Terms of Reference for consultancy assignment

Remote Consultancy – Development of (Thematic) Indicators for Parliamentary Public Debt Oversight, linked to the IPU Indicators for Democratic Parliaments.

Joint consultancy assignment by Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI) – remote

1. Background and context

Across many regions of the world, governments are facing increasingly complex public debt portfolios at a time of constrained fiscal space, rising borrowing costs and growing demands for investment in public services, climate resilience and economic development. A growing number of low- and middle-income countries are either in debt distress or face a heightened risk of debt distress. 

At the same time, concerns have increased regarding the transparency of public borrowing, the governance of debt management, contingent liabilities, state-owned enterprises, and the accountability of executive decision-making.

Public debt is therefore no longer solely a macroeconomic or technical matter. Decisions concerning borrowing, debt management and fiscal sustainability have profound implications for democratic governance, public accountability and the relationship between citizens and the state. The way governments contract debt, disclose information, manage fiscal risks and account for borrowing decisions directly affects democratic legitimacy and public trust.

Parliaments occupy a central constitutional position within this governance framework. Through legislation, approval of public finances, oversight of executive action, scrutiny of audit findings and engagement with citizens, parliaments contribute to ensuring that public borrowing serves the public interest and remains transparent, accountable and sustainable. Effective parliamentary oversight can strengthen fiscal discipline, improve transparency, encourage informed public debate and reduce opportunities for corruption or politically motivated borrowing.

Yet parliamentary oversight of public debt remains uneven across jurisdictions. In many countries, legislatures have limited access to timely and disaggregated public debt information, insufficient analytical capacity, unclear legal mandates or inadequate procedures for scrutinising borrowing decisions, debt management strategies and associated fiscal risks. Existing parliamentary assessment frameworks capture many aspects of democratic governance but do not always provide sufficient depth to assess the specialised institutional arrangements, procedures and practices required for effective oversight of public debt.

Recognising this broader need, the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), together with an international consortium of parliamentary development organisations, developed the Indicators for Democratic Parliaments. These indicators provide a comprehensive framework through which parliaments can assess their institutional performance across a broad range of democratic functions, including representation, legislation, oversight, transparency, integrity, administration and financial scrutiny. The framework is designed to support parliamentary self-assessment, institutional reform and democratic strengthening.

The breadth of the Indicators for Democratic Parliaments is one of their principal strengths. However, by design they cannot provide detailed guidance on every specialised area of parliamentary practice. Consequently, the Indicators project envisages the development of thematic sets of indicator frameworks that draw upon existing dimensions while providing additional guidance, examples and supplementary indicators for specific parliamentary functions. Parliamentary oversight of public debt represents one such thematic area.

Over the past years, Westminster Foundation for Democracy has developed the Public Debt Management Assessment Tool for Parliaments (PDMAT), recently updated as PDMAT 2.0, to assess parliamentary oversight arrangements relating specifically to public debt management. It measures effectiveness across 67 indicators and nine dimensions. The indicators are drawn from established public financial management (PFM) frameworks, including the World Bank's Debt Management Performance Assessment (DeMPA) and Debt Reporting Heat Map, the Public Expenditure Financial Accountability (PEFA) framework, and the International Budget Partnership’s Open Budget Survey.

In parallel, the National Democratic Institute (NDI) has developed the Debt Transparency and Accountability Checklist, focusing particularly on transparency obligations, public participation and civil society engagement in public debt governance. The checklist outlines 13 transparency and accountability principles and 59 good practices.

Additionally, in partnership, NDI and WFD co-published a series of primers for parliaments on public debt management covering issues such as legal frameworks, oversight, and emergency contexts. The International Budget Partnership’s new 2025 Open Budget Survey Debt Accountability Module draws from both the NDI checklist and the NDI-WFD primers.

Together, these initiatives provide a significant body of methodological work that complements the Indicators for Democratic Parliaments. They also demonstrate the growing international recognition that effective parliamentary debt oversight extends beyond formal legal mandates to include institutional incentives, political dynamics, evidence-informed decision-making, public engagement and accountability relationships across the wider fiscal ecosystem.

This consultancy seeks to build upon these complementary initiatives to produce a dedicated set of Thematic Indicators on Parliamentary Public Debt Oversight, aligned with the methodology and governance arrangements of the IPU-led Indicators for Democratic Parliaments.

The Indicators on Parliamentary Public Debt Oversight will constitute a stand-alone set of thematic indicators, drawing upon relevant dimensions contained within the existing IPU Indicators framework while incorporating carefully identified supplementary dimensions where necessary. It will also integrate lessons emerging from PDMAT country assessments, relevant elements of the NDI Checklist, and contemporary thinking on fiscal governance and democratic accountability and, as appropriate, political economy analysis.

The final product will be designed as an accessible, practical and evidence-based assessment instrument suitable for use by parliaments, parliamentary administrations, parliamentary development practitioners and other democratic governance stakeholders. It is expected to become part of the growing family of thematic resources associated with the IPU-led Indicators for Democratic Parliaments and will be prepared for publication through an interactive digital platform.

2. Objectives of the consultancy

The overall objective of this consultancy is to develop a comprehensive set of thematic indicators for public debt parliamentary oversight that enables parliaments to assess, benchmark and strengthen their oversight of public debt within the broader framework of democratic parliamentary performance.

More specifically, the consultancy will:

• identify and consolidate all existing dimensions and assessment criteria within the IPU Indicators for Democratic Parliaments that relate directly or indirectly to parliamentary oversight of public debt, referencing and building upon an initial mapping exercise developed by NDI; 
• identify genuine gaps in the existing IPU Indicators for Democratic Parliaments framework and develop supplementary indicators, dimensions and assessment criteria and supporting guidance where additional content is required; 
• develop a coherent thematic structure that organises the existing dimensions within the IPU Indicators and the supplementary indicators, dimensions and assessment criteria into an integrated assessment framework centred on parliamentary public debt oversight; 
• integrate relevant methodological approaches developed through WFD’s PDMAT 2.0, the NDI Checklist and other internationally recognised frameworks; 
• incorporate links to timing of oversight activities with respect to the budget cycle;
• distinguish, where appropriate, between internationally recognised minimum standards and more advanced or aspirational parliamentary practices; 
• develop practical guidance for each criterion with respect to evidence collection, assessment methodology and interpretation of findings;
• identify, as appropriate, good practice examples from around the world to support users in understanding and applying the indicators to their contexts;
• identify, where necessary and appropriate, key political economy perspectives that can assist users in understanding how institutional incentives, executive-legislative relations, fiscal governance arrangements and broader political contexts influence parliamentary oversight; 
• prepare the public debt parliamentary oversight indicators and practical guidance for publication within an interactive digital environment, ensuring accessibility, usability and compatibility with the Indicators framework. 

The consultancy is expected to produce a set of thematic indicators, with practical guidance notes, that combines methodological rigour with practical usability across a range of contexts. The emphasis should be on supporting institutional learning, parliamentary reform and evidence-based dialogue rather than producing a compliance or ranking instrument.

3. Methodology

The methodology for this assignment will build upon the governance principles and development process established for thematically-focused indicator frameworks under the Indicators for Democratic Parliaments, while adapting them to the specific institutional and policy requirements of parliamentary oversight of public debt. The consultant is expected to adopt an iterative and consultative approach throughout the assignment. 

• Phase 1: Review the IPU Indicators for Democratic Parliaments and update draft mapping of dimensions relevant for the Public Debt Indicators framework

Based on the initial mapping already conducted by NDI, the first phase of the assignment will comprise a review of the IPU Indicators for Democratic Parliaments to identify all dimensions, sub-dimensions and assessment criteria relevant to parliamentary public debt oversight.

This exercise should go beyond dimensions directly related to budget oversight and include institutional features that influence parliamentary capacity to oversee borrowing and debt management. Attention should be given to oversight, transparency, committee systems, parliamentary administration, legislative procedures, public participation, research capacity, integrity mechanisms, access to information and follow-up to audit recommendations.

For each selected dimension, the consultant should prepare a brief rationale explaining its relevance to public debt oversight, whether it should be included in the Debt Oversight Indicators, and indicate the types of evidence that would normally be expected during an assessment. The overarching aim will be to balance comprehensiveness of coverage with ease of use for end-users. 

• Phase 2: Identify gaps in IPU dimensions and integrate other existing public debt oversight assessment methodologies and research

Building upon the initial mapping exercise, the consultant will review existing methodologies developed by WFD, NDI and other organisations to identify concepts, indicators and guidance for integration into the Public Debt Indicators framework.

Consideration should be given to:

• WFD’s Public Debt Management Assessment Tool for Parliaments (PDMAT 2.0);
• NDI’s Debt Disclosed: Civil Society Transparency and Accountability Checklist; 
• World Bank's Debt Management Performance Assessment (DeMPA) and Debt Reporting Heat Map, 
• the Public Expenditure Financial Accountability (PEFA) framework
• International Budget Partnership’s Open Budget Survey and Debt Accountability Module 
• INTOSAI guidance on public debt audits and oversight 
• other internationally recognised PFM and oversight assessment frameworks; 
• relevant standards and guidance produced by IFIs and SAIs; 
• comparative parliamentary practice. 

Most of the relevant indicators and dimensions have been researched already in WFD and NDI publications related to public debt oversight; and the consultant will be able to rely on these, supplementing with additional materials.

Finalise a mapping matrix, identifying cross-references to existing debt-related indicators within the IPU Indicators for Democratic Parliaments, and supplemental indicators, dimensions, criteria and other concepts identified from the review of other assessment methodologies and research. Combined, the mapping matrix will form the basis of the Public Debt Parliamentary Oversight Indicators framework. The mapping matrix (and ultimate framework) should address, among other oversight issues:

• Legal foundations for parliamentary public debt oversight, including quantitative and qualitative controls
• Parliamentary ratification of debt agreements
• Parliament’s role in fiscal risk oversight
• Transparency requirements and procedures
• Access to information from the executive
• External audits and parliament’s relationship with the SAI
• Public participation and civil society engagement
• Oversight of emergency borrowing
• Parliamentary committees and public debt oversight processes and powers
• Relationship with and role of parliamentary budget office and other technical support
• Oversight of domestic borrowing
• Oversight of contingent liabilities and guarantees
• Oversight of financial and debt obligations of state-owned enterprises
• Parliamentary monitoring of debt-related SDG commitments
• Depth of integration of public debt oversight across the entire annual budget cycle

Political economy considerations may be flagged for discussion in text boxes or guidance supplementary to the Public Debt Oversight Indicators framework.

• Phase 3: Develop a proposed organizational structure for the Public Debt Parliamentary Oversight Indicators framework

Following the mapping exercise, the consultant will: 

Develop a proposed organisational structure for the Public Debt Oversight Indicators framework, organised around the principal functions of parliamentary public debt oversight.

Categorize elements identified in the mapping exercise into Indicators → Dimensions → Assessment Criteria. 

Consider preliminary structural options and sample dimensions developed by NDI, as well as existing arrangements in other assessment methodologies such as PDMAT 2.0 and the NDI Debt Disclosed checklist. The proposed framework should draw from but not replicate these materials. 

Provide a rationale for the proposed organizational structure noting, as necessary, cross-references and other relational considerations among the elements, benefits and challenges of the proposed structure and, as appropriate, potential alternative organizational approaches. 

Distinguish between internationally recognised minimum standards that are applicable across parliamentary systems; and emerging or aspirational practices where international consensus has not yet been established. Distinctions between minimum standard criteria and aspirational criteria will need to be clear for end users.

Identify initial comparative practice examples for the various elements, ensuring broad representation of geographic regions, constitutional traditions, and levels of economic development. Identify initial guidance on evidence for each criterion as appropriate.

The proposed structure will be finalized in collaboration with WFD and NDI.

• Phase 4: Drafting the Public Debt Parliamentary Oversight Indicators framework

The consultant will prepare a coherent set of standalone Indicators on Public Debt Oversight.

Each thematic chapter (indicator category) should contain 

• An explanation of the indicator with respect to parliamentary function and importance for effective and accountable public debt oversight (building on existing IPU Indicators for Democratic Parliaments structure and NDI sample dimensions for the Public Debt Indicators framework) ; 
• Definitions of key terms as needed (for compiling into a single glossary);
• Links to key references and resources relevant to each indicator descriptor; 
• Numbered dimensions for each indicator, each with brief explanations (building on existing IPU structure);
• A list of aspiring goals for each dimension (building on existing IPU structure and NDI sample dimensions);
• Numbered assessment criteria for each dimension, each with brief descriptors (building on existing IPU structure and NDI sample dimensions);
• Questions and, as needed, subquestions for each assessment criterion, with delineated answer options (building on NDI’s sample dimension (*Note that this approach diverges from the IPU Indicators structure, which does not involve questions);
• Guidelines for each assessment criterion (or individual question), as appropriate, including evidence requirements and practical comparative examples; 
• Links to relevant resource references and further examples for each criterion (or individual question), as appropriate;
• Space for assessment findings and recommendations;
• User-guidance text, concept descriptions, political economy considerations, tooltips or info-tips that would assist a user to understand and apply the framework to assess their parliament’s public debt oversight performance (to be presented in off-set text boxes or pop-ups in an online platform).

Based on the draft maturity model developed by NDI, the consultant will also:

• Prepare a four-quadrant maturity model or performance categorization table for parliamentary public debt oversight performance, with level descriptors defining what evidence characterises each of the four categories; and 
• Develop classification rules specifying how responses to the assessment criteria questions under each dimension and indicator are synthesized into an overall level placement for the parliament being assessed. 

Due consideration should be given to:

• the relative weight of each indicator or dimension category and each assessment criterion with respect to maturity/performance level; and
• internationally recognised minimum standards applicable across parliamentary systems, and emerging or aspirational practices where international consensus has not yet been established. (see WFD’s analysis of parliaments in Europe conducting post-legislative scrutiny as a point of reference)

The consultant should ensure that the indicators framework is suitable both for parliamentary self-assessments and externally facilitated institutional assessments.

• Phase 5: Review, validation and finalisation

The full set of draft Indicators for Parliamentary Public Debt Oversight will undergo two rounds of review involving WFD, NDI and the IPU Reference Group. The consultant will revise the framework following comments received and prepare a final version suitable for publication through the digital platform supporting the Indicators for Democratic Parliaments.

The consultant will not be responsible for developing the online platform, but will develop a guiding memorandum to assist IPU ICT staff in populating the framework on dedicated pages within the IPU Indicators for Democratic Parliaments online platform.

Companion guidance for IPU ICT staff should include, for example:

• Description of the logical thematic structure; 
• Hyperlinks between related dimensions; 
• Searchable evidence requirements; 
• Glossary of terms; 
• Cross-referencing;
• Indication of which elements of the framework should be collapsable and expandible;
• Clarity as to which information should be pop-up tooltips or info-tools, and where this should be placed;
• Clarity as to any text or URL links that should be offset in text boxes.

4. Cross-cutting methodological considerations

The consultant should ensure that the methodology incorporates the following principles throughout the assignment.

• Political Economy Analysis

Public debt oversight does not take place in an institutional vacuum. The indicator framework should therefore provide a brief text box descriptor recognizing that parliamentary oversight is influenced by wider political and institutional factors including executive dominance, party systems, electoral incentives, fiscal institutions, constitutional arrangements, borrowing practices and relationships between oversight institutions. Rather than assessing these political dynamics directly, the indicators framework should assist users in understanding how they may affect parliamentary oversight and in identifying opportunities for institutional strengthening.

• Evidence-based assessment

Assessment criteria should be accompanied by practical guidance regarding evidence requirements.

Examples of evidence may include legislation; standing orders; committee reports; Hansard records; debt management strategies; annual borrowing plans; audit reports; PBO publications; fiscal risk statements; committee hearings; reports from SAI; CSO submissions; government responses to parliamentary recommendations. 

• Comparative practice

Where appropriate, the indicator framework should include concise examples illustrating good parliamentary practice drawn from different constitutional traditions and regions. Comparative examples should be illustrative rather than prescriptive.

• Accessibility

The indicator framework should be written for parliamentary practitioners rather than academic specialists. Technical terminology should be clearly explained.

The indicators framework should comply with recognised accessibility principles to facilitate future publication through an interactive online platform.

Consideration should be given to accessible document structure; plain language; compatibility with screen readers; printable formats; multilingual publication. 

• Digital publication

The final product will be designed for publication through an interactive web platform within the IPU Indicators for Democratic Parliaments online platform.

Accordingly, the consultant should prepare content that lends itself to digital navigation, including logical thematic structure; hyperlinks between related dimensions; searchable evidence requirements; glossary terms; cross-referencing. 

The consultant should also provide recommendations regarding opportunities for future AI-assisted navigation and evidence-search functionality to improve usability of the online indicators framework. These recommendations should focus on enhancing user experience and should not require the consultant to develop technical AI solutions.

5. Governance arrangements and quality assurance

• The consultancy will be jointly managed by WFD and NDI. The consultant will work closely with designated focal points from WFD and NDI, who will oversee day-to-day implementation of the consultancy.
• Strategic input will be provided through a Reference Group consisting of representatives nominated by WFD, NDI, the Indicators for Democratic Parliaments project, invited parliamentary practitioners, and selected PFM and public debt specialists. The consultant should anticipate approximately four meetings of the Reference Group. The consultant will present key outputs to the Reference Group and revise draft documents in response to agreed comments. Final approval of the indicators framework will be undertaken jointly by WFD, NDI and the Indicators for Democratic Parliaments project team before publication. 
• The consultant should maintain a revision log documenting how comments have been addressed.
• The final indicators should demonstrate consistency of terminology, methodology and assessment criteria throughout.
• Lessons learned from previous country applications of PDMAT should be explicitly considered during drafting. Although user testing with parliaments is not envisaged as part of this consultancy, the consultant should prepare the indicators in a manner that facilitates future piloting and iterative refinement following publication.

6. Intellectual property

The indicators framework produced under this consultancy shall become the joint intellectual property of WFD and NDI and can be used in educational activities by either of them.

The consultant shall acknowledge all source material used during the assignment and ensure that all outputs are original and suitable for publication.

The final indicators framework may subsequently be published through the Indicators for Democratic Parliaments platform and other digital channels as agreed between WFD and NDI.

7. Consultant profile 

*This consultancy is remote. 

Required expertise

The lead consultant (or consultancy team) should demonstrate expertise across parliamentary strengthening, democratic governance and public financial management.

The successful applicant should demonstrate:

• at least ten years of professional experience in parliamentary development; 
• substantial knowledge of oversight of PFM and fiscal transparency; 
• demonstrated expertise in public debt governance; 
• experience working with international organisations; 
• experience drafting assessment methodologies or governance frameworks on public finance and/or public debt; 
• excellent analytical and drafting skills; 
• experience facilitating consultations and expert validation processes. 

Desirable experience includes:

• previous work with parliamentary self-assessment tools; 
• knowledge of the Indicators for Democratic Parliaments; 
• knowledge of Political Economy Analysis; 
• experience with digital knowledge products; 
• understanding of accessibility standards for online publications. 

8. Timeline

• The first deliverable will be provided within one week of signing the contract.
• Deliverables 2 and 3 will be provided within one month of signing the contract.
• Deliverable 4 will be provided within one month of receiving WFD/NDI feedback to deliverables 2 and 3.
• Deliverable 5 and 6 will be provided at a time agreed with WFD/NDI within two months of receiving feedback to deliverable 4.
• The assignment is scheduled to be completed by 28 February 2027.

9. Remuneration structure

Remuneration will be provided in three batches based on the total lump-sum value of the contract, upon invoicing, following submission of deliverables and their acceptance by WFD and NDI as follows:

• Batch 1 payment: upon submission and acceptance of deliverables 1, 2 and 3
• Batch 2 payment: upon submission and acceptance of deliverables 4 and 5
• Batch 3 payment: upon submission and acceptance of deliverable 6.

10. Application

• Applicants should submit a cover letter, CV(s), a technical and financial proposal. 
• The technical proposal should include the proposed methodology and any comments on the ToR, indicative workplan and timeline.
• The financial proposal should include professional fees; daily rate; estimated number of total consultancy days; any anticipated reimbursable costs; inclusive of taxes.
• The indicative budget for this consultancy is expected to be in the range of GBP 10,000 - 14,000, excluding any travel explicitly approved by WFD and NDI.

Shortlisted applicants may be invited to an online interview. WFD and NDI reserve the right not to award the consultancy should no proposal sufficiently meet the required standard.

• Deadline for applications: September 18, 2026
• Applications can be submitted to: Recruitment@wfd.org 

About Us

The National Democratic Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization working to support and strengthen democratic institutions worldwide through citizen participation, openness, and accountability in government.  Help support democracy worldwide by joining our team!