The Agency for Legislative Initiatives joined a meeting with a delegation of Swedish parliamentarians on 14 May 2024.

A delegation of the Swedish Parliament and Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Sweden to Ukraine, Martin Åberg, met with representatives of Ukrainian civil society to discuss Ukraine’s progress in certain areas of reforms.
In particular, Swedish MPs noted the processes of implementing the parliamentary reform, in which the ALI is actively involved in the development, implementation, and regular monitoring.

We appreciate such feedback on important reforms, as the Embassy of Sweden in Ukraine is an institutional partner of the Agency for Legislative Initiatives, which supports us in strengthening democratic institutions in Ukraine. Improving the quality of the legislative process and the institutional capacity of the parliament as a whole is one of the key areas of the Agency’s work.

So, we once again thank Sweden for its comprehensive support at various levels – our joint efforts create opportunities for Ukraine’s further development and recovery.

Oleksandr Zaslavskyi, Head of Analytics, represented the Agency at the event.

In the last weeks of April, the PASS Ukraine team helped organise a working visit to Canada for MPs from the VRU Committee on Law Enforcement.

The main purpose of the visit was to exchange experience in the field of military justice and law enforcement. In particular, participants visited the Petawawa military base, where they learned about the principles of organisation and functioning of the Canadian Armed Forces and discussed issues related to training the Ukrainian military.

In addition, during a meeting with Bill Blair, Minister of National Defence of Canada, the delegation of Ukrainian MPs discussed the supply of ammunition and investment in the Ukrainian defence industry.

As Halyna Mykhailiuk noted: “It was important for our delegation to have the opportunity to communicate not only with the leadership of the military law enforcement agencies but also directly with the military personnel during the visit to the Petawawa military base.

In addition to the principles of implementing military justice “on-site,” we had the opportunity to discuss the activities of Canadian instructors in training Ukrainian servicepersons as part of Operation UNIFIER.”

During the visit, MPs also worked on strengthening parliamentary diplomacy, in particular at meetings with the Standing Committees on Public Safety and National Security and National Defence of the House of Commons of Canada, members of the Canada-Ukraine Parliamentary Group, and Greg Fergus, Speaker of the House of Commons.

Moreover, Ukrainian MPs attended an event at the Embassy of Ukraine in Canada, where they once again stressed the need to increase military assistance to Ukraine.

Following the visit, Oleksandr Danutsa said: “I would like to note the high professionalism of the PASS team in organising the visit. A lot of quality material was processed, which is necessary for us, as MPs of Ukraine, in our future work on drafting the law on the establishment of the military justice institution in Ukraine.”

The visit was part of the project “Parliament and Accountability of the Security Sector in Ukraine” (PASS Ukraine), which the Agency implements jointly with the Parliamentary Centre (Canada), in cooperation with the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, and with the support of Global Affairs Canada within the framework of the Peace and Stabilization Operations Program (PSOPs).

This winter, we wrote about the heavy fate of the draft Code of Ethics for MPs, which could have become a tool for strengthening the subjectivity of the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) of Ukraine (through the introduction of effective self-regulatory mechanisms) and increasing the level of trust in the single legislative body (by strengthening the requirements for MPs behaviour and introducing effective sanctions and control mechanisms).

At that time, we could only talk about semi-public debates around this Draft Law (No. 8327 “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine Regarding the Rules of Ethical Behaviour of MPs of Ukraine (Code of Ethics)”), as well as the attempts of the Standing Committee to propose its own version with much less potential — in keeping with the tradition of “Ukrainian-style reforms with no real changes”. However, at the end of January, the opinion of the MSED (Main Scientific and Expert Department) was released. Many of the comments made by the experts of the Verkhovna Rada Secretariat somehow echo the arguments against the provisions of Draft Law No. 8327, which the Chairperson of the Standing Committee voiced at various venues throughout the year (meetings of the Working Group on the Reform of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, political meetings of the representatives of factions and groups in the Jean Monnet Dialogues format).

We cannot but take this opportunity to provide comprehensive responses and counter-arguments to the criticisms, which we believe are mostly politically motivated. We will further provide a step-by-step summary of the comments and our responses thereto. The full text of the MSED’s opinion is available here.

Article 10 (Part 2) of the Law “On Lawmaking” defines the forms in which a law is adopted. If to use this classification, then Draft Law No. 8327 falls under the definition of a “law on amendments” (as indicated in the title of Draft Law No. 8327), and not a “code of Ukraine”.

However, the logic behind this Draft Law title is that the development and adoption of a Code of Ethics (or Code of Conduct) for MPs is a specific recommendation of several international organisations (OSCE/ODIHR, Group of States against Corruption (GRECO), Council of Europe, European Parliament’s Assessment Mission). Such a document exists in many countries (including those where codes “are a collection of rules contained within a single instrument and regulating a homogeneous sphere of social relations”, and is called exactly that. The peculiarity of the Ukrainian case is that the implementation of this recommendation (following many rounds of discussions) is possible only through amending a number of existing instruments, and not by adopting one holistic, completely new one. At the same time, it is quite standard and even common practice for Ukrainian legislators to add the following bracketed wording at the end of the standard formula: “on amending certain legislative acts of Ukraine regarding”. For example, a number of currently effective acts contain the clarification — (COVID-2019) — in their titles.

At the same time, the presence of the phrase “Code of Ethics” in the title of the Draft Law is not crucially important, so the Draft Law title can be changed at the stage of its finalisation before the second reading.

This comment would be justified if the current parliamentary law instruments did not already provide for special rules for a committee creation that differ from the general procedure for the committees’ formation. However, Article 33-2 of the Law of Ukraine “On Committees of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine”already contains such rules. The title of the article literally indicates this: “Powers and peculiarities of formation of the membership of a committee of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, scope of which includes the issue of ensuring the control functions of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine over the activities of special purpose bodies with law enforcement functions, special purpose law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies”.

Moreover, the Main Legal Department (MLD) in its opinion on the Draft Law that created Article 33-2 notes that the provisions on the peculiarities of formation of the membership of one of the committees should be set out in Article 6 of this Law, thus confirming the very possibility of introducing special rules for the formation of the membership of a separate committee.

We can also consider a broader context. The parliamentary reform in Ukraine envisages, among other things, the regulation of the status of the opposition. And one of the main issues of regulating the status of the opposition is the distribution of some committees (and/or positions in these committees) between the coalition and the opposition. In other words, parliamentary reform in this regard can only be implemented if rules for the formation of certain committees that differ from the general procedure are established.

Draft Law No. 8327 provides for the establishment of a Committee responsible for monitoring compliance with discipline and standards of deputies’ ethics (hereinafter referred to as the Committee). Indeed, this Committee will be functionally integrated into the general system of committees. This Committee, as well as other committees of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, is subject to the provisions of Articles 1 and 11–14 of the Law of Ukraine “On Committees of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine”, which define the status, tasks and functions of committees, i. e. drafting, organisational and controlling ones. Nothing in Draft Law No. 8327 restricts this Committee from performing legislative work, as well as preparing and preliminary consideration of issues within the VRU’s authority. Both the legislation drafting and control functions of this Committee will be performed in accordance with the scope of its competence. The Draft Law itself does not set out the scope of competence of this Committee. They must be established by adopting a relevant resolution. In other words, the content of Draft Law No. 8327, in the context of the Committee’s establishment, stipulates that the Standing Committee will not deal with issues of deputy ethics, but a separate sectoral committee will be established for this purpose.

It should be added that Article 33-2 (regarding the committee responsible for ensuring the control functions of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine over the activities of special purpose bodies with law enforcement functions, special purpose law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies), despite their existence in the Law of Ukraine “On Committees of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine” for more than three years, have not yet been challenged by anyone in the Constitutional Court. Moreover, these provisions were adopted by the ninth convocation of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, and it is the current Parliament that is responsible for implementing such provisions in Ukrainian legislation.

Finally, the Verkhovna Rada already de facto has at least one committee with a priority controlling function. The Verkhovna Rada Committee on Freedom of Speech is, in fact, a controlling committee. Since the Verkhovna Rada of the ninth convocation started its work in September 2019, until May 2022, not a single draft law has been assigned to the Committee on Freedom of Speech as a main committee. As of February 2024, only 3 (three) draft laws were assigned to this Committee as the main committee. That is, the Committee on Freedom of Speech received its first assigned draft law in the third year of its existence, and in five years, there have been three such draft laws, which is less than 1 per year. Instead, the Committee on Freedom of Speech dealt with issues of censorship, attacks on journalists, false information, etc. In other words, it performed a controlling function.

Currently, the Chairperson of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine already has such powers. Article 33 (Part 5) of the Law of Ukraine “On the Status of the Member of Parliament of Ukraine” provides that the reimbursement of a member of parliament expenses related to his/her performance of parliamentary powers shall be terminated by the order of the Chairperson of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, which is issued based on a decision of the committee responsible for the MPs ethics. Such powers of the Chairperson of the Verkhovna Rada are in line with the powers defined in Article 88 of the Constitution, according to which the Chairperson of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine […] organises the work of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and coordinates the activities of its bodies.

The rules on granting the Chairperson of the VRU such powers (to stop reimbursement of expenses…) were adopted already in the ninth convocation of the Verkhovna Rada. The opinions of the MSED and the Standing Committee on the draft law introducing such provisions do not contain any comments on the unconstitutionality of granting the Chairperson of the VRU the relevant powers. Moreover, the Standing Committee of the ninth convocation not only did not make such comments but also directly called for support for the proposal of the authors of the Draft Law to adopt it as a basis and thus supporting the granting of the power to terminate payments to the MPs to the Chairperson of the VRU.

The introduction of the rules on the relevance of inquiries and appeals to the public interest by Draft Law No. 8327 is due to the frequent use of such tools for the personal benefits of the MPs.

The use of the member of parliament’s mandate in the public interest follows from many provisions of the laws and the Constitution of Ukraine. The text of the member of parliament’s oath of allegiance to Ukraine, as set out in Article 79 of the Constitution, clearly demonstrates the importance of the public interest: “I swear allegiance to Ukraine. I commit myself with all my deeds to protect the sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, to provide for the good of the Motherland and for the welfare of the Ukrainian people. I swear to abide by the Constitution of Ukraine and the laws of Ukraine, to carry out my duties in the interests of all compatriots”. At the level of the law, e. g., Article 1 (Part 1) of the Law of Ukraine “On the Status of the Member of Parliament of Ukraine” stipulates that a member of parliament is a representative of the Ukrainian people.

Concerns about the estimative nature of the public interest, raised by the MSED, are based on the fact that the relevant provisions will be used to punish political opponents. Draft Law No. 8327 provides that this problem should be resolved by the relevant Committee, which is formed on a parity basis, and therefore requires a consensus of the opposition and coalition representatives to establish the absence or presence of public interest in requests or appeals, which turns a value judgement into a consensus opinion. The problems of inconsistency with Articles 15 and 16 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Status of the Member of Parliament of Ukraine” can be resolved by amending these articles at the second reading stage. For example, by supplementing these articles with relevant requirements.

These comments may well be taken into account at the stage of preparing the Draft Law for the second reading. For instance, these provisions could be amended so that the procedure for considering complaints and the procedure for appealing decisions on liability are determined by the Verkhovna Rada or the Chairperson of the Verkhovna Rada. In addition, such provisions could be set out in the Regulation on the Committee’s Secretariat, which is approved by the Chairperson of the Verkhovna Rada.

At the same time, the grounds for abuse and subjectivity in the Committee’s activities should be eliminated by ensuring parity of representation of the opposition and the coalition.

The above-mentioned provisions of Parts 1 and 2 of Article 51 of the Rules of Procedure are essentially declarative or “dead” norms. MPs, both representatives of the coalition and the opposition, constantly bring into the parliamentary chamber objects that are not intended to support legislative activity, often, these are posters, which are explicitly prohibited in Article 51 (as seen in the materials of Unian, LB and Glavkom). MPs also often shout, applaud, stand up, and talk on mobile phones in the parliamentary chamber. Among the recent events, we can mention the events of 10 January 2024, when the Chairperson of the VRU terminated the session early due to shouting and noise in the chamber (as seen in the transcript and video). In general, it is difficult for a regular viewer of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine sessions to imagine the work of the MPs without shouting and applause during the presentation or perception of a speech, although this behaviour is recognised as unacceptable by the current Rules of Procedure. All of these actions have long been part of parliamentary behaviour and do not result in sanctions against violators. Therefore, their exclusion from the Rules of Procedure is unlikely to change the actual behaviour of the MPs.

The rules proposed by Draft Law No. 8327 to replace the existing but ineffective ones, such as non-use of physical force, respect for colleagues, non-use of obscene words, etc., are more general rules that aim to ensure the same goal (maintaining order during the work of the MPs), but in combination with other logically related rules of the Draft Law (in particular, the system of sanctions and the mechanism for bringing violators to justice), they seem to be a much more effective tool.

In other words, the Draft Law replaces the existing but ineffective rules with a new holistic system of rules and mechanisms for their implementation, which, in essence, corresponds to the meaning of the “code” concept, although it is implemented in the form of amendments to a number of acts.

The procedure may contain a detailed appeal procedure, while the Draft Law contains only general rules and principles thereof. As noted above, such a procedure may be approved by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine or the Chairperson of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. In any case, such things may be finalised at the stage of preparing the Draft Law for the second reading.

This MSED’s comment seems to be based on an incorrect interpretation of the provisions of Draft Law No. 8327. The latter actually stipulates that the Committee to be established recommends to the Chairperson of the VRU to make a decision on the responsibility of a member of parliament. The MSED used this interpretation (it is the Chairperson who imposes sanctions) in the third paragraph of its opinion. As for the mechanism of cancellation of the decision of the Chairperson of the VRU by a majority vote of the MPs, such a mechanism is already available in the Rules of Procedure (Part 2 of Article 78): the orders of the Chairperson of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine may be amended or cancelled by a decision of the Verkhovna Rada adopted by a majority vote of the MPs from the constitutional composition of the Verkhovna Rada. Based on the provisions of the Rules of Procedure, the Chairperson of the VRU makes decisions that are formalised in the form of an order. In other words, an order is a way to formalise a decision. In order to avoid further misinterpretations (whose decision may be cancelled by the VRU), the relevant provisions of the Draft Law can be finalised before the second reading.

This quite reasonable MSED’s comment can be considered by amending the Draft Law appropriately when preparing it for the second reading.

An impeccable reputation and high moral qualities are indeed estimative concepts. They should serve as a guideline for the MPs in determining the candidacy of the Committee’s Chairperson and Secretary. It is expected that MPs will independently assess the extent to which the candidates meet these criteria. Morality and ethics are concepts that, by their nature, cannot always be interpreted unambiguously. This applies both to other proposed rules of Draft Law No. 8327 (e. g., what exactly constitutes discriminatory expressions, what does the economical use of property mean, what does respectful treatment mean, etc.) and to the existing provisions of the Constitution and acts of parliamentary law. The above-mentioned member of parliament’s oath of allegiance to Ukraine contains many concepts that are not unambiguous, such as “loyalty to Ukraine”, “good of the Motherland”, “welfare of the Ukrainian people”, and “interests of all compatriots”. Article 8 of the Law of Ukraine, “On the Status of the Member of Parliament of Ukraine”, which currently regulates the issue of parliamentary ethics, also contains concepts that can be interpreted in different ways: “1. In his/her activities, a member of parliament shall adhere to generally recognised rules of morality; always preserve his/her own dignity, respect the honour and dignity of other MPs, officials, and citizens; refrain from actions, statements and deeds that compromise him/herself, voters, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, and the state. 2. It is inadmissible for a member of parliament to use his/her parliamentary mandate contrary to generally recognised rules of morality, human and civil rights and freedoms, and the legitimate interests of society and the state. 3. A member of parliament should not use his/her parliamentary mandate for personal, in particular deceptive, purposes”.

In fact, the law cannot but leave room for interpretation of its provisions depending on the context. Self-assessment of candidates for compliance with the above criteria is at the same time: 1) a manifestation of the Verkhovna Rada’s subjectivity, and 2) a link between MPs and their voters through shared values.

Draft Law No. 8327 stipulates that an authorised person registers a complaint on his/her own behalf, acting as a complainant. This makes the complaint non-anonymous, as the complaint has a specific author and a specific complainant, i. e. the authorised person.

Draft Law No. 8327 stipulates that the complaint submission mechanism should be detailed in the complaint procedure. In particular, this procedure may clearly establish which entity and in what manner must establish the “validity” of the appeal of an employee of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Secretariat in order for the authorised person to register the complaint on his/her behalf and act as the complainant. Again, such a procedure may be approved by the Verkhovna Rada or the Chairperson of the Verkhovna Rada, and the relevant amendments may be made to the Draft Law at the stage of its finalisation.

The logic of introducing the possibility of closed consideration of violations of the rules of conduct is based on the idea that the very fact of filing a complaint and its consideration may damage the reputation of a member of parliament. This mechanism can be used by political opponents for reputational attacks, which is explicitly stated in the OSCE Background Study: Professional and Ethical Standards for Parliamentarians (Section: Safeguards during an investigation). Moreover, there was a consensus on this mechanism among the relevant parliamentary subgroup of the Work Group on the reform of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. Therefore, in some cases (Draft Law No. 8327 generally provides for open meetings), the possibility of closed meetings is proposed to reduce the potential for using the Code of Ethics as a tool for reputational attacks.

Nevertheless, we believe that the mechanism can be improved and detailed at the stage of preparing the Draft Law for the second reading.

This quite reasonable MSED’s comment can be easily considered at the stage of preparing the Draft Law for the second reading. It requires editorial amendments to certain structural elements of the Draft Law, without changing its content, purpose or the relationship between its individual structural elements.

This comment can be easily taken into account at the stage of preparing the Draft Law for the second reading. It requires editorial amendments to the preamble of the Draft Law, without changing its content, purpose or the relationship between its individual structural elements.

In general, the MSED’s comments can be divided into two groups. The first group is conceptual comments (comments Nos. 2.1, 2.2, 3, and 6.3), and the second group is technical and legal comments (all other comments).

Article 102 (Part 2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine gives us a hint as to what the further fate of the Draft Law should be, which states that “Consideration and adoption of a Draft Law under the procedure of three readings includes: 1) the first reading, i.e. discussion of the basic principles, provisions, criteria, and structure of the draft law and its adoption as a basis; 2) the second reading, i. e. article-by-article discussion and adoption of the draft law in the second reading”. In other words, if the basic principles, provisions, criteria, and structure of the draft law are satisfactory, it can be adopted in the first reading and certain article-by-article changes can be finalised by making amendments at the second reading stage. The MSED’s opinion and analysis thereof is an excellent basis for refining the text of the Draft Law and proves that it is possible to adopt Draft Law No. 8327 as a basis, with its further refinement at the stage of preparation for the second reading.

Important conceptual issues highlighted by the CSE O include, in particular, the issue of a new Committee establishment, the mechanism for imposing sanctions for violations of the rules of ethical conduct, and their cancellation. It is important to note that similar mechanisms and instruments already exist in the current legislation. Moreover, they were introduced by the current, ninth convocation of the Verkhovna Rada, and the MSED, the MLD and Standing Committee agreed to the introduction of these amendments or even directly supported them.

All other comments can be finalised at the stage of preparation for the second reading. In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, it is at this stage that draft laws must undergo detailed technical and legal revision, considering amendments and proposals from the MPs. Moreover, the Verkhovna Rada has recently been actively using the mechanism of adopting draft laws as a basis with further refinement under Article 116 (Part 1) of the Rules of Procedure, which provides for consideration of proposals and amendments to correct, clarify, eliminate errors and/or contradictions in the text of the draft law, other structural parts of the draft law and/or other legislative acts that were not considered in the first reading. There are already more than 60 such draft laws approved in the first reading. Each individual amendment that can be finalised at the stage of preparation for the second reading may be excluded from the text of the draft law. However, if all such amendments are excluded, this may unbalance Draft Law No. 8327. Therefore, it is important to find the right balance between finalising certain amendments proposed by the law and excluding those that are fundamentally opposed by key stakeholders.

In any case, the lawmaking process has never been a set of norms and technical and legal rules. It has always been a combination of political will a desire to change the current state of affairs and legal constructs. Draft Law No. 8327 is the result of extensive discussion, consultations, and the work of a work group chaired by a member of the ruling Sluga Narodu (Servant of the People) faction, which included representatives of most factions of the Verkhovna Rada and extra-parliamentary experts. This demonstrates multi-factional political support for the introduction of rules of ethical conduct for MPs. At the same time, the current legislation contains many tools and mechanisms similar to the conceptual instruments proposed by Draft Law No. 8327. Its technical and legal revision can be carried out at the stage of preparation for the second reading. In fact, the analysis of the CSE’s opinion showed that the adoption of this Draft Law is a matter of political will. After all, the introduction of ethical rules of conduct for parliamentarians is primarily the responsibility of Ukrainian MPs.

When the Unified State Register of Tax Returns reopened in early 2024, it was discovered that MPs’ declared income was sometimes half that of the top officials of the Verkhovna Rada’s Secretariat. Thus, dissatisfaction with this situation began to spread in the media as part of society, and MPs considered it unfair. Is this distribution fair? Where did this salary ratio come from? Let’s try to study the issue consistently.

The salaries of MPs and employees of the Secretariat have one thing in common: they consist of a salary and supplements. But this is where the similarity ends, as the salaries of civil servants (employees of the Secretariat) and MPs are calculated differently. It is more appropriate to compare salaries since supplements are often individual (for example, for length of service). 

The Cabinet of Ministers determines the salaries of the Secretariat’s staff by its resolution, which sets out the levels of state bodies, as well as the categories and types of positions for all civil servants. The Secretariat is the highest-level state body and has the highest salary level in the public sector. Quite logically, the Secretariat’s top officials receive almost five times higher salaries (up to UAH 40,100 per month) than its ordinary employees (from UAH 8,700 per month). In other words, top Secretariat officials receive large salaries as managers, and these salaries are higher than those of top officials of other state bodies because they work at the highest level of the state body.

The Cabinet of Ministers does not set the salaries of MPs. According to the law, MPs’ salaries are set by the Verkhovna Rada by adopting a relevant resolution. For example, the salary of an ordinary MP is 10 subsistence minimums (UAH 24,810 per month in 2022), and the salary of the Chair of the Verkhovna Rada is 12 subsistence minimums (UAH 29,772 per month in 2022). The difference between the salaries of an ordinary MP and the Chair of the Verkhovna Rada is only 20%.

Important: We provide data for 2022 because this year was used to compare the salaries of MPs and civil servants, which led to dissatisfaction with this ratio in other files. In 2023 and 2024, the wages of MPs exceeded the 2022 level. Thus, in 2023, the salary of an MP amounted to UAH 26,840, and in 2024, it will be UAH 30,280.

However, in addition to their salaries, MPs receive several other types of compensation: for example, for travel expenses (approximately UAH 90,000 per MP in 2022) or rent (in 2022, an average of 100 MPs received compensation, which amounted to approximately UAH 290,000 per MP per year). Of course, not all MPs receive them. For example, only MPs who do not live in Kyiv are eligible for compensation for rent.

The situation in which independent and professional civil servants receive higher salaries than politicians is not unique to Ukraine. In particular, the EU is interested in attracting professionals to the civil service, so it provides its independent and professional civil servants with high salaries. A comparison of salaries of top civil servants in the EU and members of the European Parliament, or the highest-paid parliamentarians in EU member states (Italy and Germany), shows that civil servants receive twice as much as members of parliament. If we compare the salaries of top officials with the more common salaries of members of national parliaments in EU countries (EUR 2-3K), the difference is tenfold.

Both European experience and common sense show that the logic of setting salaries for both civil servants (including employees of the Verkhovna Rada Secretariat) and MPs should not be based on their mathematical comparison. This logic should be based on ensuring decent salaries proportional to the level of responsibility, which will allow attracting professional and talented people to state management rather than stimulating corrupt practices.

The 2023 SIGMA Public Administration Assessment shows that civil servants’ salaries are not competitive with the private sector, and staff turnover has risen to a critical level during the war. Naturally, the salaries of MPs do not look competitive either against this background. This is undoubtedly a problem, but there is a solution for MPs.

The paradox is that MPs, unlike civil servants, can increase their salaries by simply changing the relevant resolution. This step requires neither the approval of the Cabinet of Ministers nor the signature of the President of Ukraine. This is an issue to be solved exclusively by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. Moreover, this also means that other bodies do not have the authority to increase the salaries of MPs. Neither the President nor the Cabinet of Ministers, the regional council, the public council, or the garage cooperative have the authority to increase their salaries. Only MPs themselves can rectify the situation, which they believe to be unfair. And this is a real problem.

Ukrainian MPs cannot agree on potentially unpopular decisions. No one wants to take on such responsibility in the context of populist discourse. To explain complex and unpopular decisions to voters, one must be sufficiently subjective and demonstrate leadership and responsibility that are uncommon in Ukrainian politics. This applies to many decisions that are important for public administration.

Moreover, the unwillingness to make these decisions actually makes the Parliament dependent on other branches of power. MPs failed to create a separate parliamentary service, so the government sets the salaries of the VRU Secretariat staff. Relatively low wages of MPs create conditions for extra-parliamentary interest groups to convert their informal support of MPs into influence on parliamentary decision-making.

In conclusion, one cannot help but notice the most interesting details. The rules for calculating salaries (and, accordingly, their ratio) of the Secretariat’s staff and MPs have not undergone any significant changes in recent years. If we compare the tax returns of the Secretariat’s staff holding senior positions and MPs, we can see that the ratio of salaries was approximately the same in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. However, for some reason, the problem became more relevant in the public space in early 2024. MPs’ public dissatisfaction with this issue was also revealed only in early 2024. So, maybe it’s time to take responsibility and try to solve the problem: if not for themselves, then at least for the next convocation.

The Secretariat of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine plays a key role in ensuring the work of the Parliament. Financial resources allocated annually from Ukraine’s state budget are needed to maintain its activities. In February 2024, the Secretariat reported on how it spent state funds in 2023. 

In 2023, the state budget amounted to UAH 4,014,418.1 million. From this amount, UAH 2,717.3 million was allocated to the needs of the Verkhovna Rada’s Secretariat. This is only 0.07% of the total budget expenditures.

Let us consider in more detail how the Secretariat of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine used these funds in 2023.

First, UAH 1,208.4 million was allocated to legislative activities (this is 44.47% of the Verkhovna Rada’s expenditures in 2023). Of the spent funds, approximately UAH 770 million was allocated for the remuneration fund (salaries + single social contribution) for 401 MPs and their assistants, about UAH 12 million for the payment of services (except for utility services), and social benefits for MPs (travel, housing rent, expenses, related to the performance of MP powers).

UAH 823.7 million (this makes 30.31% of all expenditures of the VRU in 2023) was spent on the management of the affairs of the VRU’s Secretariat [Needs for implementation of organisational, informational, analytical, and logistical support of the VRU activities]. These expenses were mainly directed at maintaining the employees of the VRU Secretariat (1,063 people according to the staffing list), i.e., 1) approximately UAH 816 million for remuneration (salaries + SSC), 2) UAH 2.6 million for other services (except utilities), and 3) ≈ UAH 51,000 for transborder business trips of two employees of the Secretariat, as well as some other expenses related to the performance of the functional duties of the Secretariat.

UAH 242 million was allocated for the maintenance and servicing of administrative buildings of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine in 2023 (this makes up 8.91% of all expenses of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine in 2023). These funds covered a wide range of expenses, including salaries for administrative building management employees (about UAH 176 million), payment of utilities and energy sources (approximately UAH 57.1 million), services not related to utilities (≈ UAH 9 million), and other social benefits. The total area of ​​administrative buildings is 80,608.3 square metres.

UAH 536,000 was allocated for the current repair of structures and buildings with a total area of 68.7 square metres. Among the repair works, there were such projects as the repair of balconies at 3a Sadova and 4 Shovkovychna Streets (UAH 142.3 thousand), emergency repair of the drainage system and asphalt covering within the territory of the administrative building at 6–8 Bankova Street (UAH 136,000), emergency repair of cold water supply pipeline at 11 Velyka Zhytomyrska Street (UAH 94,500), as well as restoration and arrangement of the well at the “Koncha-Zaspa” recreation centre to provide it with water supply (UAH 163,200).

UAH 157.5 million was allocated for transportation support for the VRU in 2023 (this makes up 5.8% of all expenses of the VRU in 2023). As of late 2023, there were 160 cars on the Carpool register. Early this year, the Carpool had 182 vehicles on its register, of which 24 vehicles were transferred to the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine, but the Carpool received one Volkswagen car and one Agados special trailer. The total run of the fleet was 2,475.1 thousand km, which indicates the intensive use of vehicles. The cost of one hour of car operation is established at UAH 492.4.

The main motor transport expenses included the remuneration and extra charges of the Carpool employees, which amounted to approximately UAH 108 million, the use of goods and services, which cost about UAH 36 million, and other expenses.

UAH 119.6 million was allocated to create audiovisual works for the round-the-clock information marathon, in particular, the United News #UArazom programmes (this makes up 4.4% of the VRU’s expenditures in 2023). This became part of the Rada TV channel’s efforts to integrate into the state’s unified information policy during martial law, which started in 2022 when UAH 107.8 million was spent on the participation of the Rada TV channel in the TV marathon.

In 2023, almost all the allocated funds (UAH 120 million) were used — UAH 119.6 million (the cost of the contract with KinoKit company, which provided services). As part of the TV marathon, the Rada channel was on air for 1,247 hours, while the cost of one hour of airtime amounted to UAH 95,900. For reference, the Rada channel accounts for about 4 hours of 24/7 broadcasting).

However, funding such significant costs may raise questions about the intended use of the money. The main purpose of the budget programme and the Rada channel is to cover the VRU’s activities and inform the public about them. However, the TV marathon’s reporting does not always focus on the Parliament’s work. This may fall under inappropriate use of budget funds and potentially violate the budget legislation. An extremely large volume of content created greatly complicates the audit process. It makes it impossible to establish exactly how many hours of broadcasting were devoted to information about the activities of the Verkhovna Rada. The irony is that expenditures from the budget for content creation by the Rada channel increased by several hundred per cent during the years when the Verkhovna Rada stopped broadcasting its meetings.

UAH 43.5 million was financed for the Verkhovna Rada’s scientific and legal support (1.6% of the Rada’s expenditures in 2023). These are funds for maintaining the VRU’s Research Service (the legal successor to the VRU’s Legislation Institute). Most of these funds, approximately UAH 42.8 million, were used for the salaries of the service employees. The Research Service provided professional and advanced training for 1,325 people, namely MPs of Ukraine, their assistants, advisors, and employees of the VRU Secretariat. In addition, the service prepared 691 information and analytical resources.

UAH 43.1 million was spent on the production and distribution of television programmes covering the activities of the VRU (this makes up 1.59% of all VRU expenditures in 2023). These are expenses for funding the Rada TV channel, which ensures the creation and broadcasting of other informational materials on foreign and domestic policy issues.

UAH 28.4 million (1.05% of the Verkhovna Rada’s expenditures in 2023) was allocated to the financial support of the “Holos Ukrayiny” newspaper. These funds covered various newspaper needs, including printing costs, which amounted to UAH 6.1 million for the production of 262 issues during the year, with a total annual circulation of 7,547,000 pieces.

Also, UAH 23.5 million was spent on the payment of bonuses and scholarships of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (0.86% of all VRU’s expenditures in 2023). Of these, UAH 7.7 million was allocated to scholarships for 48 recipients: young doctors of science. In 2023, the amount of each scholarship was UAH 161,040 per year. UAH 15.8 million was spent on prizes for 94 recipients (50 prizes for young scientists and 44 for teaching staff of preschool, general secondary, vocational (vocational-technical), and out-of-school education institutions).

UAH 13.8 million was allocated to cover expenses for visits of MPs parliament abroad (0.51% of all expenditures of the Verkhovna Rada in 2023). This money funded 123 visits, during which 307 MPs visited other countries as part of business trips.

UAH 7.3 million (0.27% of all expenditures of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine in 2023) was paid as membership fees to international organisations in which the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine acquired membership. There are six such organisations in total: the OSCE, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (PABSEC), Inter-Parliamentary Cooperation (IPC), the Geopolitical 12+ Group within the IPC, the ACP–EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ACEAH). Based on the decision adopted during the 42nd session of the ACEAH Inter-Parliamentary Assembly, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine was granted Observer status in the MA ACEAH.

UAH 3.3 million was spent on maintaining protocol events at the VRU (0.12% of the VRU’s expenditures in 2023). In 2023, 1,096 such events were held in the committees of the VRU, and the average costs for organising one event amounted to approximately UAH 3,000. These expenses are aimed at paying for services provided by the State Commercial Enterprise “Canteen of the Secretariat of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine,” which serves international events held in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.

UAH 2.2 million (0.08% of the VRU’s expenditures in 2023) was spent on holding the PABSEC Sixty-second General Parliamentary Assembly, of which UAH 305.9 thousand was spent on purchasing equipment (4 units) to prepare the assembly. The PABSEC 62nd General Assembly was held in a mixed format and online in connection with the martial law in Ukraine and security issues. This resulted in the savings of UAH 3.1 million since UAH 5.3 million was allocated for the event. As part of this event, it was planned to meet 130 people from 13 member PABSEC countries, but only 38 came (92 people less).

The organisation and holding of official receptions of the Verkhovna Rada cost UAH 0.9 million (0.03% of VRU’s expenditures in 2023). Twenty-three receptions were arranged for delegations of international organisations, foreign parliaments, and guests of the VRU. In total, 304 people visited Ukraine at the VRU’s invitation, and the average cost of receiving one delegation was UAH 37,300.

The legislative impact assessment is a tool that helps analyse and forecast the potential impact of formulated public policies. The introduction of this toolkit will help improve the quality of draft laws being prepared in the Verkhovna Rada. Its main goal is to pay more attention to the possible consequences of adopted laws and conduct a comprehensive analysis of the proposed changes.

On Friday, 23 February, the Agency, together with the Committee on the Organisation of State Power, Local Self-Government, Regional Development and Urban Planning, held a workshop on the principles and practices of legislative impact assessment.

The Agency remains a staunch supporter of the popularisation of the legislative impact assessment tool. That is why it promotes the organisation of educational events and training involving representatives of lawmakers.

The event was part of the project “Parliament and Accountability of the Security Sector in Ukraine” (PASS Ukraine), which the Agency implements jointly with the Parliamentary Centre (Canada), in cooperation with the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, and with the support of Global Affairs Canada within the framework of the Peace and Stabilization Operations Program (PSOPs).

Many countries of the world regulate the ethics of MPs by means of appropriate regulatory acts. So-called codes of ethics or codes of conduct are the most widespread. Their availability has a number of advantages: MPs understand and can objectively assess their own ethical behaviour and the behaviour of their colleagues. In contrast, the parliament has clear tools to influence discipline violators.

According to the Inter-Parliamentary Union Parline, as of January 2024, codes of conduct for MPs are in force in 85 countries worldwide. In the most general form, this document contains a list of ethical rules and standards of behaviour that a member of parliament must follow in their professional activity and sanctions for violating them. In practice, however, the format of this document may vary by country: in some countries, it is a detailed document with a list of rules, areas of their application and sanctions for violations, and in others, it is a summary of the main professional values ​​and norms of conduct. 

Some countries do not have a code of conduct as a separate law or other regulatory act approved by the parliament. Instead, the norms of ethical behaviour can be enshrined in legislation governing parliament’s activities.

Here are some examples of the implementation of codes of conduct in different countries:

• The USA. The code of official conduct for Senate members (the upper house of the US Congress) is part of the regulations. Besides, Senate members may be expelled for disorderly behaviour by two-thirds of the votes in accordance with the Constitution.
• Germany. The code of conduct for members of the unicameral parliament (Bundestag) is an appendix to the regulations.
• Great Britain. The Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Lords (the upper house of Parliament) is outlined in a resolution.
• Malta. The Code of conduct for Members of the House of Representatives (unicameral parliament) is outlined in the form of the law.
• Ireland. The Senate Code of Official Conduct (the upper house of parliament) is outlined in the resolution.
• Lithuania. The Code of Conduct of State Politicians (applies to MPs of the unicameral parliament — the Seimas, the president, members of the European Parliament, representatives of municipal councils and mayors) is outlined as the law.
• Poland. The Rules of Ethical Behaviour for MPs of the Sejm (the lower house of the National Assembly of the Republic of Poland) is outlined as a resolution.
• France. The Code of Conduct for Members of the National Assembly (the lower house of parliament) is a resolution of the Bureau of the National Assembly.
• Georgia. The Code of Conduct for Members of the Unicameral Parliament is outlined as a declaration.

These regulatory acts establish the rules of conduct for MPs both in the meeting halls and outside them. The list of violations established by the ethical codes of different countries may vary, but the following are the most common: improper behaviour, personal insult (in particular, of other high-ranking officials) or slander, prolonged absence from work, and other actions incompatible with the concept of parliamentary dignity.

Violations may be subject to the following sanctions:

• calls to order with entry into the parliamentary protocol, as well as official condemnation;
• deprivation of the right to speak, temporary suspension from participation in meetings;
• demand for a public apology;
• financial sanctions: penalties, salary cuts;
• loss of the mandate.

In practice, punishment for violating parliamentary ethics may be quite severe in some countries. For example, the Republican George Santos was expelled from the US Congress in December. One of the charges, in addition to embezzlement, was unethical behaviour: Santos lied to his voters about his past—career and education — which misled them. Expulsion from the parliament for unethical behaviour is also possible in India. A similar type of sanction also exists in Great Britain and Canada. 

Compliance with ethical conduct may be monitored in different ways. Researchers single out three models existing in the world: 1) setting up an appropriate parliamentary committee that investigates cases of unethical conduct (self-regulation model); 2) setting up an extra-parliamentary judicial or quasi-judicial body that monitors compliance with ethical norms; 3) setting up an independent body accountable to the parliament and providing it with advisory assistance on ethical issues, but sanctions for violations shall be imposed by the parliament.

Although legislative regulation of ethical norms in MPs’ professional activities cannot completely eradicate some of their unethical, unprofessional actions, it makes it possible to hold them to account. In addition, approval of the code of conduct makes the work of the parliament more transparent (since the society has clear criteria for evaluating the ethics of certain actions of MPs) and increases its subjectivity, allowing it, as the main democratic institution, to distance itself from the consequences of scandals for the reputation that can be created by its individual members.

The biggest interrelated problems that the Ukrainian parliament has been suffering from for years include a large number of draft laws and their low quality. Thousands of draft laws (as of 29 January 2024, 6,277 of them were registered during the IX convocation), most initiated by MPs, have been accumulating in the Ukrainian parliament for years, draining the resources of the Verkhovna Rada. After all, the committees and expert analytical subdivisions of the parliament shall consider, work on, and provide conclusions on each draft law.

However, due to such a large number of registered draft laws, MPs suffer, too. After all, they find themselves in a paradoxical situation: on the one hand, they are required to make a decision, and on the other hand, the number of documents required for a balanced and reasoned judgement exceeds human capabilities.

In general, excessive workload reduces the effectiveness of the whole legislative process. Can this be changed?

There are different approaches, such as reforming the requirements for accompanying documents. If the standards regarding compulsory accompanying documents to the draft law are changed, this will force the initiators to work more carefully on draft laws and enable the Verkhovna Rada to issue conclusions faster and with higher quality. There is progress here already: last year, the law “On Law-Making Activity” was adopted, which stipulates the reform of requirements for accompanying documents.

Another version of the changes, prescribed in the Roadmap by the European Parliament’s mission, proposes creating an exhaustive list of 20 priority draft laws that are being processed by the Verkhovna Rada. That is, MPs must choose 20 draft laws, which the Verkhovna Rada will process. Only after the draft law passes through the entire legislative cycle will another one be voted for at its place in the list. This will allow Verkhovna Rada to focus the resources on specific solutions and avoid the pressure created by the incredible backlog of draft laws to be considered.

Another way to address the problem consists in restricting the right of legislative initiative. Currently, every MP can register a draft law, regardless of its relevance and quality. Over time, the number of registered draft laws became a sort of indicator of effectiveness for the MPs. So, restricting the right of an individual legislative initiative looks like a logical solution to the problem. And they have already tried to do it several times.

For example, draft law No. 1311, “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine Regarding the Exercise of the Right to Legislative Initiative,” was registered in 2014, setting this goal. The draft law’s path turned out to be short — it did not even reach a voting phase. However, the conclusion of the Verkhovna Rada Chief Scientific and Expert Department (CSED) is interesting: “The idea of ​​refusing to submit draft laws by any MP of Ukraine deserves support.” According to their proposal, two changes are sufficient: 1) establishing the minimum number of MPs with the right to submit a draft law; 2) the possibility of registering a draft law of an individual MP in the event that such a draft law was developed at the request of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and previously approved by the decision of the specialised committee.

Another idea was prescribed in draft law No. 6640 of 2017, “On Amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. (Regarding the Letter of Support for Draft Laws).” It proposed to introduce two conditions for the continued work on the draft law after its registration: 1) support by a certain number of MPs, equal to the number of MPs of the smallest faction; 2) government support.

Both draft laws proposed a similar mechanism: legislative initiatives are developed only when they have the support of most MPs. It seems logical: if a relatively small number of MPs do not support the draft law registration at the basic stage, then the needed number of votes is unlikely to be found during voting in the session hall. Working on draft laws doomed to failure at the very start is a waste of the limited resources of the Verkhovna Rada and MPs.

Collective legislative initiative is a common practice in many countries, particularly in Europe. As ALI mentioned in the concept of the legislative process, “from the beginning to the end,” “in Spain, this threshold makes 15 MPs for the lower house and 25 senators for the upper house. In Poland, the minimum number of MPs required to submit a draft law is fifteen; in Latvia, five MPs, and in Germany, the signatures of at least 15% of Bundestag MPs are required.” Therefore, it is difficult to equate the introduction of a collective legislative initiative with the moving of the Ukrainian state towards authoritarianism.

Many large-scale reforms are currently set aside until the post-war period because they require amendments to the Constitution. Can restriction on the legislative initiative contradict the Constitution?

Article 93 of the Constitution of Ukraine states that “the right of the legislative initiative in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine belongs to the President of Ukraine, MPs of Ukraine and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.” Certain parliamentarians propose to interpret it literally: this right belongs only to the majority of MPs and not to each one individually. Also, the Constitution does not specifically establish what the “legislative initiative” is. It may be the legislative proposal (this norm also existed in the 1996 Rules of Procedure of the Verkhovna Rada), which requires support letters from a certain number of MPs.

However, some problems may arise with the implementation of these ideas. In fact, MPs already feel limited subjectivity, and even more restrictions on their rights may cause a negative reaction. At the same time, improving the quality and reducing the number of registered draft laws can positively influence their work because both the committees and individual MPs will need to make fewer decisions, which will translate into quality.

“Legislative spam” is deeply rooted in the Ukrainian parliamentary tradition. There is no simple solution to this problem, but a combination of measures can work: restricting the right of legislative initiative, strengthening the requirements concerning accompanying documents, and compiling a list of draft laws. MPs are aware of these issues and options for solving them. However, neither public pressure nor recommendations of the European partners can replace MPs’ work — they bear full responsibility for implementing these amendments.

The unethical behaviour of individual MPs makes the Verkhovna Rada look bad, but it is not because “all MPs are the same” (because it is very easy for them to expose themselves this way if we recall the last parliamentary elections) but because the Verkhovna Rada does not have effective mechanisms to distance itself from the people, which discredits the entire institution. And there’s no need to look far for examples.

The situation surrounding another scandal involving Mariana Bezuhla and her public statements on social networks highlighted the Verkhovna Rada’s inability to respond adequately to the MP’s controversial behaviour. In the course of the plenary session, MPs did not agree on removing her from the position of the deputy head of the Committee on National Security, Defence and Intelligence, which once again proved Verkhovna Rada’s inability to parliamentary self-regulation of unethical and overtly harmful conduct of MPs for a democratic institution. Ms Bezuhla’s statement about her expulsion from the Servant of the People party even sounds like bullying: the party managed to do it, but the parliament didn’t.

Current legislation certainly does not prohibit MPs from discussing and criticising certain processes in society, but Mariana Bezuhla’s behaviour has long gone beyond the limits of what is acceptable. The MP repeatedly used the public space to attack the military leadership, which can be considered a deliberate attempt to destroy the reputation.

However, during the current convocation, Bezuhla was not the only one involved in big scandals. Misunderstandings often occurred because of sexist claims (Vasyl Virastiuk and Oleksandr Dubinskyi), offensive behaviour and even fights.

Such actions harm the image and destroy trust not only in individual MPs but also in the entire current convocation of the Verkhovna Rada and the parliament in general. While in other countries, unethical behaviour may lead to the loss of the mandate, the Ukrainian parliament is still significantly limited in its ability to influence MPs’ actions. The latest survey from the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology shows that trust in Ukraine’s state institutions is steadily decreasing, and the Verkhovna Rada is losing it the fastest. Thus, the share of respondents who trust the Verkhovna Rada dropped from 58% in May 2022 to 21% in October 2023. Standardising the rules of ethical behaviour of MPs in the public space would help address this issue, but the Verkhovna Rada constantly shelves this issue.

At present, the behaviour of MPs is regulated only partially. The Law of Ukraine, “On the Status of  MPs of Ukraine,” and the Rules of Procedure of the Verkhovna Rada contain some rules of ethical conduct during plenary sessions.

For example, according to the rules of procedure, if during a speech, an MP resorts to insulting other MPs, the chair can impose a warning on them or stop the speech. In addition, an MP can be suspended from participating in at most five meetings for making offensive statements towards other parliamentarians. For this purpose, MPs or factions shall submit a respective application to the committee on the rules of procedure.

In 2021, Halyna Tretiakova, an MP from the Servant of the People party, received such punishment for making an offensive statement concerning the death of another MP, Anton Poliakov.

However, these norms are not sufficient and effective enough to prevent unethical acts and public scandals involving MPs outside the session hall. These scandals shake an already weak trust in the Verkhovna Rada and destroy the subjectivity of Ukraine’s most important democratic institution.

In addition, without the adopted Code of Conduct with clear norms, the sanctions concerning “unethical behaviour of MPs” can be applied selectively, which will create a vast scope for manipulation.

For example, the Verkhovna Rada repeatedly denied MP Heo Leros the right to participate in plenary meetings. After he was suspended from the Verkhovna Rada meetings in February 2023, the MP filed a lawsuit against the Verkhovna Rada and won – the decision was declared illegal. In its decision, the Supreme Court noted that, in accordance with the provisions of parts 4 and 5 of Article 51 of the Rules of Procedure of the Verkhovna Rada, the Verkhovna Rada can deprive an MP of the right to participate in plenary sessions if the latter uses offensive words against another MP or a parliamentary faction (an MP group). At the same time, “offensive — if they are considered as such — words about the Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine cannot be the legal basis for depriving an MP of Ukraine (…) of the right to participate in a plenary session of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine for more than half a year (under conditions of martial law in Ukraine).”

In late 2022, a group of MPs from various factions and groups, at the initiative of Viktoriia Podhorna, MP from the Servant of the People party, registered draft law No. 8327, “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine Regarding the Rules of Ethical Behaviour of MPs (Code of  conduct).” It introduces uniform norms of ethical behaviour for MPs and forms a system of monitoring and control over their observation.

The working group on reform of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine has been devising key ideas and provisions embodied in this document for almost 10 years and two convocations. MPs of various convocations and factions, as well as representatives of the expert environment, including the Agency for Legislative Initiatives, were engaged. Therefore, the current version of the draft law was the result of intra-parliamentary consultations (that is, internal inter-party consensus). It was developed in cooperation with civil society and based on international experience and recognised principles: the document contains norms that are successfully applied in many countries.

According to the draft law, MPs will have to observe the norms of ethical behaviour not only inside the building of the Verkhovna Rada but also in professional activities on the whole — in the course of communication with colleagues and other officials, in the media, on social networks, etc. The MP will have to refrain from obscene language, humiliating, offensive or discriminatory statements (oral and written), and any actions that degrade human dignity or a group of people based on race, political, religious beliefs, etc. At the same time, these norms will not affect the behaviour of MPs in private life.

The draft law also stipulates the creation of a separate committee within the Verkhovna Rada, which will be responsible for monitoring and observing the discipline and rules of MP ethics. The committee will consider complaints against MPs who have violated parliamentary ethics, will address issues of their responsibility in case of identified violations, and will report to the parliament based on its powers.

The document offers a wide range of sanctions for violations of ethical norms. If the violation occurs once, the MP will receive a warning from the Ethics Committee; if it occurs twice during the year, the MP will be required to attend a course on compliance with the norms of MP ethics, during which they will be suspended from participating in plenary sessions. Subsequent violations may result in the deprivation of the right to attend not only plenary sessions but also meetings of committees, temporary investigative or special commissions for a period of up to one month, as well as deprivation of payments.

If the current convocation of the Verkhovna Rada had passed this law, it would have received the effective Code of Conduct by now. This would force many MPs to reconsider their behaviour and statements in public space. The parliament would have a clear mechanism to combat the unprofessional behaviour of some of its representatives, which would permit it to distance itself from reputational problems caused by individuals. In addition, the legal possibility of “punishing” the offender will increase the subjectivity of the parliament.

For more than a year, the draft law has stayed on the shelves of the Verkhovna Rada offices without any progress in its legislative path. This is primarily because many new MPs do not understand the importance of the Code of Conduct for the Verkhovna Rada, while some long-time MPs do not want to adjust their behaviour in accordance with the upcoming new rules.

However, Pat Cox, the “Western auditor,” ex-president of the European Parliament and chief facilitator of the Monet Dialogues (MP platform for parliamentary reform approval), has traditionally made this matter relevant all over again. In January, another round of Dialogues took place in Kyiv, during which Mr Cox tried to find a compromise between the initiators of the Code of Conduct and their opposition. The latter, represented by the chair of the regulatory committee, Serhii Kalchenko, proposed her own version of the code with her own rules and principles of conduct. But still, this alternative, as it often happens in Ukrainian law-making practice, creates only a visible solution to the problem.

The committee’s version of the draft law has not yet acquired the form of a registered draft law. However, the document has already been distributed among some MPs involved in this issue. MPs who received the text note that it stipulates only minimal changes to the current legislation. Provisions contained in it contradict world practice and do not establish effective mechanisms for monitoring compliance with parliamentary code of conduct (MP ethics).

This is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of problems concealed in the committee’s proposals. A closer look at the document reveals a number of other drawbacks:

1. If this draft law is adopted, it will become effective only for the “successors” — the X convocation. The current convocation will not receive the Code of Conduct. On the one hand, setting rules you are not going to follow yourself is not a good scenario, and on the other hand, unethical behaviour will remain the “norm” for some current MPs. According to the logic of international standards, the parliament adopting the code shall demonstrate leadership and serve as a role model in its implementation.
2. The principles and the norms of MP behaviour correlate with the norms of the current legislation or even duplicate them; they are not harmonised with international standards.
3. They propose to limit the rules of ethical behaviour exclusively to the parliament, although relevant norms are already prescribed in the rules of procedure. This is a narrow interpretation of the rules of ethics for MPs, and it does not change the existing situation.
4. The body responsible for controlling MPs’ discipline and ethics will be set up according to the general quota, i.e., without observing the principle of parity (50% of coalition representatives and 50% of the opposition) or gender parity.
5. There are no mechanisms for contesting the committee’s decisions regarding MPs or the possibility to arrange training for them and provide recommendations as to their behaviour. The committee is not obliged to report on its work. Such changes will mean removing the specialised committee from the process of setting up the institute of responsibility of Ukrainian MPs.

Thus, the Committee on the Rules of Procedure completely reworded the text, having excluded the provisions on which parliamentarians and the expert environment had reached a compromise before. While the main draft law is close to the standards and norms adopted globally, alternative proposals of the committee, in case of their adoption, will nullify the very idea of ​​creating the Code of Conduct for MPs and will distance the legislation of Ukraine in this area from generally accepted standards.

Adopting the version of the Code of  Conduct for MPs developed by the Working Group on the Reform of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine is an important and necessary step for the institutional development of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. This document complies with international practice and introduces effective control mechanisms over MPs’ ethical behaviour. The very fact of its adoption will show that the parliament is guided by global values ​​and practices in its work and relies upon a culture of dignity and integrity before society. Adoption of this law will introduce distinct criteria for assessing an MP’s ethical behaviour, and the unethical behaviour of some MPs will not undermine the subjectivity of the Verkhovna Rada.

The legislative impact assessment is a tool that helps analyse and forecast the potential impact of formulated public policies. Sustained use of this tool and its popularisation allows the Agency to promote its implementation in the work of the parliament.

On 31 January, the Committee on the Organisation of State Power, Local Self-Government, Regional Development and Urban Planning held a workshop on the principles and practices of legislative impact assessment.

The workshop encompassed draft laws aimed at regional development and local self-government. Rick Stewart, Senior Advisor to our project, former Assistant Deputy Minister of the Government of Canada, and now a professor of legislative and regulatory impact assessment, joined the event. Rick Stewart assisted representatives of the committee in reviewing practical cases of legislative impact assessment.

The event was part of the project “Parliament and Accountability of the Security Sector in Ukraine” (PASS Ukraine), which the Agency implements jointly with the Parliamentary Centre (Canada), in cooperation with the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, and with the support of Global Affairs Canada within the framework of the Peace and Stabilization Operations Program (PSOPs).