August 2026 – PSA Parliaments

By Anton Morgun and Franklin De Vrieze

Returning to the Wroxton Workshop always feels special. Under the leadership of Lord Philip Norton of Louth, the Workshop continues to offer something that is increasingly rare: a genuine exchange between academic research and parliamentary practice. The formal presentations matter, but so do the conversations over coffee, lunch and dinner, making the inter-disciplinary learning environment quite unique.

Measuring parliamentary success

This year, one idea surfaced repeatedly:

Parliamentary success should be measured less by the number of new laws adopted and more by a parliament’s ability to understand the impact of the laws already in force.

Against that backdrop, we presented our findings on post-legislative scrutiny (PLS) in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the Parliament of Ukraine. The research project led by Irina Hum of the VRU sought to answer two straightforward questions. First, what determines the effectiveness of PLS in Ukraine? Second, to what extent are the recommendations resulting from PLS actually implemented?

Presenting the work together, as a legal analyst from the Ukrainian Parliament and a practitioner who has worked alongside parliamentary colleagues around the globe, made for particularly rich discussions. Many participants recognised that law implementation is becoming the next frontier of parliamentary oversight.

PLS starts where the legislative process is often assumed to end. It asks whether legislation has achieved its objectives, whether implementation has been effective, what unintended consequences have emerged and whether public policy has improved.

Those questions are especially important in Ukraine, where Parliament has continued to strengthen oversight while simultaneously responding to Russia’s full-scale invasion, reinforcing democratic resilience and advancing EU accession.

PLS recommendations from Ukraine

Our research examined twelve PLS inquiries undertaken between 2021 and 2026. One of the central findings is that successful PLS should not be judged primarily by the number of legislative amendments that follow. Across the twelve Ukrainian inquiries, only around twenty per cent of recommendations proposed legislative amendments. Almost two thirds sought improvements in public policy, administrative practice or institutional implementation. In other words, the greatest value of PLS often lies not in amending the legislation but in improving how legislation works in practice.

Several inquiries illustrate this insight. The review of the Law on Youth Policy showed how narrowing the evaluation to specific provisions produced more practical and measurable recommendations than reviewing an entire framework law. The inquiry into the Law on the Natural Gas Market demonstrated how PLS can identify implementation bottlenecks across multiple public institutions rather than focusing only on legislative drafting. The review of the Law on Administrative Service Centres illustrated how implementation gaps can be addressed through administrative improvements instead of statutory amendments.

From public evidence to parliamentary findings

Evidence remains the foundation of effective PLS. During the inquiry into the labour legislation, the Committee on Social Policy and Protection of Veterans’ Rights received, processed and analysed more than 60,000 submissions from citizens.

That extraordinary consultation exercise demonstrated that parliamentary committees are increasingly capable of transforming large volumes of public evidence into meaningful parliamentary findings and practical recommendations.

Partnerships and cooperation

The Ukrainian experience also confirms that strong PLS depends on partnerships. Parliamentary committees benefit enormously from cooperation with supreme audit institutions, statistical offices, ombuds institutions, universities, law reform bodies and civil society organisations. These partnerships strengthen both the evidence base and the legitimacy of parliamentary findings.

Equally important are the people inside parliament. Across many jurisdictions, parliamentary staff provide the continuity, analytical expertise and institutional memory that make PLS possible. At the same time, the Speaker, Deputy Speakers and Committee Chairs create the political space needed to place legislative impact firmly on the parliamentary agenda.

The Ukrainian Parliament has developed increasingly sophisticated methods for conducting PLS. Yet there remains scope to strengthen structured cooperation between Parliament and Government throughout the PLS cycle. Earlier dialogue when selecting legislation for review could reduce duplication, improve evidence gathering and increase ownership of subsequent recommendations. Transparency is equally important. Publicly accessible PLS reports allow researchers, civil society organisations and citizens to scrutinise findings, monitor implementation and contribute to future inquiries. Openness strengthens accountability and institutional learning alike.

From global conversations to democratic resilience

For WFD, these findings also reflect a much longer journey. Over two decades of partnership with the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, WFD has had the privilege of supporting parliamentary strengthening across successive phases of institutional reform. The development of PLS has been one chapter in that broader partnership, characterised by mutual learning rather than one-way technical assistance.

The same spirit has shaped the Global Community of Practice on Post-Legislative Scrutiny. As more parliaments institutionalise PLS, practitioners increasingly learn directly from one another. Experiences from Ukraine resonate with lessons emerging from Kenya, Zambia, Scotland, Nepal and many other legislatures. PLS is no longer an isolated innovation; it is becoming part of a global parliamentary conversation about legislative quality and democratic accountability.

Reflecting on the discussions at Wroxton afterwards, one thought stayed with us. Democratic resilience is not built only through constitutional design or the passage of new legislation.

Democratic resilience is also built through the quieter discipline of returning to existing laws, listening to citizens, measuring results honestly and having the confidence to improve what does not yet work.

An effective tool, not a luxury

Ultimately, that is the promise of post-legislative scrutiny.

Ukraine demonstrates that post-legislative scrutiny is not a luxury reserved for stable democracies with abundant resources. It is an effective oversight tool that can strengthen legislative quality under the most demanding circumstances.

That, perhaps more than anything else, was our shared takeaway from Wroxton.

About the authors

Anton Morgun is Chief Legal Advisor at Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine

Franklin de Vrieze is Head of Practice Accountability at Westminster Foundation for Democracy

By Stefanie Reher

This blog is based on an article first published in the Scottish Election Analysis Report.

Many of the 1.3 million disabled people in Scotland and their families will be wondering what the next years will bring for the representation of their interests. Two former MSPs who were among the most outspoken advocates of the disabled community in the previous Parliament, including as Conveners of the Cross-Party Group on Disability and contributions to the Assisted Dying Bill debate, Jeremy Balfour and Pam Duncan-Glancy, will not return to Parliament. However, two other disabled MSPs were re-elected: Emma Roddick, who has been an active campaigner for mental health and who shared her experience of not receiving necessary adjustments as Minister for Equalities, and Gillian Mackay, the Scottish Greens co-leader who first entered politics through an Inclusion Scotland internship in Holyrood supporting disabled people’s access to politics.

Advocating for disability rights and interests in Parliament is of course by no means the exclusive domain of disabled representatives. Yet, in practice it is frequently politicians who belong to a particular group who speak out on behalf of that group, often drawing on their own lived experience. Whether members of a marginalised group have a seat at the table can also send a powerful signal about the group’s role in society. Therefore, given the significant inequalities and exclusion that the disability community continues to face, the question of political representation is particularly important for them.

Disabled people are underrepresented amongst politicians globally, but what about the new Scottish Parliament? It is difficult to get accurate data, as many disabilities are invisible and some politicians might be hesitant to disclose them, for instance because they prefer to focus on other political issues or because of the negative stigma that continues to exist in society. Although recent research suggests that public attitudes towards disabled politicians are often rather positive, in reality they face a substantive risk of harassment and (online) abuse. Some disabled politicians have also reported negative reactions from within their parties, with some being questioned about whether they would be “up to the job”. Keeping this caveat in mind, it appears that at least 9 disabled candidates were elected on 7th May, all of them representing the SNP or Scottish Greens (based on figures from Inclusion Scotland and politicians who have publicly identified as disabled). Accounting for 7% of MSPs, this number is far lower than the 24.1% of Scots who report a long-term health condition or disability. Still, it is a significant increase from the estimated 5 disabled MSPs in the last Parliament, and certainly higher than the estimated 2% in the House of Commons. One of the newly elected MSPs is Kayleigh Kinross-O’Neill, who uses a wheelchair and draws on her experience as a local councillor and disability activist.

A key policy aimed to improve disability representation in Scotland is the pioneering Access to Elected Office Fund, which covers the additional costs that disabled candidates face campaigning. According to Inclusion Scotland, who have administered the Fund since 2016, 21 candidates made use of it in this election, up from 14 in 2021. Five of these candidates got elected, a record number. The main expenses the Fund covered to make the election campaign a more level playing field were for personal assistants, travel, coaching, and assistive technology.

Besides the number of disabled MSPs, the parties’ manifestos also give us an indication of what disability policy in Scotland might look like over the next years. A first clue about how much the parties care about representing the disability community is the accessibility of their manifestos. Ideally, all parties would publish their manifestos in audio, Braille, British Sign Language (BSL), Easy Read, and large or clear print. Only the SNP published their manifesto in all these formats, while the Liberal Democrats, Labour, and Greens each provided three of them (none in BSL). The Conservatives and Reform UK supplied no accessible manifestos.

And what have the parties promised to do for disabled people over the next parliamentary term? The diversity of attention to disability across the manifestos is striking. While the Greens have dedicated “Disabled People” and “Mental Health and Neurodivergence” sections, Reform UK’s manifesto does not include any specific pledges to disabled people. Table 1 summarises which issues each party’s manifesto addresses. Similarly to manifesto accessibility, the number of disability-related pledges differs significantly along the ideological spectrum. While the SNP provided the most accessible manifestos, the Greens set out the most comprehensive agenda on how to improve the lives of disabled Scots. The coming months and years will show to what extent these pledges will be fulfilled, and whether the new cohort of disabled, and disability activist, MSPs will be driving this agenda.

**Table 1.** Issues addressed by parties’ manifesto pledges to disabled people

About the authors

Reher is Professor of Political Science at the University of Strathclyde. Her research examines the participation, experiences, and representation of disabled people in politics, as well as public opinion about diversity in policymaking. She is the author, with Elizabeth Evans, of Disability and Political Representation (Oxford University Press).