Streamlining the Legislative Decision-Making Process (LT0033)

Brief description of the action The objective is to establish well-structured and high-quality legislative processes that facilitate public consultation and evidence-based decision-making

Key challenge addressed

Absence of systematic, coherent, evidence-based, and transparent legislative processes. Despite the adoption of all necessary regulatory measures, their practical implementation remains scarce. This context offers minimal opportunities for the engagement and participation of civil society and NGOs. Stakeholders are involved either belatedly or not at all in project preparation, often due to tight deadlines, limited communication channels, and unclear drafting stages. Furthermore, the means for citizen involvement and their tangible impact 21 on decision-making remain ambiguous. Engagement continues as insufficient, ineffective, and often superficial.

The root causes for the problem

The causes manifest themselves across various dimensions:

Inconsistent legislative processes | As per the 2018 National Audit Office audit report, approximately 50% of draft legislation is rushed through or adopted with urgency.13 Although the proportion of such documents has nearly halved during the 2020-2024 parliamentary term (29.14% in 2016-2020 to compare with 15.96% in 2020-2024), stakeholders argue that the legislative process continues to operate in an ad hoc manner. Public consultations in the pre-legislative phases are rare, as solutions are often predetermined without comprehensive engagement.14 It is also important that other legislation, including regulatory orders of ministers and bodies subordinate to ministries, are not properly and consistently coordinated with the authorities concerned. Where the authorities concerned have not been identified, the draft order is not published on the Draft Legislation Information System of the Seimas (TAIS) and the public is not given the opportunity to react to it. In this scenario, documents are signed without public consultation, and legislative procedures fail to adhere to the principles of openness and transparency, neglecting to guarantee public input in the absence of alternative forms of consultation. In practice, the draft of any regulatory act (order) should ideally be published in the TAIS before adoption, allowing for consultations and feedback.

The legislative initiative institute is practically unimplementable | The legislative initiative institute is seldom put to practice, even though the Law on Legislative Framework provides for it. It remains underutilized and often misunderstood by institutions, resulting in missed opportunities for obtaining pertinent legislative information and preparing for further meaningful public consultations. Stakeholder institutions, particularly in the non- governmental sector, struggle to anticipate when legislative initiatives will be enacted, hindering their ability to prepare and respond effectively.

Lack of data utilisation in public sector decision-making | The public sector is still facing challenges related to the lack of open data sets, data quality, and lack of expertise among public sector personnel. Considering these factors, data-driven decisions may still rely on erroneous information and result in incorrect solutions.

Action description

Previous solution: In 2021, attempts were made to regulate and standardize ministerial legislative process by making the provisions of the Government’s Rules of Procedure apply mutatis mutandis to legislation, but there has been no support from the ministries.

Planned solution/action:

Regulatory changes to the ministerial legislative process | The aim is to ensure that the legislative standard, procedures, and deadlines set out in the Government’s Rules of Procedure are also applied at the level of ministries, government agencies and bodies subordinate to ministries in the drafting and collaborative consensus-building of legislation they adopt. Strengthened controls would ensure that drafts that lack proper consensus do not surface on a Government meeting agenda.

Publication of the legislative plan | An upgrade of the TAIS is currently under preparation,. It will enable integrated monitoring of the entire drafting process from an initial idea to a final outcome. Until the TAIS is upgraded, the action will enable the publication and monitoring of the planned work of the Seimas session, and the drafting process of other key legislation (either on TAIS or on the My Government portal; the My Government portal operates on a different principle and it would not duplicate TAIS in essence, and the formats for presenting information on these two channels would also differ).

Methodological guidance and education to ensure the practical implementation of a quality legislative process |The methodological guidance is a set of guidelines for public authorities and their staff who initiate and draft legislation. The methodological guidance would cover the whole legislative process: it would highlight the importance of each stage (including public consultation) for quality legislation and its sustainability, thereby structuring and synthesising the knowledge needed by drafters and other actors involved in the legislative process. The education campaign would focus on developing competences for data-driven and evidence-based decision-making.

Stakeholder education | This action aims to facilitate meaningful involvement of stakeholders in legislative processes. It encompasses education initiatives, communication campaigns, and other activities designed to enhance awareness of the legislative process and opportunities for stakeholder engagement. A strong emphasis will be placed on equipping stakeholders with the skills to utilize available data for making well-informed recommendations for improved legislation.

Intended outcomes

The overarching goal is to ensure a systematic, cohesive, and transparent legislative process. Key deliverables: • Enhanced civic engagement in decision-making (measured by both the quantity and quality of legislative proposals). • Practical application of Methodological guidelines and exchange of best practices. • To measure the impact of this action, a monitoring indicator will be developed to show the proportion of correctly or incorrectly drafted legislation. It is also important to note that the actions will partially contribute to the intended outcomes for the development of the justice system under the 2022-2030 Development Programme run by the Ministry of Justice: • The proportion of laws subjected to ex-post evaluation out of the total number of laws adopted in 2020 and beyond (a deliverable for 2030: 3%)

The role of the action in advancing openness

How will the action contribute to increasing transparency, accountability, and public participation in decision- making? The Model for monitoring legislative process will enhance the transparency of legislative processes, enabling the public to follow the actual decision-making in progress. The data-driven legislative process will bolster the quality and clarity of decision-making. Education campaigns will empower civil society to engage meaningfully in legislative processes. The action will pave the way for more transparent communication of ongoing processes.

Action implementation plan (Implementation step | Expected practical outcome | End date | Stakeholders)

Regulatory changes to the ministerial legislative process | Established requirements for the ministerial legislative process: | Q1 2024 | Responsible body – the Ministry of Justice Stakeholders – the Office of the Government, ministries

Publication of the legislative plan | Ensured publication of the legislative plan | Q3 2024 | Responsible body – the Office of the Government Stakeholders – the Ministry of Justice, the Office of the Seimas

Methodological guidance and education to ensure the practical implementation of a quality legislative process | The methodological guidance developed for public authorities and their staff to improve the quality of legislation; Training/consultation cycle for public authorities involved in drafting legislation | Q1 2024; Q3 2024 | Responsible body – the Ministry of Justice Stakeholders – the Office of the Government, ministries

Stakeholder education | Education campaign on legislative participation held for stakeholder representatives | Q4 2025 | Responsible body – the Office of the Government Stakeholders – the Ministry of Justice, NGO and business organisations involved in legislative processes

Action Plan Review

Commitment 1. Establish a common framework for legislative process

The Ministry of Justice and the Office of the Government]

For a complete description of the commitment, see Commitment 1 in Lithuania’s 2023-2025 action plan here.

Context and objectives:

Under this commitment, the Ministry of Justice and the Office of the Government seek to introduce a unified legislative standard to all ministries, government agencies, and bodies subordinate to ministries that now apply through the Government’s Rules of Procedure. [9] The commitment also entails publishing the legislative plan while the Legal Acts Information System (TAIS) is being upgraded. [10] Until the TAIS is upgraded, the commitment will enable the publication and monitoring of the planned work of the Parliament, and make the legislation process of every legal act publicly available from its registration to the final version.

Public consultations are often hampered by fast-tracked legislative procedures. According to the Statute of the Parliament, urgency procedures may be applied in special cases when, due to political, social, economic, or other circumstances, it is necessary to establish new legal regulations or change existing regulations. [11] The adoption of laws under urgency and extreme urgency prevent thorough assessments of draft laws. [12] A 2018 National Audit Office report showed that 50 percent of draft legislation were rushed or adopted with urgency. [13] In 2019, after analyzing the procedures for the urgent amendments to the Law on Forestry (No I-671), the Constitutional Court recognized that the fast-tracked procedures under the Law Amending Articles was in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the rule of law, and responsible governance. [14] However, during the current Parliamentarian term (2020-2024) speedy law-making has been in decline and accounted for 16 percent of all laws passed by the MPs. [15]

Lithuania has attempted to improve public consultations in its 2016-2018 and 2018-2020 action plans. Those action plans focused on developing the methodology to conduct public consultations but not changing regulatory practices. The current commitment goes further by aiming to address the entire legislative process, not just the quality of public consultations. The proposal to supplement the existing methodology with amendments of the legislation process came from the Working Group and was discussed during the co-creation workshops. [16] The topic of changing the legislative process received the most votes from stakeholders. According to the Office of the Government, due to the complexity of the reform, the Working Group chose to address it via a series of activities that fall under the responsibility of several actors (the Ministry of Justice and the Office of the Government). The Office of the Government expects input from other stakeholders during implementation. As such, the willingness to adhere to new practices ought to come from all involved in the law-making process. [17]

Potential for results: Substantial

This commitment is timely and, if successfully implemented, might facilitate greater engagement in the decision-making process by citizens, interest groups, and other stakeholders. Common standards for drafting legal acts at the ministerial and subordinate levels would make legislation clearer and more transparent, since ministerial acts and decrees are currently often confirmed without consultations. [18] Moreover, the commitment will, for the first time, clarify the number of days to gather public input, allowing citizens to know what to expect procedure-wise and when to get engaged. The public would have 10 working days to submit their proposals and 12 working days when draft legal acts are longer than 10 pages. [19] According to Ieva Duncikaite, senior manager at Transparency International Lithuania, given the sporadic consultations and little trust in decision-making, this commitment could help make the legislative process more inclusive. [20] However, she notes its success will rely on how the Office of the Government engages public officials to change their practice of drafting legal acts. [21]

Additionally, government agencies would be required to provide feedback to comments submitted during the consultation. [22] Feedback from the governmental and subordinate levels would create a two-way communication with citizens and interest groups, which is missing in Lithuania’s current public consultation process. [23] The level of detail of the feedback required of institutions is yet to be determined and may depend on the comments received. According to the Ministry of Justice, citizens do not usually provide specific proposals, so their proposals might be clustered before preparing official feedback. [24] This will be important when foreseeing any additional administrative burdens on public officials from this commitment.

This commitment would not directly address the over-reliance of fast-tracked legislative procedures and drafting laws with urgency. A lobbyist notes that Parliament continues drafting laws with urgency and sometimes gives only three days for the public to react. [25] The amended procedures under this commitment will only apply to consultations at the ministerial and subordinate levels and not to the drafting of laws in Parliament.

Opportunities, challenges, and recommendations during implementation

The commitment has the ambitious goals to standardize the legislation drafting process and create better conditions for public consultations. However, the Ministry of Justice is concerned about the limited timeline for implementation. The upgrade of the TAIS is already under way but will not be finished during the action plan. [26] To mitigate this risk, the Office of the Government is planning to incorporate some functions of the TAIS in its website, but the scope is unclear.

Another possible challenge is institutionalizing the common procedures once the commitment is implemented. The Office of the Government and the Ministry of Justice will develop methodological guidance for public officials on how to improve the quality of consultations and feedback mechanism but the question of how to make those guidelines a living document remains open. Currently, there is no strategy or measures to assist public officials to implement the guidelines. According to the Office of the Government, there will be a training campaign, but its content and scale will depend on the availability of resources. [27]

To maximize the results of this commitment, the IRM recommends the following steps:

• Ensure maximum transparency by making information on the TAIS available in open data formats and by including the legislative footprint in the updated platform. Lithuania ranks behind most European Union member states in opening and using data for public interest in the Global Data Barometer. [28] Open data is essential to analyze and understand the legislative process and the acts that are registered and discussed, and for stakeholders to see and react to each other’s proposals. While the upgrades to the TAIS are technically beyond the scope of this commitment, the IRM recommends ensuring the TAIS operates transparently and provides data in open data formats. Furthermore, it is important that the updated platform is user-friendly, understandable, and includes data on lobby and other meetings, reasoned response to proposals, current progress, next steps, etc. The IRM recommends making the legislative footprint publicly available and easily accessible in the updated platform.
• Continuously update the guidance and training based on the experiences of public institutions. As more public institutions draft legislation using the new standards, the Office of the Government and the Ministry of Justice could use these experiences to continuously improve the guidance and training to public officials. To help offset limits in capacity, the Office of the Government and the Ministry of Justice could encourage public institutions to share their own experiences in carrying out legislative processes under the new standards, particularly cases with high levels of public engagement. The Office of the Government and the Ministry of Justice could also update the guidance and training while monitoring the compliance with the new standards (see below).
• Encourage public institutions to provide adequate feedback to comments. It will be important to ensure that feedback to interested parties is detailed and includes proper considerations from the relevant public body. The IRM recommends preparing guidelines for public sector staff, explaining how to answer the public in an informative and understandable way. As an example, Croatia’s e-consultation portal allows users to see each comment in real time, and links comments to specific parts of the proposed act. [29] After a consultation finishes, the comments and the government responses can be downloaded in Excel format, and the entire process remains visible on the portal. Finished consultations also have an accompanying report with the government’s responses to the comments.
• Monitor the compliance of future consultations with the new standards. The utility of the standards and the guidelines will largely depend on public officials' knowledge of how to use them. Once the commitment is finished, the IRM recommends the Ministry of Justice and the Office of the Government choose a group of volunteer public institutions and evaluate how this group is implementing the new standard. This could help the Office of the Government adapt its guidelines, training, and strategic approach to better public engagement.