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 joint research on post-legislative scrutiny (PLS) in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the Parliament of Ukraine. Our research 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