NAO." Back
302
Oral Evidence from Antony Smith, Chief Executive, Westminster Foundation for Democracy,
25 November 2014; Q74; See also: WFD Submission, paragraph 15 Back
303
Oral evidence from Jonathan Hargreaves, DFID Head of GOSAC, Q108 Back
304
WFD began implementing programmes rather than just funding them
in 2009. Back
305
Oral Evidence from Antony Smith, Chief Executive, Westminster Foundation for Democracy
November 2014; Q81 Back
306
Oral Evidence from Clerk of the Overseas Office, 18 November 2014;
Q39 Back
307
Oral Evidence from Antony Smith, Westminster Foundation for Democracy,
25 November 2014; Q72 Back
308
The Corporate Plan for 2014/15-2016/17 commits to "supporting
other parliaments, especially those in transition to democracy"
See: House of Commons Overseas Office Submission, paragraph 2
and House of Commons Corporate Plan 2014/15 to 2016/17 Back
309
Oral evidence from Clerk of Overseas Office, 18 November 2014;
Q39 Back
310
Operational Plan 2011-116 for Governance, Open Societies and Anti-Corruption
Department (updated December 2014); p. 18 Back
311
This may be changing. The FCO and DFID reported to the Committee
that they are coordinating better across government how they monitor
the outcomes of their projects. FCO oral evidence 25 November
2015. Q120 Back
312
Greg Power submission, paragraph 3(iv) Back
313
CPA UK submission paragraph 9.04 Back
314
Oral Evidence from Alistair Burt MP, Chair of the British Group
of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and Sir Alan Haselhurst MP, Chair
of the UK Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association,
18 November 2014, Q24-25 Back
315
CPA UK Submission, paragraph 2.03. CPA has been developing its
benchmarks since 2006. Regional benchmarks have been established
for regions including: Asia, the Caribbean and the Pacific Islands.
See also: http://www.cpahq.org/cpahq/Mem/Resources/Documents/Benchmarks_for_Democratic_Legislatures/Mem/Document%20Library/Benchmarks_for_Democratic_Legislatures/Documents%20on%20Benchmarks%20for%20Democracy.aspx?hkey=a08dbc0a-e05e-4f9e-a737-ca6a65eb95f4
Back
316
Greg Power submission, paragraph 3(iv) Back
| 
