Leading indicators of the work of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine during the 12th session of the 9th convocation:

436 draft laws registered. Of which:

1. 4 (0.9%) European integration draft laws;
2. 12 (3%) draft laws on the consent or denunciation of international treaties;
3. 3 (0.7%) urgent draft laws.

108 draft laws were adopted in their entirety. Of which:

1. 12 (11.1%) European integration draft laws;
2. 14 (13%) laws on ratification of international treaties;
3. 3 (2.8%) laws were identified by the President as urgent.

33 laws were adopted in their entirety after the first reading (31%), and 75 laws were adopted after the second reading (69%).

Monitoring of the work of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine during the 12th session of the 9th convocation revealed three key trends: 1) the development of the military agenda and its saturation to the pre-war level; 2) a lower level of legislative activity amid the contradictory dynamics of legislative spam; 3) increased violations of the legislative procedure.

The 9th Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine has been working under martial law for more time (over 3 years) than under normal conditions. In 2022, the Verkhovna Rada suspended almost all the draft laws prepared before the introduction of martial law and focused on adapting legislation to the conditions of martial law and the realities of a full-scale war. Later, in the second half of 2022 and 2023, the Verkhovna Rada partially returned to the draft laws registered before 24 February 2022. However, there were fewer and fewer such draft laws over time, and now the Parliament is increasingly focused on the new agenda. In particular, only five of the 108 laws adopted during the 12th session were registered before 24 February 2022. 

During the six sessions of the martial law parliament, so many draft laws of the martial law agenda were pending that the speed of their consideration reached (and sometimes even exceeded) the level of 2021. Now, the 9th Ukrainian parliament is considering them for the longest time [on average]: an average of 335 days pass from registration to adoption of a draft law in the second reading and in its entirety.

A similar situation has developed with the time spent on consideration of draft laws in the session hall. The format of considering draft laws in the session hall in the 10th, 11th, and 12th sessions is increasingly reminiscent of the times before the full-scale invasion: there are more discussions, and they are longer. The likely reasons for this are:

1. a decrease in the number of draft laws with consensus support;
2. a gradual easing of existing information restrictions on the coverage of the Parliament’s work, which encourages MPs to speak more;
3. a gradual increase in the perceived level of security in the Parliament building.

The 12th session of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine showed a relatively low number of registered draft laws (436). It means that each MP registered just over 1 draft law on average. The lower level of legislative activity is not a bad thing: it is better to register and pass a few high-quality laws than to waste energy on hundreds of empty and unpromising initiatives. Let’s hope that parliamentarians are moving in this direction. There are even some reasons for this. High-quality draft laws are usually the result of the collective work of MPs, not individual lawmaking. During the 12th session, the share of draft laws with 8–22 signatories increased, equalling the share with one initiator. 

Not everything looks good, as there are signs that the practice of legislative spamming, which involves registering many unpromising draft laws, is still prevalent. The legislative activity of MPs from the Restoration of Ukraine group has several signs of legislative spam: (1) on average, one MP of this group registered almost five draft laws in the 12th session, while the figures of MPs of other factions and groups do not even reach the level of 1 draft law per 1 MP; (2) the share of draft laws registered by MPs of this group reaches 20.4% of all registered draft laws, which is higher than the share of government draft laws (15.8%), despite this (3) not a single draft law initiated by MPs of the Restoration of Ukraine group was adopted during the 12th session.

The level of violations of the legislative procedure increased during the 12th session. Two-thirds (66%) of the laws had violations of the procedures established by the Rules of Procedure during the 12th session. An increase in violations occurred in the second reading, which has not been observed since the 8th session.

The number of violations of the Constitution of Ukraine during the 12th session remained high. 44% of draft laws adopted during the 12th session were signed by the President of Ukraine with a violation of the 15-day deadline or were not signed at all. Perhaps the only positive thing is that the number of constitutional violations did not increase compared to the 11th session. Since 2022, the percentage of draft laws that violated the 15-day signing deadline has been steadily increasing. The 12th session broke this trend, stabilising the figure at 44%. 

This monitoring report of the activity of the 12th session of the 9th Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine consists of a summary, five units and annexes. *To get acquainted with each unit, please follow the links below:

1. lawmaking activity: the total number of registered draft laws and laws, their breakdown by initiators and groups of signatories;
2. passage of draft laws: breakdown of laws by readings of adoption, deadlines for submitting opinions of the main committees, timeframe from registration to adoption of the law, including by readings and initiators;
3. plenary time: total time spent on consideration of draft laws in the VRU, distribution of time for consideration of draft laws according to the initiator, and the time required for consideration of the draft law in the session hall;
4. committees: total number and breakdown by initiators of opinions on dismissal, number of committee meetings and their workload in accordance with the number of registered draft laws and submitted opinions on draft laws, including the workload per committee member and secretariat staff member;
5. violations of the Rules of Procedure: the number of violations of the Rules of Procedure in relation to draft laws and proposals of the President of Ukraine.

Annexes contain lists of five draft laws included in the ranking, which is based on various quantitative indicators (e.g., days from registration to adoption).

1. The number of violations of the Rules of Procedure during the adoption of laws remained high in the 12th session, with approximately 66% of laws adopted containing violations.
2. The share of violations in the second reading of draft laws increased by 7–8% compared to the 11th session.
3. The total share of violations of the constitutional deadline (15 days) for the President to sign laws in the 12th session was 44%. For 38 laws, the deadline for signing (or submitting proposals) was violated, and 9 laws were neither signed nor vetoed.

The volume of legislative procedure violations during the 12th session remained high, with two-thirds of the draft laws adopted containing violations. An increase in violations occurred in the second reading, which has not been observed since the 8th session. The only positive aspect is that, for the first time since 2022, the 12th session did not increase the number of violations of the constitutional deadline (15 days) for the President to sign laws 

The 12th session showed a partial decrease in violations in some categories. However, the deadlines for submitting the committee’s opinions for the first reading were increasingly violated. The procedures for consideration of about 66% (two-thirds) of the laws were violated during the 12th session. 

During the 12th session, the frequency of Rules of Procedure violations varies depending on the first or second reading. For the first reading, the share of violations decreased compared to the 10th and 11th sessions, when considering the timing of the MSED’s opinions. As for the other two violations of the first reading procedure, there were no significant changes, and the violations remained at the level of the 11th session. 

For all three violations monitored for the second reading, the share of Rules of Procedure violations increased (by 7–8% compared to the 11th session). The volume of violations for both the first and second readings is still significantly (sometimes twice) higher than the volume of violations before 24 February 2022. The increase in the share of violations is a negative trend that has not been observed since almost the 8th session.

The diagrams and table show what percentage of draft laws were adopted with certain violations of the Rules of Procedure by session.

*Unlike the previous materials, this monitoring presents data on violations regarding vetoed and non-vetoed draft laws in one table.

*The VRU Rules of Procedure do not explicitly require that the MSED’s opinion be mandatory. Along with Article 103(4), which states that no comments are made if no opinions are issued within 14 days, there are also provisions on the need for the MSED’s opinions:

1. Article 112 establishes that supporting documents to a draft law shall be provided to MPs no later than seven days before the day of draft law consideration at the plenary session of the Verkhovna Rada.
2. Article 99(2)(3) establishes that expert opinions on a draft law are part of the supporting documents.

Thus, it can be concluded that the VRU Rules of Procedure are imperfect and contain contradictory provisions. For example, the MSED can provide an opinion after the 14-day deadline (due to its workload), and in this case, it is unclear what the main committee should do – consider that there are no comments or take them into account.

**No MLD’s opinion on the draft state budget, but this was not considered a violation due to the established practice of not having MLD’s opinion on budgets for different years.

In addition to the usual violations of the Rules of Procedure, the monitoring included violations of the Constitution, specifically the 15-day deadline for the President to sign adopted laws (Article 94 of the Constitution). 108 laws adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine during the 12th session were monitored. The deadline for signing (or submitting proposals) was violated in respect of 38 laws, i.e., in 35% of cases. In addition, another nine laws were neither signed by the President, vetoed, nor received proposals (although the deadline for their signature had already passed). If we combine all these violations, they amount to almost 44% of all laws passed during the 12th session, which is almost the same as the value in the 11th session, when it was 45%. Thus, almost half of all laws passed during the 12th session violated the deadlines stipulated by the Ukrainian ConstitutionThe deadline for the President’s signature was also violated regarding the repeatedly vetoed draft law No. 11150 of 4 April 2024, which was not included in the monitoring report due to its adoption and first veto during the 11th session..

Of course, it does not matter whether the deadline was violated by two days or a hundred and two days – it is a breach in both cases. If we look at the record-breakers in this regard, the signing period of 77 days was record-breaking. 

Since the introduction of martial law, the trend towards an increase in the share of constitutional procedure violations has been growing. During the first six months of martial law, 16.4% of laws violated constitutional procedures. The next 8th session demonstrated stabilisation of the work of the Verkhovna Rada and executive bodies, but the share of laws in which the President violated the constitutional deadline increased to 22.4%. This figure was already 36% during the 9th session. It rose to 42% in the course of the 10th session. During the 11th session, this figure reached 45%. This figure is 44% in the 12th session. Of course, a minimal decrease in the number of such cases is better than an increase. However, it is too early to discuss any significant changes in the existing trend of constitutional procedure violations. The volume of violations during the 12th session remains quite high, higher than during the first six months of martial law. These violations cannot be explained by regulatory and procedural shortcomingsAccording to the Constitution of Ukraine, the President has 15 days to sign the law and officially promulgate it or return it with their reasoned and formulated proposals to the Parliament. The government arranges for the expert examination of the law submitted to the President for signature, per the president’s decision. According to the CMU Regulations, the government has a maximum of 7 days to submit its proposals for the President to sign the law or substantiated and reasoned proposals on the expediency of the President’s veto. The time required to prepare generalised comments and proposals depends on the scope and complexity of the law, as well as other factors such as the day of the week and time of receipt of a copy of the law, the number of ministries involved in the expert examination, differences in their positions on the adopted law, internal bureaucratic procedures in the ministries, technical reasons, etc. Any combination of these factors could delay the submission of the government’s proposals for the law and, consequently, the President’s decision to sign the law or return it to parliament., as the relevant norms have not been changed.

During the 12th session, the President vetoed and submitted proposals for five draft laws on time (without violating the 15-day deadline). The Verkhovna Rada has so far considered only one (No. 11150 of 4 April 2024), which was re-adopted with the President’s proposals.

Four of the five vetoed draft laws were initiated by representatives of the Servant of the People faction, and one was initiated by the Cabinet of Ministers, so it seems that in these cases, the positions of the initiators and the President were not agreed upon or the draft laws were technically flawed.

1. The busiest committees are the Committee on Legal Policy (44 opinionsThe opinions provided by this committee as the main one. submitted), the Committee on Law Enforcement (36 opinionsThe opinions provided by this committee as the main one.) and the Committee on National Security (35 opinionsThe opinions provided by this committee as the main one.).
2. The Committee on Social Policy and the Committee on Legal Policy each have more than two draft laws and opinionsThe opinions provided by this committee as the main one. per MP. The workload (the number of opinionsThe opinions provided by this committee as the main one. provided) does not exceed 0.5 per MP in 9 committees.
3. The Committee on National Security was the leader in terms of the number of meetings (as in the 10th session), with 30 meetings; it was the only committee that held more than 20 meetings in the 12th session.

During the 12th session, the Verkhovna Rada committees continued to work despite a gradual decrease in the number of registered draft laws. The total number of opinions provided decreased (from 305 in the 10th session to 292 in the 12th). The Committees on Legal Policy, Law Enforcement, and National Security had the largest workload in terms of the number of opinions provided. Despite the relatively low workload in the legislative process, some committees were actively involved in the oversight function. The uneven workload distribution between the committees, which sometimes differs by a factor of 22, raises the issue of redistribution of responsibilities or the composition of MPs and secretariat staff in the committees.

Information on the time frame for submitting committee opinions is available in the section on the speed of passage of draft laws.

When considering the workload on the committees, it should be borne in mind that this monitoring calculates the workload primarily based on the number of opinions from the main committees. These methods are used due to the availability of data (open data format). Specifically, the Verkhovna Rada website constantly provides information on the opinions of the main committees, which are regularly updated and cover all opinions of the main committees. However, the committees perform many other functions and tasks in addition to providing opinions of the main committees. Three committeesBudget Committee, Committee on Anti-Corruption Policy and Committee on EU Integration. are required to provide mandatory opinions on all draft laws; committees may be tasked with preparing opinions as auxiliary committees; committees consider and take decisions on the oversight function; they consider letters and appeals; hold conferences, round tables, etc. These limitations should be considered when reviewing the information below, which is based on the opinions of the main committees.

This diagram has two indicators. First, it shows the number of opinionsThe number of opinions does not equal the number of draft laws considered. The Committee can provide several opinions on one draft law, e.g., an opinion on its inclusion in the agenda, opinions for the first and second readings, for repeated readings, on the text of the draft law to be submitted as a substitute, etc. provided by the main committees. The second indicator is the number of draft laws assigned to each committee as the main committee in accordance with the subject of the committees’ jurisdiction. Together, they show the distribution of legislative work on the preliminary processing of draft laws.

The Committee on Legal Policy has the highest workload in terms of the number of opinions provided (44 opinions) and the highest potential workload in terms of the largest number of draft laws assigned (72 draft laws). The Committee on Law Enforcement ranks second, with 36 opinions and a potential workload of 68 draft laws. These two committees are consistently among the busiest in terms of legislative work. Three other committees also have a high workload (compared to other committees): the Committee on National Security (35 opinions), the Committee on Finance (24 opinions), and the Committee on Social Policy (20 opinions). This is a relatively standard distribution for the last six sessions of martial law (the 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th sessions).

The total number of opinions submitted decreased by 13 (from 305 in the 10th session to 292 in the 12th session). This reflects the general trend of a decrease in the number of registered draft laws (and, consequently, opinions on them).

The following committees reduced the number of opinions provided during the 12th session the most (compared to the same autumn 10th session): the Committee on Finance (-30 submitted opinions), the Committee on the Organisation of State Power (-21 submitted opinions) and the Committee on Education and Science (-14 submitted opinions). 

At the same time, the number of opinions provided by some committees increased compared to the 10th session. The largest increase in the number of opinions provided (compared to the 10th session) was in the Committee on Legal Policy (+19 opinions), the Committee on Law Enforcement (+13 opinions), and the Committee on National Security (+12 opinions).

Compared to the 10th session, the volume of draft laws assigned to committees changed in the range from -25 to +30 assigned draft laws. 

The potential workload (number of assigned draft laws) of the committees during the 12th session decreased the most (compared to the 10th session) for the Committee on Finance (-25 assigned draft laws) and the Committee on Budget (-15 assigned draft laws). For the Committee on Finance, these data correlate with and explain the decrease in the number of opinions provided, while the Committee on Budget increased the number of opinions provided by 1, despite the decrease in the number of registered draft laws by 15. This can be explained by the processing of draft laws registered during previous sessions.

The potential workload of the committees increased for the following three committees: the Committee on Legal Policy (+30 assigned draft laws), the Committee on Social Policy (+18 assigned draft laws) and the Committee on Humanitarian Policy (+15 assigned draft laws).

The above diagram, which shows the number of opinions or registered draft laws per MP – committee memberThe number of MPs in the committees changed at the end of the 12th session and during the 12th session. – also measures the workload on the committees. Two committees have a heavy workload (the number of both draft laws assigned and opinions submitted exceeds 2 per MP), namely the Committee on Social Policy (4.1 draft laws per MP and 2 opinions per MP) and the Committee on Legal Policy (4 draft laws and 2.44 opinions per MP). Three other committees have a workload of more than 1.5 opinions per MP. These are the Committee on Law Enforcement, the Committee on National Security and the Committee on Digital Transformation. For most committees, the absolute workload (the number of opinions provided) correlates with the workload per MP committee member.

The number of opinions provided per MP did not reach 0.5 in nine committees (and this value did not reach 0.5 in nine committees in the 10th session either). The lowest number of opinions per MP is in the Committee on the Organisation of State Power (0.11 opinions per MP), the Committee on Anti-Corruption Policy (0.18 opinions per MP) and the Committee on the Rules of Procedure (0.2 opinions per MP). 

The 12th session and the similar 10th session have no significant difference in workload, as the difference in the number of opinions provided per MP ranges from -1.27 to +1.13. The number of assigned draft laws fluctuated a little more, ranging from -1.10 to +2.

The actual workload (i.e., the number of opinions provided per MP) decreased the most for the Committee on Education (-1.27 opinions provided per MP) and the Committee on Anti-Corruption Policy (-1 opinion provided per MP). The Committee on Legal Policy saw the largest increase in its actual workload (+1.13 opinions per MP).

The potential workload decreased the most (compared to the 10th session) in the Committee on the Rules of Procedure (-1.10 assigned draft laws per MP). On the other hand, the potential workload of the Committee on Social Policy increased the most (+2.01 assigned draft laws per MP) and the Committee on Legal Policy (+1.79 assigned draft laws per MP).

The trends in the actual and potential workload per committee member are generally consistent with the data on committee workloads. 

If we compare the least and most busy committees, their workload differs by a factor of 22. This situation in the 12th session, as well as certain trends in the workload of committees that shift from session to session, make the issue of redistributing either MPs or areas of jurisdiction among committees relevant. 

The Committee on Law Enforcement (3.27 opinions per employee) and the Committee on National Security (3.18 opinions per employee) have a heavy workloadData as of the beginning of February 2025 were used to calculate the number of committee secretariat staff members. (the number of opinions provided exceeds 3 per employee). There was only one such committee in the 10th session. In most committees, the absolute workload (number of opinions provided) correlates with the workload per secretariat staff member. 

The number of opinions provided does not reach 0.5 (opinions) per secretariat staff member in three committees. These are the Committee on the Rules of Procedure (0.15 opinions per employee), the Committee on the Organisation of State Power (0.15 opinions per employee) and the Committee on Anti-Corruption PolicyAlong with its workload as the main committee, the Committee on Anti-Corruption is one of the three “mandatory committees” and, therefore, has a heavy workload in this regard. (0.25 opinions per employee). 

The biggest decrease in the actual workload (number of opinions provided per secretariat staff member) during the 12th session (compared to the 10th session) was in the Committee on Education (-1.82 opinions provided per secretariat staff member) and the Committee on Finance (-1.59 opinions provided per secretariat staff member). The Committee on Law Enforcement (+1.36 opinions per 1 secretariat staff member) and the Committee on Legal Policy (+1.2 opinions per secretariat staff member) saw the largest increase in the actual workload.

When comparing the potential workload (number of assigned draft laws per secretariat staff member) during the 12th and the 10th sessions, the Committee on Foreign Policy showed the strongest decrease in the potential workload (-1.5 draft laws per secretariat staff member). The Committee on Legal Policy (+1.9 assigned draft laws per secretariat staff member) and the Committee on Social Policy (+1.58 assigned draft laws per 1 secretariat staff member) saw the largest increase in the potential workload.

When considering quantitative indicators of the committees’ work, it is worth remembering the mandatory opinions of the auxiliary committees. The Committee on Ukraine’s Integration into the EU, the Budget Committee, and the Committee on Anti-Corruption Policy have relatively low workloads compared to the main committees, but they are required to provide their mandatory opinions on all other draft laws, which requires significant resources.

The diagram below shows the number of committee meetings and the average number of opinions of the main committees per meeting, helping you better understand the specifics of the VRU committees’ work.

Only one committee held more than 20 meetings in the 12th session, namely the Committee on National Security (this committee was also the leader in terms of the number of meetings in the 10th session). In addition, five other committees held 15 or more meetings. Seven committees held less than 10 meetings in the course of the 12th session. All indicators are almost the same as in the previous winter session. 

The Committee on Legal Policy is the leader in terms of the number of opinions per meeting (3.38 opinions per meeting). The Finance Committee also has close indicators – 3 conclusions per 1 meeting. Overall, only these two committees adopted more than two opinions per meeting. Fifteen committees (65% of all committees) adopted less than one opinion per meeting, compared to 10 for the 11th session and 11 for the 10th session. 

The workload of the parliamentary committees can also be viewed through the prism of other functions and documents prepared by these committees.

The table below shows preliminary opinions on draft laws for the main committee, which allow us to see, inter alia, the workload of three mandatory committees: the Committee on Anti-Corruption Policy, the Committee on Budget, and the Committee on Ukraine’s Integration into the European Union. It is these committees that are required to provide their opinionsWe are discussing opinions on compliance with the requirements of anti-corruption legislation, budget legislation, and obligations related to European integration. on all draft laws. This function may sometimes require more resources than their opinions as the main committees. 

According to the data, the Committee on Humanitarian Policy (18 issues under control), the Committee on Law Enforcement (17 issues under control) and the Committee on Freedom of Speech (17 issues under control) are the most active in monitoring the implementation of laws and resolutions. Together with the data on the workload of the legislative process, these data show that the committees compensate for the relatively lower workload by more actively exercising their oversight function. Some of the committees can be called oversight committees, or at least committees with a priority oversight function. For example, the Committee on Freedom of Speech issued only 3 opinions as the main committee (even this is a high figure compared to other sessions), but it is one of the most active committees in terms of exercising its oversight function. It is worth noting the high workload of the Committees on Legal Policy and National Security, which have one of the highest indicators of the workload per MP and also have one of the highest oversight workloads. 

37 opinions of the main committees on rejecting draft laws were prepared during the 12th session. Opinions on dismissal may indicate both the political loyalty of committees and the level (at least minimal) of quality of draft laws prepared. At the same time, almost half of the rejected draft laws are alternative ones (the share of rejected alternative draft laws was two-thirds in the 11th session). Presidential draft laws seem to meet both criteria, as they do not have any opinions on dismissal (however, it should be remembered that there were few presidential draft laws, and these are often ratifications and decrees). Governmental draft laws appear to be mostly problem-free; only six have received an opinion on dismissal. However, it is worth noting that this is twice as many as in the 11th session when more draft laws were registered. Draft laws submitted by members of the Servant of the People faction received the most opinions on dismissal, which is logical given the number of MPs and their legislative activity. 

1. During the 12th session, 65 hours were spent considering draft laws in the session hall, the highest number for autumn sessions since the beginning of the full-scale invasion.
2. 92% of the plenary time in the 12th session was spent on consideration of draft laws initiated by the Servant of the People faction, the government and the President. This share remains consistently high (over 90%) throughout the 9th convocation, with a record high of 98.5% during the 10th session.
3. Draft laws with both readings in the 12th session were considered for an average of 77 minutes. The time for consideration of such draft laws continued to increase during the 12th session, while the 12th session exceeded the time before the full-scale invasion in terms of the median time (28 minutes).

Starting from the 10th session, the number of discussions of draft laws in the session hall has been increasing, and they have been lasting longer. Now, the indicators are increasingly reminiscent of the times before the full-scale invasion. There are three main reasons for this: (1) a decrease in the number of draft laws with consensus support, (2) a gradual easing of information restrictions on the coverage of the Verkhovna Rada’s work, and (3) a gradual increase in the perception of security in the Parliament building.

Only data related to the time spent considering draft laws were used to calculate the plenary time indicators. The time for registration, the announcement of inquiries, “government hour”, resolutions, etc., were not included. 

MPs spent more than 65 hours of plenary time considering draft laws during the 12th session. This is much more than in the 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th sessions. Therefore, the total amount of plenary time is gradually returning to the normal regime.

The amount of plenary time spent began to gradually increase starting from the 9th session. Thus, MPs spent 51 hours of plenary time considering draft laws during the 9th session, almost as much as they did during the 7th session (the first six months of the war). The 10th session saw an increase in plenary time (60 hours), 31 hours more than the previous autumn 8th session. In general, it is interesting that during the 10th session (the autumn session, which lasts shorter than the spring one), there was more plenary time than during the 9th session. The 11th session lasted 76 hours, which is 1.5 times more than the 9th session. The time spent on the consideration of draft laws during the 11th session is the highest during the full-scale invasion. A total of 65 hours were spent in the 12th session, which is the highest for an autumn session during the full-scale invasion.

The trend of a gradual increase in the time spent on consideration of draft laws in the session hall shows that with each new session, the Verkhovna Rada’s working regime is increasingly resembling the pre-martial law era: there are more discussions, and they are becoming more time-consuming. However, the pre-war figures are sometimes 1.5 to 2 times higher than the highest performance indicators of the Verkhovna Rada during martial law.

During the 12th session, 92% of the plenary time was devoted to considering draft laws of the government, namely the Servant of the People faction, the government, and the President. The situation when the discussion of the government’s draft laws takes up more than 90% of the plenary time has been maintained almost throughout the entire 9th convocation (93% for the 9th session and 91.6% for the 11th session). The 10th session showed record results, when 98.5% of the total plenary time was spent on the government’s draft laws, leaving only 1.5% for the minority’s draft laws. It is important to note that one of the peculiarities of the 10th session was the record-low number of laws passed (for the entire 9th convocation).

The amount of plenary time spent discussing draft laws gradually increased starting from the 7th session. The time spent on the consideration of draft laws in the first reading gradually increased until the 11th session, while the 12th session showed a certain decrease in both the average and median time. 

During martial law, each new session demonstrated that the Verkhovna Rada was gradually returning to its pre-war work format. The results for the 11th and 12th sessions had generally reached the level that existed before the full-scale invasion when about half of the relevant draft laws were considered for more than 10 minutes.

The time spent on draft laws that were considered only in the second reading during the 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th sessions increased significantly compared to the 7th and 8th sessions. The average and median for the 9th session are almost twice as high as for the 8th session. Starting from the 10th session, the speed of consideration of draft laws in the second reading began to normalise and return to the level before the full-scale invasion. The 11th and 12th sessions continued this trend. Moreover, the consideration of draft laws was even longer than before 2022 in some cases.

The draft laws with both readings in the 9th session were considered for a slightly longer period of time than the 7th and 8th sessions. The 10th, 11th, and 12th sessions continued this growth. As of the 10th session, the average time spent on the draft laws with both readings was 80 minutes, the second-highest result in the 9th convocation (the highest result in the 6th session was 81 minutes). During the 12th session, the increase in the time for consideration of such draft laws continued, while the 12th session exceeded even the time before the full-scale invasion by many indicators (including the median).

Thus, the format of considering draft laws in the session hall in the 10th, 11th, and 12th sessions is increasingly reminiscent of the times before the full-scale invasion and even exceeds them by some indicators. The reasons for the gradual increase in the time spent on consideration of draft laws may be as follows:

1. First, a decreased number of draft laws with consensus support.
2. Second, the gradual easing of existing information restrictions. In 2024, steps were taken to return to open meetings, and journalists were allowed to enter the parliament. As a result, there are more opportunities to use the parliamentary rostrum to communicate political positions on draft laws, which was meaningless given the parliament’s information closure.
3. Third, the image of Russian sabotage and reconnaissance groups in the centre of Kyiv and Russian troops on its outskirts began to fade, so the perception of the level of security in the Parliament building changed.

The top 5 longest draft laws in terms of the amount of time they took to be considered in the plenary hall can be found in Annex 6. 

30.6% of draft laws were adopted after the first reading, 69.4% – after the second reading, and the third reading was not applied.

Only 5 out of 108 laws adopted in the 12th session were registered before 24 February 2022, indicating the dominance of the martial law agenda.

Main terms of passage of draft laws (average values):

1. from registration to adoption in the first reading and in entirety – 71 days;
2. between the first reading and adoption in the second reading and in entirety – 156 days;
3. from registration to adoption in the second reading and in entirety – 335 days.

During the sessions of the parliament in the period of martial law, many draft laws of the martial law agenda are pending. As a result, the speed of consideration of draft laws registered after 24 February 2022 has reached the level of 2021. Now, the 9th Ukrainian parliament is considering them for the longest time: an average of 335 days pass from registration to adoption of a draft law in the second reading and in its entirety.

1. 33 – adopted in their entirety after the first reading (30.6%);
2. 75 – adopted in their entirety after the second reading (69.4%);
3. 0 – adopted in their entirety after the third reading (0%).

The 12th session continued the standard distribution of adopted laws by readings. More than two-thirds of laws were adopted in the second reading and in their entirety, and 30.6% in the first reading and in their entirety. The situation was also similar during sessions 5, 6, 8, 10 and 11. The trend of not using the third reading has not changed –no draft law has passed three readingsAccording to Article 102(1) of the Rules of Procedure, “draft laws shall be considered by the Verkhovna Rada, as a rule, according to the procedure of three readings.. Two readings allow for better preparation of the draft law and correction of shortcomings and errors discovered during the first reading. However, two readings also require more time. 

When reviewing the information on committees, it should be borne in mind that this monitoring report is based on the number of opinions of the main committees. These methods are used due to the availability of data. Specifically, the Verkhovna Rada website constantly provides information on the opinions of the main committees, which are regularly updated and cover all opinions of the main committees. However, the committees perform many other functions and tasks in addition to providing opinions of the main committees. Three committeesBudget Committee, Committee on Anti-Corruption Policy and Committee on Ukraine’s Integration into the European Union. are required to provide mandatory opinions on all draft laws. As auxiliary committees, committees may be tasked with preparing opinions. Committees consider and make decisions within the framework of the oversight function. They consider letters and appeals, and hold conferences and round tables. However, all this information is published only in fragments, so it cannot be used for a regular monitoring format. However, this information is used if it is available in a form acceptable for systemic monitoring. These limitations should be considered when reviewing the information below, which is based on the opinions of the main committees.

The timing of the main committees’ opinions on draft lawsThe data presented relate only to cases where opinions were provided. The time between the date of draft law registration and the date of submission of the first opinion by the main committee, including opinions on inclusion in the agenda, was calculated. This type of opinion was taken into account, as the committee often considers draft laws on their merits during preliminary processing. allows for assessing several important indicators. In terms of committees, the time from registration to the submission of the first opinion by the committee characterises the workload of the committee and enables forecasting, in general terms, the speed of preliminary processing of a certain draft law depending on its main committee. In terms of initiators, the time of submitting opinions characterises the commitment of committee members to a particular initiator and enhances the predictive capabilities of the speed of preliminary processing. Finally, the time required to receive the main committee’s first opinion, together with the data on the overall passage of draft laws, allows for a better understanding of the dynamics of the passage of draft laws.

On average, the committees provided their opinions for the first reading in 114 days, and half of all opinions were provided in 36 days.

The speed of issuing opinions varies greatly from committee to committee. The difference in some cases is 60-fold. If we compare the performance of the 12th session with that of the previous 11th session, the time for issuing the first opinion decreased for two-thirds of the committees and increased for about one-third. It was an increase of 1–2 months in most cases. 

In general, the workload and the speed of issuing opinions are mostly correlated. However, this is not the case sometimes. Despite the relatively large number of opinions submitted, the Committee on Legal Policy, the Committee on Finance and the Committee on National Security were relatively quick to provide their first conclusions on draft laws. The Committee on Transport and Infrastructure, with a moderate number of opinions, took a relatively long time to provide its first opinions on draft laws. 

*Recall that the median is the value that divides all the data in half, meaning that half of all observations will be less than the median, and half will be more than the median.

Compared to the 11th session, the average number of days for the President to provide the first committee opinion for the first reading more than doubled. The average time for submitting an opinion decreased for MPs and the Cabinet of Ministers. For the fourth session in a row, the average time for providing first opinions on government draft laws is shorter than the average time for providing first opinions on MPs’ draft laws. At the same time, the median time for the first committee to provide an opinion on presidential draft laws is significantly shorter than the median time for the first opinion on government and MPs’ draft laws. Despite the increase, the President’s draft laws, receive the first committee opinions the fastest as usual, with half of such draft laws receiving their first committee opinion in less than a week.

During the 12th session, the majority of factions’ draft laws received opinions twice as fast as in the 11th session on average, at about the same level as in the 10th session. However, the speed of providing first opinions, on the contrary, increasedIt should be borne in mind that indicators were calculated on the basis of less than five opinions for the Restoration of Ukraine and Dovira groups, as well as the Holos and Opposition Platform – For Life factions, and for non-factional MPs. They are highlighted in grey in the table. Therefore, fast or slow receipt of opinions on their draft laws is more a coincidence than a system. It is 5 or more opinions in other factions and groups. for the draft laws initiated by MPs from the Fatherland faction and the Dovira group.

Annex 1 contains the top 5 longest draft laws in terms of the number of days from registration to the first opinion of the main committee, as well as the top 5 fastest draft laws.

The speed at which committee opinions are submitted for the second readingThe number of days between the date the draft law was adopted in the first reading and the date the committee submitted its first opinion for the second reading was calculated (although there may be several opinions). is less indicative due to the small number of such opinions per committee. These dataDue to the small number of opinions for the second reading, only the average is used here. Only 7 committees submitted 5 or more opinions for the second reading in the 12th session. should be treated with caution, but they are also worthy of attention. 10 out of 18Another 5 committees did not provide any opinion for the second reading. committees (i.e., more than half) increased (compared to the previous 11th session) the time it took them to provide opinions for the second reading on average, while another third reduced this time. 

The average time from the adoption of the draft law in the first reading to the provision of the opinion for the second reading was 117 days, slightly less than in the 11th session. Half of all opinions were provided in less than 76 days, significantly longer than in the 11th session. In other words, the speed at which the committee processes draft laws for the second reading is not very different from the speed at which they are processed for the first reading.

*During the 12th session, the committees provided only three opinions on draft laws of the President of Ukraine for the second reading. Therefore, this entity is highlighted in grey in the table.

The speed of providing the first committee opinion for the second reading shows that the average time for providing opinions on governmental draft laws increased (by 21 days), while the average time for MPs’ draft laws decreased (by 15 days). The time it took for members of the Servant of the People faction to submit the first committee opinion for the second reading also decreased (by 31 days).

*It should be noted that a large number of opinions (more than 5) were submitted only on draft laws of the government and members of the Servant of the People faction. For the President and other factions and groups, there were less than 5 draft laws for which opinions were submitted. They are highlighted in grey in the table. For these categories, this value can be explained by coincidence.

Annex 2 contains the 5 longest draft laws in terms of the number of days from the first reading to the provision of the first opinion of the main committee for the second reading, as well as the 5 fastest draft laws.

The average time for adopting laws, regardless of the reading, is 254 days, with a median of 129 days (i.e., half of draft laws were adopted in more than 129 days and half in a shorter period of time). 

The time required to pass 70 per cent of the draft laws in their entirety in the first reading slightly decreased. At the same time, the time required for the most time-consuming draft laws to be adopted increased. As a result, the median time decreased, but the average time increased compared to the 11th session. 

All (except for one) draft laws adopted in the first reading and in their entirety were registered after May 2024. The exception is 1 draft law registered in November 2022. This trend is generally in line with the standard logic of using the first reading as a fast track for adopting the most urgent draft laws. 

The experimental indicator “growth rate” increased to about two days, which means that the time required to pass a draft law in its entirety and in the first reading has almost linearly increased. The growth rate is calculated as the average difference in deciles between the number of days from registration to adoption for the 11th and 10th sessions and the number of days from registration to adoption for the 12th and 11th sessionsIn other words, the pace describes the rate of increase in the time for adoption. For example, imagine that the average time for passing draft laws increased by 10 days between the first and second sessions, while the increase was 7 days between the second and third sessions. Then the indicator, which is called the pace here, would be -3 days, meaning that the growth slowed down. If the increase between the 2nd and 3rd sessions was 15 days, the pace would be five days, which would mean that the growth accelerated..

10 governmental, 10 parliamentary and 13 presidential draft laws were adopted in the first reading and in their entirety. Not all governmental draft laws were ratifications only (as in the 9th and 10th sessions); some ordinary laws were added to them during the 12th session. At the same time, all presidential draft laws adopted in the first reading and in their entirety were decrees and ratifications.

The time it took for governmental draft laws to pass from registration to adoption in the first reading and in their entirety decreased, demonstrating the highest speed of passage in the 4th–12th sessions of the 9th convocation. Compared to the 11th session, the average time for passing parliamentary draft laws decreased significantly (by 23 days) and is also the fastest in the 4th–12th sessions of the 9th convocation. 

It is interesting to note that the average term for presidential draft laws increased, while the median term decreased by 9 days. This means that some presidential draft laws passed faster from registration to adoption in the first reading and in their entirety, but the average time increased due to the consideration of a certain number of old draft laws. Overall, the average passage time for presidential initiatives is one of the highest for the 4th-12th sessions of the 9th convocation. However, all these initiatives are decrees and ratifications.

Annex 3 contains the 5 longest draft laws in terms of the number of days from registration to adoption in the first reading and in their entirety, as well as the 5 fastest draft laws. 

During the 12th session, the passage time of draft laws from registration to adoption in the second reading and in their entirety continued to increase. On average, the time from registration to adoption in the second reading and in entirety increased by 33 days compared to the 11th session and 139 days compared to the 10th session. The median value increased by 55 days compared to the 11th session. Not all draft laws increased in terms of the timeframe. The timeframe for 30% of the fastest draft laws decreased by 5–13 days (compared to the 11th session). For the remaining 70% of draft laws, the time from registration to adoption in the second reading and in their entirety increased by up to 124 days in some cases. Only 5 out of 75 (7%) draft laws adopted in the second reading and in their entirety were registered by 24 February 2022. This means that during the 12th session, the laws that were in line with the martial law agenda were mostly adopted. Such indicators show that during the 6 sessions of martial law, the Verkhovna Rada actually developed a new agenda with a new volume of draft laws, but during the three years of martial law, so many of these draft laws have been pending that now the Ukrainian parliament is considering them for the longest time of the entire 9th convocation [on average].

The growth rate of the time from registration to adoption in the second reading and in its entirety decreased and amounted to -75 days. In other words, the timeframe for adopting draft laws has increased, but the growth rate has dropped significantly. 

*The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted only 3 presidential draft laws in the second reading and in their entirety during the 12th session. Therefore, this entity is highlighted in grey in the table.

The governmental draft laws hardly changed (compared to the 11th session) the average time from registration to adoption in the second reading and in entirety, and they still go through this process the slowest among all subjects of legislative initiative. At the same time, MPs’ draft laws were adopted, on average, 60 days slower than in the 11th session. As a result, the average time for the adoption of governmental and MPs’ draft laws in the second reading and in their entirety has equalised and is now almost a year.

Three presidential draft laws were adopted in the second reading during the 12th session. The time from registration to adoption in the second reading during this session was one of the shortest for the 9th convocation. 

Annex 4 contains the 5 longest draft laws in terms of the number of days from registration to adoption in the second reading and in their entirety, as well as the 5 fastest draft laws.

The time between adoption in the first reading and the second readings and in their entirety for the draft laws passed during the 12th session showed unusual dynamics. Compared to the 11th session, it remained almost unchanged for 40% of draft laws, increased for about 30% (by 12–55 days) and decreased for 20% of the slowest draft laws (by 89–161 days). However, the passage of such draft laws was accelerated by 25 days on average, meaning that the speed of processing draft laws increased on average. 

*The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted only 3 presidential draft laws in the second reading and in their entirety during the 12th session. Therefore, this entity is highlighted in grey in the table.

The process of passing draft laws from the first to the second readings and in their entirety during the 12th session returned to the trends of the 8th, 9th and 10th sessions in terms of the ratio of time spent on MPs’ and governmental draft laws, as now governmental draft laws are passing faster than MPs’ legislative initiatives. Compared to the 11th session, the respective time for passing governmental draft laws decreased by 78 days (i.e., 37%), while the increase for MPs’ draft laws was not significant and amounted to 3 days compared to the 11th session.

These data show that the increase in the time required to pass a draft law in the second reading and in its entirety is not so much due to the delay in their processing for the second reading as to the fact that these draft laws had been waiting for consideration in the first reading in the session hall for a long time.

Annex 5 contains the 5 longest draft laws in terms of the number of days from adoption of the draft law in the second reading and in its entirety, as well as the 5 fastest draft laws.

436 draft laws registered. Of which:

1. 4 (0.9%) European integration draft laws.
2. 12 (3%) draft laws on the consent or denunciation of international treaties.
3. 3 (0.7%) urgent draft laws.

108 draft laws were adopted in their entirety. Of which:

1. 12 (11.1%) European integration draft laws.
2. 14 (13%) laws on ratification of international treaties.
3. 3 (2.8%) laws were identified by the President as urgent.

The 12th session of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine was marked by relatively low legislative activity. With 436 draft laws registered, this is the second-lowest number of draft laws registered per session. The decrease in the number of initiatives is not a negative phenomenon in itself if it indicates a focus on the quality of legislative acts. During the 12th session, the share of draft laws with 8–22 signatories increased, which partly indicates a decrease in legislative spam. However, there are also indicators that show that the problem of legislative spam is still relevant. The Restoration of Ukraine group demonstrated very high activity: one MP of the group accounts for almost five registered draft laws (five times more than for other factions and groups), and their share of the total number of draft laws reaches 20.4%, which puts them in second place after the Servant of the People (43.6%) in terms of legislative activity. At the same time, not a single draft law of the Restoration of Ukraine group was adopted in the course of the 12th session. 

436 draft laws were registered during the 12th session, 28 fewer than in the previous autumn, the 10th session. Overall, the 12th session had the second-fewest registered draft laws (the 8th session had the most, with 385 draft laws). This result continues the gradual decrease in the number of registered draft laws that began in the 9th session. This demonstrates a potential reduction in the volume of legislative spam or at least a decrease in legislative activity. 

Four European integration draft lawsEuro-integration draft laws are those that have been granted the relevant status by decision of the Committee on European Integration. Consequently, the number of Euro-integration draft laws for the 12th session may change and may not correspond to the data presented in the Monitoring. This may occur if the Committee on European Integration recognises draft laws registered during the 12th session as European integration-related after the publication of the Monitoring for that session. The data presented here regarding the number of registered European integration-related draft laws is current as of 4 February 2025. were registered during the 12th session. This is slightly less than 1% of all registered draft laws. 

12 draft laws on the consent or denunciation of international treaties were registered in the 12th session. This is 3% of all registered draft laws. 

Four urgent draft laws were registered during the 12th session. This is 0.7% of all registered draft laws. 

*For the sake of simplicity, the term “initiator” is hereinafter used in such tables. This is true when it comes to the government or the President. VRU factions do not have the right of legislative initiative, so when it comes to factions, it should be understood as the faction or group to which the first signatory (initiator) among the MPs belongs.

The indicators of the 12th session are quite standard and similar to those of the 10th and 11th sessions for the majority of factions and groups, as well as for the Cabinet of Ministers. Minority factions (European Solidarity, Fatherland, and Holos) and non-factional MPs registered 7–24 draft laws. However, compared to the 11th session, the share of draft laws from Holos and European Solidarity decreased, while the share of draft laws from Fatherland increased. Three groups (For the Future, Dovira and PFLP) registered less than 7 draft laws each.

At the same time, the following features are worth noting: 

1. The President and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine demonstrate a decrease in the share of registered draft laws compared to the 11th session. The share of draft laws initiated by the President returned to the same level as in the 8th, 9th and 10th sessions.
2. The performance of the Restoration of Ukraine group continues to deviate from the general trend. During the 12th session, the group once again set a record by increasing the share of registered draft laws to 20.4%. That is, members of the Restoration of Ukraine group registered every fifth draft law registered during the 12th session. This trend has been going on for the fourth session in a row (it started in the 8th session). Thus, despite the small number of MPs, the Restoration of Ukraine has outpaced most factions and groups, as well as the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. The increase in the share of draft laws registered by the minority group of MPs to the point where the group registers almost every fifth draft law in the parliament is a sign of legislative spam, i.e., the registration of many low-quality draft laws that have no real prospect of being adopted.
3. The Holos faction demonstrates a significant decrease in the share of registered draft laws in the 12th session. These are the lowest figures for the faction in the entire 9th convocation. A significant decrease in the faction’s legislative activity cannot be explained by a decrease in the number of its members (only one MP left the Holos faction during the 12th session).
4. The Servant of the People faction slightly increased the share of registered draft laws, showing a 4% increase compared to the 11th session. Thus, the Servant of the People broke the downward trend of the previous four sessions. 

The authorship of the draft law was determined by the initiator’s factional affiliation. For MPs, the first signatory of the draft law is considered the initiator. This method has its limitations, but it is used, in particular, by the VRU Secretariat. In addition, Article 90(3) of the Rules of Procedure explicitly defines the MP whose signature appears first as the initiator of a draft law. 

The number of registered draft laws per MPIt is worth noting that the number of draft laws per MP does not indicate the efficiency of factions or groups. It is rather an indicator that allows for a better understanding of the general trends in the Verkhovna Rada’s work. The number of draft laws registered by specific MPs is deliberately not given here, as they often perceive it as an indicator of their efficiency. This encourages them to register more draft laws, neglecting the quality, which is one reason for legislative spam. for the majority of factions and groups in the 12th session shows a non-standard situation for the 9th convocation. The overall decrease in the number of draft laws was manifested in the fact that, unlike in most sessions, now there is sometimes significantly fewer than 1 draft law per MP who is a member of any faction. This is especially evident in the case of the Holos faction, which has an average of 0.35 draft laws per MP. This figure is even lowerIt is logical to assume that legislative drafting in parties forming factions is better established than in groups formed by majoritarian MPs due to the existing stable organisational structure and the possibilities of establishing the work of the parliamentary association as a subject of the right of legislative initiative. This obviously affects the ability to develop group draft laws. for MPs belonging to parliamentary groups. The Restoration of Ukraine group continues to be the most prolific, with an unusually high rate of 4.94 draft laws per MP for the 9th convocation. Despite the relatively lower figure for the 12th session compared to the three previous sessions, the Restoration of Ukraine group has at least 5.5 times more draft laws per MP than any other faction or group during this session. This number of draft laws per MP is another sign of legislative spam. At the same time, these figures indicate that the record total share of registered draft laws by the MPs of the Restoration of Ukraine group is due to the low performance of other factions and groups, and not to the increased activity of the members of this parliamentary group.

In terms of the number of signatories to draft laws, the 12th session continued the downward trend in the number of draft laws with 1 initiator, a large number of which indirectly indicated the presence of legislative spam. The share of draft laws with 1 signatory decreased compared to the 10th and 11th sessions. Instead, all shares of all other groups of draft laws showed a slight increase. This may indicate a higher level of cooperation between MPs and, accordingly, a slightly higher quality of draft laws. Moreover, unlike in the two previous sessions, the number of draft laws with one signatory is not the largest; it is equal to the share of draft laws with 8–22 signatories.

In this section of parliamentary monitoring, the authors assume that a larger number of signatories correlates positively with better elaboration of draft laws, a higher level of consensus, and a decrease in legislative spam. 

The draft law on changing the names of local general courts No. 12351 of 23 December 2024 has the most signatories, namely 72.

108 laws109 draft laws were technically adopted during the 12th session. However, draft law No. 11150 of 4 April 2024, “Proposals of the President of Ukraine to the Law on Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine on Protecting the Interests of Owners of Land Shares (Stakes), and Application of Administrative Procedure in the Field of Land Relations,” was adopted after a second veto in the 12th session. This draft law is not included in this monitoring report, as its passing and first adoption after the veto were mentioned in the monitoring report of the 11th session of the VRU. were adopted in their entirety during the 12th session. This is a relatively low figure for the 9th convocation. At the same time, it is a relatively good indicator compared to the previous autumn session (10), since the number of adopted draft laws increased by 44. Moreover, the ratio of adopted to registered draft laws in the 12th session is the same as in the 11th, so we can say that there are no new difficulties with adopting laws similar to those in the 10th session. 

12 European integrationA European integration law is one recognised by the Committee on European Integration as the “EU integration” law. It has a corresponding label in the electronic system and is sent to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine for additional examination. laws were adopted during the 12th session. This is 11.1% of all laws passed. 

During the 12th session, the Verkhovna Rada passed 14 laws on granting consent to international treaties. This is 13% of all laws passed. All international draft laws were ratifications and accessions to new agreements (without denunciations). There were 10 multilateral agreements and 5 bilateral agreements out of 14 treaties ratified by the Verkhovna Rada during the 12th session. Among all these agreements, most were ratified with France (3 agreements) and the EU (2 agreements).

Three draft laws (2.8%) adopted during the 12th session were identified by the President of Ukraine as urgent. 

The President vetoed (and submitted his proposals) draft laws five times. One draft law was adopted after a second veto.

The monitoring of the 12th session revealed several observations:

First, MPs of the Servant of the People faction slightly increased their share of all adopted draft laws (43.5%) compared to the 11th session (42.3%). This figure is fairly typical for the Servant of the People when considering the period of martial law. 

Second, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine shows a gradual decrease in the share of initiated laws for the second session in a row. At the same time, if we analyse the entire 9th convocation, the government’s performance is quite high, as the Cabinet of Ministers initiates almost every third law. Of course, this is a bit less than their record-breaking performance during the 9th session. However, it is much higher than in the previous autumn (10th) session. The share of adopted laws initiated by the President of Ukraine also decreased (14.8%) compared to the results of the 11th session (16.8%), when the President initiated the largest share of laws during the period of martial law.

Third, the share of laws initiated by minority faction and non-factional MPs did not exceed 12% in total, while this value did not exceed 3.7% for each individual faction. 

Interestingly, not a single law initiated by representatives of parliamentary groups was passed during the 12th session. This confirms the thesis about the signs of legislative spam in the context of the Restoration of Ukraine group.

The 12th session partially continued the positive trends of the previous sessions (of which the 10th session is a standout). Compared to the previous 11th session, the share of adopted laws with 8–22 signatories has increased significantly, accounting for almost half of all draft laws passed. At the same time, there was a significant increase in the number of draft laws with one signatory and a decrease in the number of those with 23+ signatories, while 70% of the adopted laws had more than eight signatories. In other words, draft laws with a large number of signatories have a better chance of becoming law than those with a small number of signatories.

The Law on Peculiarities of Regulating Business Activities of Certain Types of Legal Entities and Their Associations in the Transition Period No. 6013 of 9 September 2021, adopted by the Verkhovna Rada on 9 January 2025­, has the most signatories, namely 131. 

The Agency for Legislative Initiatives joined a meeting of Ukrainian civil society representatives with Pat Cox, former President of the European Parliament and Head of the Needs Assessment Mission to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. 

The discussions focused on urgent challenges and problems the civil society sector in Ukraine has faced, the need to maintain interaction with the authorities, including the Verkhovna Rada, and the next steps in this regard. The Agency highlighted the continuation of parliamentary reform in the context of a full-scale war as a cross-cutting aspect. This reform was launched in 2015 with the commencement of the European Parliament’s Needs Assessment Mission led by Pat Cox.

The mission developed a Roadmap with specific recommendations on how to strengthen the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine institutionally and solve the problems of Ukrainian parliamentarism, which ALI has repeatedly drawn attention to, as it has been supporting parliamentary reform and monitoring its implementation since the beginning. Indeed, the war has intensified the implementation of some of the Roadmap’s recommendations for internal reform of the Verkhovna Rada, although some improvements may require constitutional amendments, which is currently impossible. ALI analysed each aspect of the reform in a thematic Journal, which describes its current state in detail.

At the same time, the Ukrainian parliament continues to operate as the main legislative body of a democracy at war. Therefore, it needs to strengthen its subjectivity and capacity and, even in such circumstances, implement changes that help build resilience and sustainability of internal processes.

One of the components of such processes should be the adoption of the Code of Conduct for MPs, a document that will eventually introduce uniform standards of ethical conduct for MPs, a system of monitoring and oversight over their observance, and become an effective mechanism for distancing from MPs who discredit the entire institution.

Public participation in lawmaking is possible in different formats: for example, the Cabinet of Ministers holds consultations with the public, Verkhovna Rada committees form working groups with the involvement of experts, etc.

One of the lesser-known instruments of interaction between the state and citizens is the national discussion, a mechanism inherited from the Soviet era. National discussions of state and party documents were actively practised in the Soviet Union after World War II, but they could hardly be considered an effective democratic tool. In the conditions of a totalitarian state, the results of such discussions were quite predictable and, inter alia, had an ideological impact. 

Of course, it is important to involve the public, but this process should be open, efficient and transparent. The national discussion hardly meets these criteria, and we will explain why.

On 11 February 2025, the Verkhovna Rada decided to submit the draft law for national discussion. This honour was given to the draft law No. 12260, “On Credit History.” According to its initiator, MP Olha Vasylevska-Smahliuk, the draft law would eliminate the shortcomings of the current legislation and replace the Law of Ukraine “On Organisation, Formation and Circulation of Credit Histories” adopted in 2005.

The Main CommitteeCommittee on Finance, Taxation and Customs Policy. supported the draft law and recommended that the Verkhovna Rada adopt it in the first reading as a basis. However, during the parliamentary consideration, there were not enough votes even to send it for repeated first reading or return it to the author for revision. As a last resort, the draft law was sent for national discussion with 226 votes, the minimum number of votes required to make a decision. 

This possibility is envisaged by Article 114 of the Rules of Procedure of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, which stipulates that following the consideration of a draft law in the first reading, the Verkhovna Rada may make one of the following decisions:

1) adopt the draft law as a basis with an instruction to the main committee to prepare it for the second reading;

2) reject the draft law;

3) return the draft law for revision or submit it to the main committee for preparation for repeated first reading;

4) publish the draft law for national discussion, revise it by the main committee with due regard to the results of the discussion and submit it for repeated first reading.

The Rules of Procedure do not generally provide a detailed description of the procedure for submitting a draft law for national discussion, but Article 115(2) requires that a separate resolution of the Verkhovna Rada determine the timeframe for submitting a draft law for repeated first reading, regarding which a decision on national discussion has been made. However, the adopted resolution does not specify such a timeframe. The Law of Ukraine “On Committees of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine” obliges committees to summarise comments and proposals received during the national discussion of draft laws when performing their drafting function. However, neither the VRU Rules of Procedure nor the Law of Ukraine “On Committees of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine” define a detailed procedure of a national discussion, its stages, its participants, and their rights and obligations. The Regulations on the Secretariat of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine stipulate that it keeps records and summarises proposals and comments received on draft legislative acts published for national discussion, effectively duplicating the committee’s powers.

Where did the rule on national discussion of draft laws come from? Obviously, we inherited it from the Soviet regime. The USSR actively used national discussion as a way to legitimise its decisions. Between 1956 and 1985, the USSR held discussions on more than 30 draft regulations of various levelsAbstracts of reports and directives adopted by the CPSU Central Committee and the USSR Council of Ministers.. This procedure was first enshrined in the Constitution of the Ukrainian SSR of 1978, which stated that “the most important issues of state life shall be submitted for national discussion.” The procedure was regulatedThe Law does not apply on the territory of Ukraine in accordance with the Law of Ukraine ‘On De-Sovietisation of the Legislation of Ukraine’ No. 2215-IX dated 21.04.2022. by the relevant Law of the Ukrainian SSR, “On Public Discussion of Important Issues of State Life of the Ukrainian SSR.” 

This procedure is not new to Ukrainian politics after independence. In 1992, a draft of the new Constitution of Ukraine was put up for national discussion, and draft amendments to the Constitution were put up for discussion in 2003 and 2009 at the initiative of the President.

In 2006, the new Rules of Procedure of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine were adopted in connection with the amendments to the Ukrainian Constitution. It enshrined the possibility of submitting a draft law for national discussion, which has been incorporated into all subsequent rules of procedure almost unchanged and is still in force today.

One of the most famous cases of using the national discussion procedure took place during the adoption of the Tax Code. On 15 June 2010, the Government registered a draft Tax Code in the Verkhovna Rada, which MPs adopted as a basis two days later. Given the adverse public reaction, the Parliament adopted a resolution on a national discussion of the draft Tax Code of Ukraine on 8 July 2010, which, however, authorised the Cabinet of Ministers:

• first, to ensure that the draft code is made public and that there are conditions for national discussion,
• second, to summarise the discussion results and submit them to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. 

While considering the draft code at the plenary session, the then Speaker of the Rada, Volodymyr Lytvyn, admitted that “the material efforts of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to discuss this issue will not be enough.” Some MPs, however, stressed that the draft Tax Code should not be sent for national discussion by a separate decision of the Verkhovna Rada but only after consideration in the first reading (while the draft Tax Code had already been adopted as a basis). In addition, the draft law was sent to the Government with MPs’ proposals and amendments for the second reading.

Two months later, on 8 September 2010, the Government reported on the results of the national discussion and, a few days later, introduced a new draft Tax Code that – at least, the explanatory note says so – took into account the results of the national discussion and was subsequently adopted by the Verkhovna Rada. 

The situation with draft law No. 12260 is more like an attempt to avoid rejecting the draft law. Unlike the Tax Code, it did not receive widespread attention or a strong adverse reaction from society. The accompanying documents do not contain information on the need for discussion or any consultations, and the main committee recommended that the draft law be adopted as a basis rather than sent for national discussion. In addition, the committee responsible for preparing the draft law for a repeated first reading is not obliged to report on the results of the discussion, which may lead to abuse, meaning that there is no need to justify the grounds on which some proposals and comments will be taken into account, and others will be rejected. 

In general, the national discussion of the draft law seems to be an ineffective mechanism for engaging citizens in decision-making, as the criteria and procedures for holding it and processing the results are unclear. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to discuss the impact of national discussions of draft laws, primarily because the practice was sporadic, and the rules were not established.

During the training, the participants considered integrating gender-sensitive approaches in developing legal acts. They learned what tools can be used for gender legal expertise, including the gender marker as an example of a toolkit for rapid gender assessment of draft laws. In the practical session, the participants analysed existing laws and previously proposed draft laws for gender expertise.

Gender legal expertise in drafting laws is an important mechanism for ensuring the principle of equal rights and opportunities for women and men in legislative activities. In fact, its key role is to:

1. Identifying gender risks in draft laws that may create or exacerbate inequality.
2. Ensuring harmonisation of Ukrainian legislation with international commitments in the field of gender equality (e.g., the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the Beijing Declaration, the European Social Charter (revised), and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities).
3. Developing an inclusive legal framework that considers the different needs of women and men, including those from vulnerable groups.

This mechanism allows for a comprehensive analysis of different population groups rather than viewing the population as an abstract whole. It is gradually becoming a part of the Legislative Impact Assessment, a comprehensive tool designed to identify and assess the potential consequences and probable impacts of public policy in a particular area, including at the stage of drafting legislation and its analysis.

The event’s speakers included Oksana Moskalenko, Head of the Women’s Consortium of Ukraine; Myroslava Babak, gender expert and member of the Bureau of Gender Strategies and Budgeting; and Tetiana Ivanina, gender expert, trainer and facilitator.

At the beginning of the event, Oleksandr Zaslavskyi, Deputy Executive Director of the Agency for Legislative Initiatives, noted that it was not the first time that the Verkhovna Rada had joined and initiated such events, thus confirming its agency in this matter and demonstrating its understanding of the necessity of gender legal expertise and gender-sensitive impact assessment of legislative proposals. After all, for the EU, this dimension of analysis is fundamental. Without it, the development of decisions or draft acts does not begin, and it allows for an assessment of how the same decisions affect various population groups in different ways. While this is actually about the diversity of such impacts.

Oksana Moskalenko stressed that it is a great responsibility to start a discussion on the search for implementing gender mainstreaming tools in legislative practice, and certain tools allow measuring the impact of draft laws in a more personal, targeted way. Therefore, the training should be the first step towards not only looking at what these tools are but also at what exactly should be introduced — because for this mechanism to work, it must be based on the resources and capacities of the Verkhovna Rada.

Myroslava Babak noted that considering all possible analysis tools, including the gender perspective, provides greater opportunities to track the impact after adopting the law. Therefore, the training aims to showcase the diversity of such tools — so that professionals working with legislation daily can identify ways and methods to apply gender analysis in legislative expertise. The state, through legislation, must understand the barriers people face and recognise and analyse the diversity of these features and needs.

Tetiana Ivanina emphasised that gender legal analysis tools can be useful because gender expertise “unpacks” what is behind a person — their experience and needs, and directly addresses their opportunities and barriers. Only such an approach allows for the creation of human-centred draft laws, seeing not just the population as a whole but different groups of people and the impact on them. For its part, the Verkhovna Rada is the institution that should set the direction for such an approach. Therefore, understanding which tools should be used and what data is needed for this is about a parliament meeting all citizens’ needs.

The event took place as part of the “Parliamentary Accountability of the Security Sector in Ukraine” (PASS Ukraine) project, which the Agency is implementing in partnership with the Parliamentary Centre (Canada) in cooperation with the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and with the support of Global Affairs Canada under the Peace and Stabilization Operations Program (PSOPs).

In most European countries, the Government holds broad legislative powers and is the main initiator of draft laws due to the availability of resources and expert staff. In Ukraine, however, most draft laws come from Members of the Parliament, which are usually of poor quality due to non-compliance with the requirements of law-making techniques and the absence of any rational justification for the need for legal regulation.

The low quality of the draft laws submitted to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine is also indicated by the fact that a significant number of registered draft laws are related to amendments. The submission of a large number of draft laws of this type indicates insufficient and poor-quality preparation of the primary regulatory act and the continuation of the practice of “patching holes” instead of developing effective framework legislation based on the “from start to finish” principle.

The Report and Roadmap on the Reform of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine prepared in February 2016 contains recommendations for improving the work of the Parliament, which were subsequently adopted by a relevant Resolution. Among the recommendations related to the quality and quantity of draft laws initiated by MPs, the following are worth highlighting: 

1. Only draft laws that meet the requirements of the Verkhovna Rada’s Rules of Procedure and are accompanied by a reliable explanatory note and financial and economic justification can be registered (Recommendation 3).
2. The VRU Secretariat should thoroughly analyse each proposed draft law to avoid duplication (or contradiction) with existing national legislation. Registration should be denied if the draft law does not comply with the form and requirements set out in the Rules of Procedure (Recommendation 4).

According to the Rules of Procedure, a draft law registered and included in the agenda of a session must be sent for scientific examination in preparation for the first reading and for legal examination and editorial review to the relevant structural units of the Verkhovna Rada Secretariat in preparation for all subsequent readings.  

Thus, factors such as the large volume of draft laws submitted by MPs, their low quality, and the insufficient resource capacity of the Verkhovna Rada Secretariat create “legislative spam”. Although the spam is “legislative”, however, legislative initiative is not limited to the submission of a draft law to the Parliament. The Rules of Procedure require the legislative initiators to submit other supporting documents, including an explanatory note. It is this document that should help MPs and the public become familiar with the main purpose of the draft law and its key provisions. The explanatory note itself can help solve the problem of “legislative spam”. According to the Rules of Procedure, the explanatory note should include:

1. Justification of the need to adopt the draft law, its goals, objectives and main provisions, and its place in the legislative system.
2. Justification of the expected socio-economic, legal and other consequences of the law after its adoption.
3. Other information necessary for the consideration of the draft law. 

According to established practice, the sections (parts) of this document are typically titled as such. However, the established requirements are often only met de jure, with just a few sentences used for justification, and the unit responsible for registering draft laws only conducts a formal check of the explanatory note or other supporting documentsAccording to Article 92 of the Rules, a draft law or other act must be rejected for registration if it is submitted in violation of the requirements.. Instead, the need to prepare explanatory notes in clear and understandable language, together with the need to align them with existing policies, will either reduce the number of submitted draft laws (as authors will be able to assess the priority of their own draft law at this stage) or enable the Secretariat of Verkhovna Rada to reasonably reject submitted draft laws on the grounds of non-compliance with the criteria. 

But what exactly should be included in a well-prepared explanatory note? Let’s look at the experience of other countries.

The experience of the Ukrainian parliament regarding the mandatory submission of explanatory notes is not unique. The requirements for submitting supporting documents to a draft law, including mandatory submission of explanatory notes (memoranda, explanations), are outlined in the rules of procedureAn internal document regulating the procedures of a foreign parliament may be called a ‘Standing Order’ or ‘Rules and Procedures’. Hereinafter, the more common term ‘regulations’ is used in reference to such documents. of many parliaments, for example, in:

1. Parliament of New Zealand (explanatory notes).
2. The Estonian Parliament (explanatory memorandum).
3. The Turkish Parliament (justification).
4. to the lower house of the Spanish parliament (explanatory memorandum).
5. German Bundestag (explanatory memorandum). 

A similar practice exists in the lower house of the Czech Republic. Thus, every draft law must be accompanied by an explanatory report analysing the current state of legal regulation and explaining the need for the new legislation in general and regarding its specific provisions. Each explanatory report must also include a description of all anticipated economic and financial consequences of the new legislation, especially those related to the state and regional budgets, as well as an assessment of the draft’s compliance with international treaties and the Czech constitutional order.

The rules of procedure of some countries set more detailed requirements for supporting documents and explanatory notes for government initiatives. For example, the Rules of Procedure of the Greek Parliament specify that every draft law must be accompanied by an explanatory note, which should contain the reasons and purpose of the proposed changes. Government proposals must also include an impact assessment report and a report on public consultations held. In certain cases, such as when the Government has declared the draft law urgent, a short evaluation report may replace the impact assessment and a public consultations report. The Rules of Procedure in Portugal also contain different requirements for government draft laws: a descriptive memorandum must be submitted detailing the social, economic, financial and political situations to which the project relates, information on the benefits and consequences of its adoption, and a list of current legislation in this area. Additionally, governmental draft laws must be accompanied by research, documents and conclusions with justifications, as well as the positions of the authorities consulted by the government during the adoption process.

In Bulgaria, a draft law submitted by a parliamentarian must also be accompanied by a document explaining the reasons for the need to adopt the draft law and a preliminary impact assessment, which must be conducted according to a methodology set out in a separate annex to the Rules of Procedure. The preliminary impact assessment must identify: the grounds for the legislative initiative, the stakeholders involved, cost-benefit analysis, expected changes in the structures of administrative bodies, information on the need to amend other regulatory acts, and details on how the draft will contribute to the principle of equality. 

An extensive list of requirements for an explanatory note is also set out in the Rules of Procedure of the Seimas, the Lithuanian parliament:

1. The reasons for the development of the draft, the tasks, and the objectives of the prepared draft.
2. Names/titles of the initiators of the draft law (institutions, individuals or representatives authorised by citizens) and individuals responsible for drafting the law.
3. The current legal framework governing the issues addressed in the draft law.
4. The proposed legal provisions and expected positive outcomes.
5. The results of the assessment of the expected impact on legal regulation (provided that such an assessment should be carried out during the development of the draft law and its results are not provided in a separate document), potential negative consequences of the adopted law, and measures to be taken to avoid these consequences.
6. Information on the impact of the adopted law on crime and corruption.
7. Information on the impact of the law’s implementation on business conditions and business development.
8. Information on the place of the law in the legal system, legal acts that must be adopted, and existing legal acts that must be amended or repealed after the adoption of the proposed draft.
9. Information on the compliance of the draft law with the requirements of the Law on the State Language, the Law on the Legislative System and the evaluation of the definitions used in the draft law and terms related to the definitions in accordance with the procedure established by the Law on the Terminology Bank and legal acts adopted to implement the Law.
10. Information on the compliance of the draft law with the provisions of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the documents of the European Union.
11. The names of the authorities that must adopt the legislative acts, if necessary for the implementation of the law, and the timeframe for their adoption.
12. The amount of funds from the state, municipal budgets and other state funds that will be spent or saved during the implementation of the law (estimates are provided for the next year and the following three years).
13. The assessment and conclusions of professionals obtained during the development of the draft law.
14. The keywords of the draft law necessary for inclusion in the information search system, including concepts and sections of the Eurovoc thesaurus.
15. Other justifications and explanations that the initiators consider necessary. 

1. A comparative version of the submitted draft amendments to the law or any other legal act to be adopted by the Seimas, which reflects the essence of the changes proposed by the draft, unless the submitted draft is a new version of the law or any other legal act to be adopted by the Seimas.
2. An itemised table of equivalence demonstrating the equivalence of the EU legal acts being implemented and the draft law, if this draft law implements the legal provisions of the EU acts.
3. The results of the assessment of the expected impact of the legal regulation, if such an assessment is to be carried out when drafting a law or any other legal act to be adopted by the Seimas and its results are not reflected in the explanatory note. 

The draft law, if necessary, is accompanied by a draft law on the procedure for implementing this law. The draft law is also accompanied by drafts of other legal acts that must be adopted by Seimas, which amend or repeal existing legal acts and must be adopted after the submitted draft law comes into force.

The Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of North Macedonia state that a draft law must be accompanied by an introduction and an elaboration. The introduction should contain an assessment of the state of the sector proposed to be regulated by the law and the reasons for the need to adopt the law, information about the goals, principles and main provisions of the draft law, an assessment of the financial impact of the draft law for the state budget, an assessment of the financial resources required to implement the law, and whether the law imposes material obligations on specific entities. In addition to these points, the submission may also include an overview of the rules of other legal systems and the compliance of the draft law with EU law, information on gender equality compliance, a list of other laws that need to be amended or adopted to implement the law, and an impact assessment. The explanation should contain an explanation of the content of the provisions of the draft law, their interconnection and the consequences of the proposed provisions.

The requirements listed above for explanatory notes should in no way be seen as a limitation of the constitutional right of parliamentarians to legislative initiative. All the norms mentioned earlier in the context of international experience were established by the parliament itself. That is, the established requirements do not restrict the legislative initiative, but, on the contrary, through self-regulation, the parliaments of these countries have simply defined the order and procedure for exercising this right.

Ukrainian Members of Parliament have also already established new rules for the preparation of draft laws and supporting documents (although they may not have realised it yet). For example, according to the Law of Ukraine “On Lawmaking” adopted in 2023, the results of the assessment of the draft law’s impact on social relations will become a mandatory part of the explanatory note to the legal act. In addition, some legal acts will need to develop concepts that will outline the basic principles of regulating social relations and reflect the results of analytical studies. These changes will come into effect one year after the termination or cancellation of martial law in Ukraine.

Such conditions for submitting draft laws will, firstly, help MPs, stakeholders, the media and citizens to understand the purpose and content of the proposed regulatory act. A well-prepared explanatory note with an impact assessment and evidence of the relevance of the problem, explaining the main provisions of the draft law in plain language, will greatly simplify the processing of the draft law by parliamentary departments and committees. Secondly, explanatory notes are already used to determine the purpose of regulation at the stage of law implementation, for example, when considering cases by courts of general jurisdiction and the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. Thirdly, if the implementation of the law involves expenditures from the state budget, the inclusion of a financial and economic justification in the content of the explanatory note will help the subjects of legislative initiative to comply with the principle of a balanced budget. 

Certainly, the mere existence of requirements for explanatory notes is not a sufficient safeguard against legislative spam. The unit of the Verkhovna Rada Secretariat responsible for registering draft laws should have sufficient human and material resources to refuse to register draft laws in a timely and reasonable manner, including those with poor supporting documents. Such a unit should not be subject to political pressure, for example, to refuse to register draft laws authored by opposition factions or, conversely, to register draft acts of the coalition even if they do not meet the established requirements. If these conditions are met, then Ukraine will have a real chance to overcome “legislative spam”.