Summary of the Unit
- The most heavily loaded committees are the Committee on Legal Policy (64 opinions provided), the Committee on Social Policy (52 opinions), the Committee on National Security (50 opinions) and the Committee on Law Enforcement (49 opinions).
- The Committee on Social Policy, the Committee on Legal Policy, the Committee on National Security and the Committee on Law Enforcement each had more than two draft laws allocated and opinions provided per MP. In five committees, the workload (number of opinions provided) did not exceed 0.5 per MP.
During the 13th session, the committees of the Verkhovna Rada continued to carry out their work under conditions of a significant increase in the number of registered draft laws compared to the 12th session. The total number of opinions provided increased by 186 (from 292 in the 12th session) to 478 opinions, although this is five fewer than the committees provided during the corresponding 11th session. The greatest workload in terms of the number of opinions provided fell on the Committees on Legal Policy, Social Policy, National Security and Law Enforcement. The uneven distribution of workload between committees — in some cases differing by a factor of 26 — raises the question of redistributing responsibilities.
Information on the deadlines for committees’ opinions is available in the section on the speed of passage of draft laws.
Opinions on Rejection (a Total of 69 Opinions)
| Submitting entity | Number of opinions on rejection of draft laws (share of total opinions on rejection) |
| MPs of Ukraine | 60 (87%) |
| Government | 9 (13%) |
| President | 0 |
Number of Opinions on the Rejection of MP’s Draft Laws by Factions and Groups
During the 13th session, 69 opinions of the main committees on the rejection of draft laws were prepared. Opinions on rejection may indicate both the political loyalty of committees and the level (at least minimal) of quality of draft law preparation. At the same time, as in the 12th session, almost half of the rejected draft laws were alternative ones. Presidential draft laws appear to meet both criteria, as they did not receive any opinions on rejection (though it should be remembered that presidential draft laws were few in number and often related to ratifications and decrees). Governmental draft laws also appear largely unproblematic: only nine of them received opinions on rejection, although it should be noted that this is three times more than in the 11th session, which can be explained by the greater number of governmental draft laws registered compared to the 11th session. The bulk of opinions on rejection were received by draft laws of MPs from the Servant of the People faction, which is logical given the number of MPs in the faction and their legislative activity.
Withdrawn Draft Laws
During the 13th session and for the first time since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, the Verkhovna Rada dismissed the Cabinet of Ministers. The new Prime Minister became Yuliia Svyrydenko, who had previously held the position of First Deputy Prime Minister — Minister of Economy of Ukraine.
The dismissal of the Government undoubtedly affected the lawmaking activity of Parliament. According to the Rules of Procedure of the Verkhovna Rada, a draft law submitted by the Cabinet of Ministers is considered withdrawn if, before its adoption in the first reading as a basis, the powers of the Cabinet of Ministers are terminated. Due to the dismissal of the Government, 353 such draft laws were withdrawn, 59 of which (17%) had been registered during the 13th session. This means that all subsequent governmental draft laws to be considered in the first reading as a basis will be those registered [by the Svyrydenko Government rather than the Shmyhal Government], starting from the 13th session and onwards.
The committees most affected by the withdrawal of governmental draft laws were the Committee on Transport and Infrastructure (76 withdrawn draft laws), the Committee on Finance and the Committee on Legal Policy (36 withdrawn draft laws each). The Committee on Freedom of Speech and the Committee on Rules of Procedure had no registered governmental draft laws at all, and therefore no withdrawn ones.
Committees’ Workload
When reviewing the workload of committees, it should be borne in mind that this monitoring calculates workload primarily on the basis of the number of opinions of the main committees. This method is used due to the availability of data (open data format). Specifically, information on the opinions of the main committees is constantly available on the website of the Verkhovna Rada, is regularly updated and covers all opinions of the main committees. However, committees, of course, perform many other functions and tasks in addition to providing opinions of the main committees. Three committees The Budget Committee, the Committee on Anti-Corruption Policy and the Committee on European Integration. are required to provide mandatory opinions on all draft laws; committees may also be tasked with preparing opinions as auxiliary committees; committees consider and make decisions in the framework of the oversight function; they review letters and appeals and hold conferences and round tables. These limitations should be considered when reviewing the information below, which is based on the opinions of the main committees.
The chart presented shows two indicators. First, it demonstrates the number of opinions provided by the main committees. The second indicator is the number of draft laws allocated to each committee as the main committee, according to the subject matter of the committees. Together, they show the distribution of lawmaking work regarding the preliminary processing of draft laws.
The greatest workload in terms of the number of opinions provided (64 opinions) fell on the Committee on Legal Policy. Four other committees also had a comparatively high workload: the Committee on Social Policy (52 opinions), the Committee on National Security (50 opinions), the Committee on Law Enforcement (49 opinions) and the Committee on Finance. This is a relatively standard distribution for the last seven sessions of martial law (7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th and 13th sessions).
The total number of opinions provided increased by 186 (from 292 in the 12th session) to 478 opinions, although this is five fewer than the number provided in the corresponding 11th session. This reflects the increase in the number of draft laws registered in the 13th session (and consequently, in the opinions on them).
The committees that reduced the number of opinions provided the most (compared to the corresponding 11th session) during the 13th session were: the Committee on Finance (-20 opinions), the Committee on Foreign Policy (-13 opinions) and the Committee on Public Health (-10 opinions).
At the same time, in some committees, the number of opinions provided increased compared to the 11th session. The largest increases (compared to the 11th session) were recorded in the Committee on Legal Policy (+27 opinions) and the Committee on Social Policy (+17 opinions).
The number of draft laws allocated to committees, compared to the 11th session, varied from -8 to +25 allocated draft laws.
The potential workload (number of allocated draft laws) for committees decreased the most (compared to the 11th session) in the Committee on Economic Development (-8 allocated draft laws), the Committee on Humanitarian Policy (-6) and the Committee on Environmental Policy and the Committee on Integration into the EU (-5 each).
The potential workload of committees increased for three committees: the Committee on Law Enforcement (+25 allocated draft laws), the Budget Committee and the Committee on State Organisation (+21 each).
Another dimension of committee workload is shown in the chart above, which indicates how many opinions or registered draft laws fall on one MP-member of a committee Number of MPs at the end of the 12th session; during the 12th session, the number of MPs in committees changed. . Heavy workload (where both the number of allocated draft laws and the number of opinions provided exceed two per MP) was recorded in four committees: the Committee on Social Policy (4.6 draft laws and 5.2 opinions per MP), the Committee on Legal Policy (4.33 draft laws and 3.56 opinions per MP), the Committee on National Security (3.84 draft laws and 2.63 opinions per MP) and the Committee on Law Enforcement (5.45 draft laws and 2.23 opinions per MP). Another three committees had a workload of more than 1.5 opinions per MP: the Committee on Education, the Committee on Economic Development and the Committee on European Integration.
In five committees, the number of opinions provided per MP did not reach 0.5 (in the 11th session, this indicator was below 0.5 in three committees). The smallest number of opinions provided per MP was recorded in the Committee on Rules of Procedure (0.20 opinions per MP), the Committee on Transport and Infrastructure (0.27 opinions per MP) and the Committee on Energy (0.29 opinions per MP).
When comparing the 13th session with the corresponding 11th session, a significant difference in workload can be seen, as the difference in the number of opinions provided per MP ranged from -0.93 to +2.02. The number of allocated draft laws fluctuated slightly less, within a range from -0.67 to +1.6.
The real workload (i.e. the number of opinions provided per MP) decreased the most in the Committee on Foreign Policy (-0.93 opinions per MP) and the Committee on European Integration (-0.63 opinions per MP). The greatest increase in real workload was recorded in the Committee on Social Policy (+2.02 opinions per MP).
The potential workload decreased the most (compared to the 11th session) in the Committee on Freedom of Speech (-0.67 allocated draft laws per MP). By contrast, the potential workload increased the most in the Committee on Social Policy (+1.60 allocated draft laws per MP) and the Committee on Education (+1.45 allocated draft laws per MP).
The trends in the real and potential workload per committee member generally correspond to the data on the workload of committees as a whole.
When comparing the least and most heavily loaded committees, their workload differs by a factor of 26. This situation, which arose during the 13th session, as well as certain trends in committee workload that persist from session to session, highlight the issue of either redistributing MPs or redistributing areas of competence between committees.
Heavy workloads (where the number of opinions provided exceeds three per secretariat staff member The calculation of the number of committee secretariat staff was based on data as of early September 2025. ) were recorded in the Committee on National Security (3.85 opinions per staff member), the Committee on Legal Policy (3.76 opinions per staff member) and the Committee on Law Enforcement (3.06 opinions per staff member). In the 11th session, there were four such committees. For half of the committees, the real workload (number of opinions provided) corresponds to the absolute workload per secretariat staff member.
In three committees, the number of opinions provided did not reach 0.5 per secretariat staff member. These were the Committee on Rules of Procedure (0.13 opinions per staff member), the Committee on Freedom of Speech (0.14) and the Committee on Energy (0.41).
The largest decrease in real workload (number of opinions provided per secretariat staff member) during the 13th session compared to the 11th session was recorded in the Committee on Foreign Policy (-2.21 opinions per staff member) and the Committee on Law Enforcement (-2.12 opinions per staff member). The largest increase in real workload was recorded in the Committee on Legal Policy (+1.71 opinions per secretariat staff member).
When comparing the potential workload (number of draft laws allocated per secretariat staff member) during the 13th session with the 11th session, the largest decreases were recorded in the Committee on Environmental Policy (-1.5 allocated draft laws per staff member) and the Committee on Economic Policy (-1.23 allocated draft laws per staff member). The largest increases in potential workload were recorded in the Committee on Education (+1.39 allocated draft laws per secretariat staff member) and the Committee on Public Health (+0.93 allocated draft laws per staff member).
When reviewing the quantitative indicators of committees’ work, it is important to remember the mandatory opinions of auxiliary committees. The Committee on Ukraine’s Integration into the EU, the Budget Committee and the Committee on Anti-Corruption Policy have a comparatively low workload as main committees, but they are required to provide their mandatory opinions on all other draft laws, which demands significant resources.
For a better understanding of the specific features of the work of VRU committees, the chart below shows the number of committee meetings and how many main committee opinions were provided on average per meeting.
Only one committee held more than 30 meetings during the 13th session — the Committee on National Security (this committee was also the leader in the number of meetings during the 11th session). More than half of the committees held 15 or more meetings. Fewer than 10 meetings were held by only four committees during the 13th session.
The leader in the number of opinions per meeting was the Committee on Legal Policy (3.56 opinions per meeting). Similar figures were recorded by the Committee on Social Policy (3.06 opinions per meeting), the Committee on Finance (three opinions per meeting) and the Committee on Law Enforcement (2.88 opinions per meeting). In total, only these four committees adopted more than two opinions per meeting. Eleven committees (48% of all committees) adopted fewer than one opinion per meeting. For the 12th session, this figure was 15 committees, and for the 11th session, it was 10 committees.
The workload of parliamentary committees can also be viewed through the prism of other functions and documents prepared by these committees.
In the table below, the preliminary opinions on draft laws submitted to the main committee make it possible to see the workload of the three mandatory committees: the Committee on Anti-Corruption Policy, the Budget Committee and the Committee on Ukraine’s Integration into the European Union. These committees are required to provide their opinions This refers to opinions on compliance with the requirements of anti-corruption legislation, budget legislation and obligations in the field of European integration. on all draft laws. This function may sometimes demand more resources than providing opinions as main committees.
According to the data, oversight of the implementation of laws and resolutions was carried out most actively by the Committee on Education, Science and Innovation (27 oversight matters), the Committee on Humanitarian Policy (26 oversight matters) and the Committee on Transport and Infrastructure (25 oversight matters). Taken together with the data on workload from draft law work, these figures show that committees with comparatively less involvement in lawmaking compensate by being more active in exercising their oversight function. Some committees can even be called oversight committees, or at least committees with a priority oversight function. For instance, the Committee on Freedom of Speech provided only one opinion as a main committee, but it is among the most active committees in exercising oversight. There are also situations where committees provide more preliminary opinions to main committees than they prepare opinions as a main committee for draft laws allocated to them, due to the small number of such laws. For example, the Education Committee, as a main committee, prepared 21 opinions but provided almost twice as many preliminary opinions to other committees (39 preliminary opinions). In the Committee on Digital Transformation, the difference between the opinions provided as a main committee and preliminary opinions to other main committees was almost sixfold (nine main committee opinions versus 60 preliminary opinions).
