The proposals foresee drafting annotations for all draft laws henceforth that would answer to the questions why a law is necessary and what its possible impact on the economy and other areas of life might be. “Only by answering the above mentioned questions, thorough assessment of the necessity of a possible law and the suitability of the proposed solution is possible,” indicated Raimonds Vējonis.
The President of Latvia believes that when submitting proposals for a draft law, both the justification for the proposals and the information about the consultations that took place during the preparation of the proposals should be provided in writing. That would make the legislative process more transparent and would enable readers to get acquainted with the justifications of the law in a convenient and easy way, as well as would provide information about the people involved in the drafting of that law.
In order to understand the will of the legislator and the purpose of the regulatory framework included in the law, the President of Latvia calls on the Saeima to take over the good practice of the Parliament of Estonia that the responsible committee draws up an explanatory report for each draft law. It contains information on the progress of preparation of the draft law, the reasons why any proposals are supported but other proposals are rejected, as well as information on the considerations of the parties, experts, and authors of the proposals. “Frequent changes in the laws and the flood of regulatory acts often result from the adoption of ill-considered regulation, which must be changed and improved constantly,” emphasises Raimonds Vējonis.
The President of Latvia also reminded about the considerations already mentioned to the Saeima which proposals should be considered at the conclusive stage of the legislative process that is at the third reading. The President of Latvia calls for the amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the Saeima so that the consideration of proposals that are outside the scope and purpose of the draft law discussed in previous readings could not be admissible in the third reading. This would enable us avoiding slash dash last-minute solutions with high probability of errors.