Legislative Process Evaluation (LT0029)
Action Plan: Lithuania Action Plan 2018-2020
Action Plan Cycle: 2018
Lead Institution: Ministry of Justice
Support Institution(s): Daiva Žaromskytė-Rastenė, Adviser, Strategic Competencies Group, email: firstname.lastname@example.org, tel: 8 706 63 776 The plans are to consult civil society representatives and public governance experts, and the academic community.
Policy AreasCapacity Building, Legislation & Regulation, Open Parliaments, Participation in Lawmaking, Public Participation, Regulatory Governance
VI. Openness to the public of the activities of public governance institutions and their public accountability
6. Introduction of ex post evaluation in a legislative process cycle
1 September 2018 – 1 September 2019
Lead implementing agency Ministry of Justice
Status quo or problem addressed by the commitment Recently there have been many inconsistencies in the legislative process, often with the same legislation being repeatedly amended failing to take on board the consequences caused by previous amendments. Furthermore, the national audit report by the National Audit Office of 16 March 2018 has found that the existing instrument - the monitoring of the legal regulation - is applied in a fragmented manner, the monitoring is low quality, and it is therefore necessary to move to a systematic approach as to the impact assessment of the legislation. Such a need was identified in OECD report of 29 July 2015.
Problem solution/Commitment Mainstreaming ex post evaluation in legislative process.
Main objective The aim is to create an ex post evaluation model, which will serve as the basis for specific legislative proposals.
How will the commitment contribute to solve the problem? The implementation of the provisions proposed in the draft law should result in a positive impact on the transparency of the legislative process and the quality of the decisions taken - the evidence gathered during the impact assessment of the final legal regulation would be used to decide on the need to change the existing legal regulation. Besides, a closer public participation in the evaluation process is expected to improve the quality of legislation and better reflect the interests of the population concerned.
Action and its description Expected concrete result Start date: End date:
1. Preparation of the draft law Draft law, 1 pcs 01/08/2018 30/09/2018
2. Adoption of the law Law, 1 pcs. 01/10/2018 31/12/2018
3. Preparation of preliminary methodology version Draft methodology, 1 pcs. 01/01/2019 01/05/2019
4. Completion of practical training Training of civil servants from at least 13 ministries 02/05/2019 15/09/2019
5. Methodology designed Methodology, 1 pcs. 15/09/2019 01/10/2019
How is the commitment relevant to the values of transparency, accountability and civic participation? The commitment is relevant to the improvement of the existing legislative process, as it provides for the shift from fragmented evaluation of legal regulation to systemic evaluation of its problematic areas. There are also wide opportunities to engage the public in this process.
Additional information The commitment is part of the Plan for the implementation of the Programme of the 17th Government.
Lead implementing agency Ministry of Justice
Name, title, department of the responsible person, email and telephone number Tautginas Mickevičius,
Adviser, Legal System Unit,
tel.: 8 5 266 2859
Other ministries, departments/agencies involved Daiva Žaromskytė-Rastenė,
Adviser, Strategic Competencies Group,
email: email@example.com, tel: 8 706 63 776 What civil society organisations, private sector representatives or other stakeholders are you planning to involve in the implementation of the commitment? Do you plan to conduct a public consultation during the implementation of the commitment? The plans are to consult civil society representatives and public governance experts, and the academic community.
IRM Midterm Status Summary
Language of the commitment as it appears in the action plan:
Recently there have been many inconsistencies in the legislative process, often with the same legislation being repeatedly amended failing to take on board the consequences caused by previous amendments. Furthermore, the national audit report by the National Audit Office of 16 March 2018 has found that the existing instrument - the monitoring of the legal regulation - is applied in a fragmented manner, the monitoring is low quality, and it is therefore necessary to move to a systematic approach as to the impact assessment of the legislation. Such a need was identified in OECD report of 29 July 2015. 
6.1. Preparation of the draft law
6.2. Adoption of the law
6.3. Preparation of preliminary methodology version
6.4. Training of civil servants from at least 13 ministries
6.5. Methodology designed
Start Date: 1 September 2018
End Date: 1 September 2019
Context and Objectives
Lithuania’s parliamentary process for approving laws suffers from several major flaws:
- Around 700 legal drafts are registered annually,  a number too high for Parliament members to consider them properly and evaluate possible impacts to Lithuanian citizens and business;
- Legal loopholes and negative impacts of legal regulation usually become apparent only after a law has alreadybeen passed. As a result, the process of amending them starts soon after the laws were passed; 
- According to the National Audit Office, the lawmaking process in Lithuania involves no impact assessments;  and
- Up to 50 percent of Lithuanian laws are passed under accelerated or highly accelerated procedures,  making it even harder for politicians to comprehensively discuss the need for legal amendments.
In other words, Parliament passes and amends laws too quickly, before the effects of the laws or previous amendments are apparent.
With this commitment, the Ministry of Justice aims to create a systematic model for evaluating laws once they are passed, before amendments are made. The action plan calls for such evaluations to happen systematically as an integral part of lawmaking. However, Tautginas Mickevicius, the advisor to the minister, clarified that the ex post evaluation would be carried out only when the regulation is new or when it is expected to greatly impact society or any interest group. 
In any case, Parliament members would be advised to first wait for the ex post evaluation before suggesting any amendments. According to Tautginas Mickevicius, the ministry would propose to start evaluating in the second year of implementation, but that timeline has not been confirmed.  The ministry also expects to stimulate civic participation by consulting and engaging citizens who would possibly be affected by the legal acts. However, the commitment does not list this as one of its specific activities.
The overall commitment is verifiable and measurable, and if implemented, it could improve how laws are passed in Lithuania. The commitment would reorganize the process of legislation and ensure legal regulation monitoring systems to avoid speedy amendments. As specified by the National Audit Office, ex post evaluations may increase the quality of laws by requiring evidence-based amendments. Such evaluations could also lead to more effective use of budgetary funds and could reduce administrative burdens both to business and the public.
To ensure the overall success of the commitment, the IRM researcher recommends focusing not only on ex post but also on ex ante evaluations. Proper evaluations that occur before the passage of laws would stop politicians from proposing laws that do not serve the public interest or are poorly reasoned in the first place.
For this commitment to be relevant to OGP values, the IRM researcher recommends specifying how the ministry plans to engage the public. Currently, the commitment states that there are “wide opportunities to engage” citizens. This seems more like a general statement and not exact activities the ministry intends to carry out.
Also, it is highly recommended that the ministry specifies the scope of the trainings and what the Ministry of Justice plans to achieve in holding them. As learned from previous action plans, seminars or trainings alone do not guarantee any results if they do not have a clear goal in mind, exact audience, and success criteria. Full commitment text available at https://bit.ly/2HPWuXo.  “Legislative Bakery Does Not Take Responsibility,” lzinios.lt, https://www.lzinios.lt/Lietuva/istatymu-kepykla-atsakomybes-neprisiima/262096.  Ibid.  National Audit Office, Audit Report on Law-making Process, 2018, https://bit.ly/2FBhq0N.  Ibid.  Tautginas Mickevicius, Ministry of Justice, interview by IRM researcher, 4 April 2019.  Ibid.
LT0024, 2018, Access to Information
NGO Database, NGO Fund
LT0025, 2018, Civic Space
Publish Fiscal Information
LT0026, 2018, E-Government
Public Services by NGOs
LT0027, 2018, Capacity Building
Monitoring and Evlauation for Public Participation
LT0028, 2018, Public Participation
Legislative Process Evaluation
LT0029, 2018, Capacity Building
Build Open Data Portal, and Integrate Into the European Single Digital Market.
LT0015, 2016, Access to Information
Publicize Information About Government Activities and Civic Participation in Governance.
LT0016, 2016, Capacity Building
Publish Online Information About Revenues and Spending of National and Municipal Institutions
LT0017, 2016, E-Government
Create and Broadcast Social Advertisements That Target Corruption in the Healthcare System
LT0018, 2016, Anti-Corruption
Create Legal, Organizational and Technical Tools to Easily Access Detailed Information About Election and Voting Procedures
LT0019, 2016, Anti-Corruption
Create Public Consultation Mechanism
LT0020, 2016, Capacity Building
Foster Open Public Governance Culture in Public Sector
LT0021, 2016, Capacity Building
Creation of NGO Database.
LT0022, 2016, Civic Space
Creation of NGO Fund.
LT0023, 2016, Capacity Building
Public Service Quality Improvements
LT0007, 2014, Capacity Building
Developing and Promoting E-Services
LT0008, 2014, E-Government
Encouraging Public Participation
LT0009, 2014, E-Government
Raising Civic Awareness
LT0010, 2014, Education
National Civil Society Fund Model Development
LT0011, 2014, Civic Space
Accessibility of Public Information
LT0012, 2014, Access to Information
Public Decision-Making Transparency
LT0013, 2014, Anti-Corruption
Promoting Anti-Corruption Education
LT0014, 2014, Anti-Corruption
Increase of the Accessibility of the Information Held by Public Administration Authorities.
Centralised Publishing of Information on Government Activities
More Extensive Public Consultations
LT0003, 2012, Public Participation
Promotion of Public Participation in Public Administration Processes
LT0004, 2012, Open Parliaments
Increasing the Accessibility of Services Provided to the Public.
LT0005, 2012, E-Government
Promotion of Public Participation in the Process for the Improvement of Service Provision
LT0006, 2012, Public Participation