Minutes of the general debate: Personnel management for effective parliamentary services, Quebec session, October 2012

Minutes of the general debate: Personnel management for effective parliamentary services, Quebec session, October 2012

Mr Marc BOSC, President, invited the three rapporteurs to make brief presentations on the deliberations of each of their working groups.

Mr Alphonse K. NOMBRÉ (Burkina Faso) gave an account of the work of the francophone group, which had considered the issues of recruitment and career management together. This group had looked first at whether the parliamentary administration was sufficiently special to justify the recruitment of a particular kind of staff. The response had been largely positive because parliamentary staff work with all of the political affiliations represented in Parliament and must have the confidence of each of them. It is also responsible for a Parliament’s continuity.

At least three different methods of recruitment had been identified: open advertisement of vacancies to the public, the secondment of civil servants to the parliamentary service and staff recruited through political channels. Three risks were identified as emanating from this last method: the risk of over-recruitment, the risk of recruiting staff who do not have the skills to carry out their functions, and the risk of a loss of continuity. In parallel with parliamentary staff, there were also in most Parliaments politicians’ personal staff, who were not the Secretary General’s responsibility.

As for career management, several systems envisaged well-defined career management plans, involving the circulation of staff, both horizontally and vertically, to diversify careers and improve motivation. Remuneration was also crucial to staff loyalty. The recruitment of managers raised serious questions: it was usually conducted internally but it was difficult to choose between potential candidates. There was often political involvement in the choice of the most senior staff. In other cases, however, open recruitment was used, to bring in new blood. With the number of senior posts being reduced, long-term staff motivation was a major challenge.

Finally, the question of gender and the integration of women into the workplace was a delicate issue which needed to be taken into account.

This group concluded that the subject would benefit from more in-depth study by the Association.

Mr David ELDER (Australia) reported on the work of the English-speaking group which had chosen to look at career and succession planning. It had found operating through working groups to be a very useful way of proceeding. This group had felt that parliamentary services were different from other organisations, and that they required precise competences and aptitudes, distinct from other administrations. A key factor was to be equipped with a solid competence-based framework to bring on and evaluate staff. Some countries had put in place programmes for developing competences. Circulation policies could be put in place, as for example was the case in the United Kingdom, where a great deal of job mobility was demanded, every three years, including for senior management. That could lead to problems of every kind, with some members of staff not wanting to change job. Sometimes, equally, this mobility could run up against the inclinations of politicians, such as Committee Chairs who wanted to keep the same Committee clerks working with them.

Keeping good staff could also prove difficult. To achieve this, you first of all had to be a good employer, who offered opportunities and challenges, and training, but also financial reward, even if that was difficult during the period of budgetary restrictions being experienced by many countries. In effect, staff who felt that they were going to rise no further in their employment lost their motivation. At the same time, young people these days tended not to stay on if there were no tangible prospects for them.

Gender equality was approached differently in different countries. In some places, quotas had been instituted. Women’s representation in positions of responsibility was very varied but generally evolving.

Mr Mohamed Kamal MANSURA (South Africa) reported on the work of the English-speaking group which had looked at the issue of recruitment. On the question of political influence, this group had noted that as a general rule, the Secretary General and (where appropriate) his deputies were appointed by a process that involved politicians, most commonly by means of the executive body of the Assembly. As for other staff members, it was only in a few rare cases that political influence had been mentioned.

 One issue that had held the attention of the working group was that of the transparency of the recruitment process, which was generally open, by means of public advertisement. Some Parliaments had work experience programmes.

Some parliaments also had to follow the affirmative action policies in place in their countries, for example with respect to disabled people, or to ensure that the different linguistic or cultural minorities were represented. Recruitment sometimes took place through personal interviews, but that was forbidden in some countries such as Brazil and Canada, where recruitment followed a written test based on key competencies. The written test or interview was often followed by a psychometric test and/or an evaluation of the candidates’ judgement skills. Parliamentary procedure or mechanics were not part of induction training, but were learned on the job, but this demanded a number of basic competencies. The issue of impartiality had come up: in many Parliaments, staff had to be apolitical.

Mr Marc BOSC, President, opening the debate to the floor, thought that the issue of mobility was particularly interesting, especially as several years before, to leave the parliamentary administration had been perceived almost as a kind of treason. He thought the Swiss system, which encouraged movement outside the administration, to be interesting, noting that in Canada, the system was less flexible, especially for younger staff, who wanted to make faster progress or change job more often.

Mr Wojciech SAWICKI (Council of Europe) thanked the President and rapporteurs for this initiative. He queried the definition of a career plan, noting that it was a significant challenge for administrations to implement in the classic meaning of the term, which involved having increasing responsibility and a growing salary, as few senior posts were becoming available and cost restrictions did not allow for the creation of additional ones. It was therefore necessary to know how to deal with the frustrations of staff, given that these traditional routes were often blocked. One solution could be to encourage parliamentarians to thank employees more publicly or to invite staff to special events. It was also sensible to allow more motivated staff to take part in activities which represented a change from their usual work, as a form of reward. It was also possible to envisage conferring state honours on long-serving employees. As far as women were concerned, and the specific duties to which they were subject (childcare etc.), he judged that it was worth changing point of view, in particular by considering that men could also play their part in fulfilling these “duties”.

Mr Alain DELCAMP (France) noted that their seemed to be a consensus between the three groups on recognising the special nature of parliamentary administrations. He saw this as signifying a development. Several years previously, many Parliaments had relied predominantly on staff from other parts of the public service. Today, there seemed to be a shared goal of having a separate administration and of limiting the influence of politics on recruitment. He noted misgivings at the idea of public recognition: parliamentary staff should not become a technocracy thinking that they had a wider purpose than that of serving parliamentarians. Moreover, it should not be necessary to be thanked to do one’s job well. Career mobility was a strong desire of the current generations, which it was better to channel than to reject. Moreover, the ability of staff to move on showed that people recognised the quality of the parliamentary service.

Mr Daniel Dyowo OMALOKOHO (Democratic Republic of Congo) (non-member) noted that political interference in recruitment could cause serious problems, especially in terms of staff competence, and could make it difficult for the Secretary General or Director of Human Resources to fulfil their role.

Mr Alphonse K. NOMBRÉ (Burkina Faso) said that another form of reward, especially in developing countries, could be to improve job security. In these countries, political change could sometimes be brutal. In Burkina Faso, for example, between 70% and 80% of staff had been replaced when the parliamentary majority changed. There had therefore been no job security up until the recent passing of a law making the parliamentary public service a part of the State administration. The detailed provisions of this law had come from the Assembly itself. He thought that this represented considerable progress.

Mr David ELDER (Australia) noted that the aspirations of the new generation and its desire to have a faster career development was noteworthy in Australia, where internal mobility was much encouraged. He thought that those who really wanted to stay put could be rewarded. He described a system of prizes awarded to very productive or long-serving staff. These prizes were given out during a ceremony led by the Clerk of the House. This ceremony was much appreciated by staff members.

Ms Beverley ISLES (Canada) felt that recruitment was a very delicate exercise, always involving an element of risk for the organisation. Financial reward was important, but not sufficient, as people increasingly also wanted to be given more varied responsibilities. As for women, she thought that there was sometimes an element of self-censorship by women themselves, some of whom were uncertain about taking on very senior posts.

Mr David NATZLER (United Kingdom) took the view that it was very important to uphold the independence and special nature of the parliamentary service, to allow for the development of particular competences. In a democracy, it was important to avoid too great a degree of collusion between the legislature and the Executive, but it was also important not to fall into the opposite trap. In the United Kingdom, parliamentary staff had the same salary arrangements as the general civil service, and the whole of the public service was undergoing pay cuts. As a result, non-pecuniary rewards were taking on a greater importance. Staff surveys showed a degree of frustration, but staff at every level of the organisation by and large remained proud of working for the House of Commons. He thought that, despite certain differences of practice, it could be worthwhile for the Association to try to enunciate basic principles or guidelines for recruitment and career management which would be acceptable to all.

Mrs Emma LIRIO REYES (Philippines) thought that the working groups had been very productive. She noted that parliamentary staff in the Philippines were governed by a law on the public service and that managers regularly completed evaluations of their staff, who could only be sacked for serious misconduct.  

Mrs Jane Lubowa KIBIRIGE (Uganda) thanked the rapporteurs and asked for the views and feedback of colleagues on the recruitment of staff on the recommendation of politicians. She thought that such staff were in fact often isolated in their departments and thought themselves at a disadvantage in terms of internal promotion.

Mr Ayad Namik MAJID (Iraq) raised the idea of providing rewards in the form of certificates, degrees or prizes, which could be internationally recognised, for example the award of an annual prize which could be an opportunity for tribute to be paid to the work that staff had carried out.

Mr Hafnaoui AMRANI (Algeria) replied that, in his view, it was worth doing as much as possible to avoid giving in to political pressure, recognising that this depended also greatly on the political position of the Secretary General himself.

Mr Sompol VANIGBANDHU (Thailand)  said that motivation was very difficult to manage, because it was inspired by different things in different people. There were many issues around stress and unpredictability to manage in parliamentary work, which could explain the difficulty sometimes experienced in staff retention. It was undoubtedly worth making certain adjustments to motivate the youngest staff members to accept positions of responsibility, for example by improving the working environment and providing greater stability at work.

Mr David ELDER (Australia) agreed that it was not always easy to find managers, but noted that in Australia, there were more women than men who wanted to take up these posts.

Mr Mohamed Kamal MANSURA (South Africa) noted that in his country there was a strict divide between the recruitment of the staff of the administration and that of political staff. Management carried out exit interviews with staff who were leaving to try to understand their reasons for doing so.

Mr Habtamu NINI ABINO (Ethiopia) thought that parliamentary work was not the same as the work carried out in other parts of the public sector and that it required specific competencies. He raised other avenues for further reflection, such as the possibility of learning from the good governance rules applied in the private sector, Secretaries General being a little like the directors of private sector businesses.

Mr Iftikhar Ullah BABAR (Pakistan) replied to Mrs KIBIRIGE by saying that he thought that all staff should be treated in the same way.

Mr Mohammed Abdullah AL-AMER (Saudi Arabia) thought that the Association could try to compile a roadmap for staff recruitment. For his part, on the subject of motivation, he added that beyond financial reward, it was worth thinking of moral reward, so that staff were recognised not only within the parliamentary service but also outside. It would be a good idea especially to promote staff exchanges between Parliaments, allowing staff to do work experience in other Parliaments or within international institutions.

Mr Jiri UKLEIN (Czech Republic)  explained that in his country, recruitment in the Upper House had been frozen because of budgetary restrictions. He noted that he had been taken on in January 2012 without any experience of parliamentary work, as he was originally an expert in recruitment in another sector. He took the opportunity to thank his counterparts for their support in helping him to understand the workings of the parliamentary world and he indicated that he was at their disposal if they wanted any advice on recruitment issues, especially where it came to defining, as was essential, selection criteria.

Mr Kileo NYAMBELE (Tanzania) (non-member) found the idea of drafting a set of guidelines very interesting as a way of standardising the vocabulary and of finding points in common regarding the method of recruiting parliamentary staff. In his judgment, the Association could lend itself further to these questions.

Mr Daniel Dyowo OMALOKOHO (Democratic Republic of Congo) (non-member) also supported the idea of setting out guidelines, especially on the issues of the independence of the parliamentary administration in its recruitment practices and of the position of the Secretary General with regard to politicians. It would be particularly useful to pay attention to defining objective criteria for recruitment and to the way in which these could be made acceptable to and adopted by the relevant political authorities.