2. Institutional Co-ordination
This section examines institutional co-ordination for improved policy formulation in the Palestinian Authority. It provides an overview of the current institutional framework underpinning the legislative process, highlights the importance of legislative planning for co-ordinated policy formulation and assesses the work of institutions performing the quality control of new legislation.
Low levels of co-ordination limit the PA's ability to identify clear policy priorities, address multidimensional challenges and achieve its strategic objectives. Line ministries only have limited knowledge about the PA’s whole-of-government policy agenda. Existing sector or institution-specific strategies are often developed without prior co-ordination with other ministries and consequently lack alignment and take-up. The varying quality of draft legislation renders the work of institutions performing the quality control indispensable, but despite the existence of various quality checks, the roles and responsibilities of the different institutions involved in legal verification and the overall quality control are not sufficiently clearly defined. This section therefore recommends that the PA enhances legislative planning notably by establishing a permanent inter-ministerial planning committee and developing and adopting an annual legislative plan to further streamline the legislative planning process and foster more co-ordinated policy- and law-making. It also recommends to enhance capacity building for policy formulation and legal drafting and to render quality control more efficient notably by reforming the quality control performed by the centre of government, improving the quality of cost assessments and defining and implementing minimum standards for all legislative proposals.
Following its founding in 1994, the Palestinian Authority has created an institutional framework and mechanisms based on the rule of law which were enshrined in the Basic Law in 2002 (Palestinian National Authority, 2005[1]). While the Basic Law only contains a “very limited and inadequate” number of provisions that detail the policy- and law-making process (EUPOL COPPS, 2017[2]), it offers an overview of the various institutions involved in the process, ranging from line ministries to institutions providing advisory services, quality control and oversight to decision-making authorities. Apart from the Basic Law, no normative framework exists that regulates the functioning of the PA (EUPOL COPPS, 2017[2]).
According to the Basic Law, the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) represents the Palestinian Authority’s legislature (see Art. 47) (Palestinian National Authority, 2005[1]). It holds the right to legislate and keep the Executive in check. Pursuant to Art. 56 of the Basic Law, the PLC’s members also have the right to initiate legislation (Palestinian National Authority, 2005[1]). Besides the PLC, the Council of Ministers (CoM) is the only other institution mandated to initiate legislation. The Internal Regulation on the Palestinian Legislative Council (2000) regulates the review and adoption of draft legislation. Due to the dissolution of the Palestinian Legislative Council in 2007, the current legislative and policy formulation processes of the Palestinian Authority take place in a challenging political context and therefore differ from the one originally established in the Basic Law (see Figure 2.1).
Pursuant to Art. 71.4 of the Basic Law, line ministries shall “prepare drafts and legislation related to the ministry and propose them to the Council of Ministers” (Palestinian National Authority, 2005[1]). This article establishes the ministries’ responsibility for policy development and legal drafting of draft acts following the initiation of legislation. The Basic Law further stipulates that Ministers are in charge of supervising the conduct of affairs in their respective ministry and are expected to issue the necessary instructions (Art. 71.2) (Palestinian National Authority, 2005[1]). The Basic Law does not contain any additional provisions regarding the different steps line ministries should follow in their internal policy formulation and drafting process (EUPOL COPPS, 2017[2]). Each ministry has a dedicated legal unit that provides legal support and advice, while policy-planning units in line ministries are responsible for co-ordinating and developing policies.
Following the problem identification and policy formulation phase, the legislative proposal and an accompanying policy paper on its objective (referred to as policy memoranda) are sent to the General Secretariat of the Council of Ministers (GS). The Secretariat verifies all draft acts’ consistency with existing legislation prior to submission to the CoM for approval. By virtue of Art. 70 of the Basic Law, the CoM holds the “right to submit draft laws to the Legislative Council, to issue regulations, and to take necessary actions to enforce laws” (Palestinian National Authority, 2005[1]). The Council of Ministers therefore represents a central institution in the PA’s institutional architecture. It has decision-making power on all draft legislation that is expected to be submitted to the PLC for discussion and adoption (OECD, 2011[3]). The General Secretariat of the CoM may also create special committees for the review of individual legislative proposals and their corresponding policy memoranda prior to approval by the CoM. Committees may accept, reject or amend legal proposals. By bringing together different relevant ministries and the Diwan, these committees can represent an important forum for intra-institutional co-ordination across administrative boundaries in the absence of the PLC (OECD, 2011[3]).
According to Art. 68 of the Basic Law, the Prime Minister not only appoints and removes the members of the Council of Ministers and organises its weekly meetings, but also oversees and co-ordinates the work of the ministers and public institutions. The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) was established in 2003, but is not defined by the Basic Law. It provides technical support on an ad hoc basis during the policy formulation phase.
Before draft legislation is issued by the President, it passes the Official Gazette Bureau (hereafter “Diwan”). Created in 1995 by presidential decree, the Diwan reviews all draft legislation (i.e. proposals for laws, bylaws, decrees and decisions) regarding their legislative wording, compliance with the Basic Law and consistency with other existing legislation prior to ratification and publication in the official Gazette.1 With a body of 12 legal advisers, the Diwan prepares a revised draft of all legislation submitted by line ministries, trying not to alter the nature of the proposed acts. All comments and recommendations made by the Diwan are non-binding. The Diwan is also in charge of publishing the Palestinian Official Gazette.
According to the regular legislative procedure enshrined in Art. 41 of the Basic Law, the President enacts the legislation (Palestinian National Authority, 2005[1]). In case of objections to a legal proposal, the draft law can be returned to the PLC within 30 days. Any objection requires a detailed justification and leads to a new adoption procedure in the PLC (OECD, 2011[3]). The PLC then seeks the opinion of its Legal Committee on the President’s amendments or proposal and puts the proposal to a vote. Should a two-thirds majority of the PLC vote in favour of the proposed or original legislation for a second time, the law is considered adopted and must be published in the Palestinian Official Gazette, which exists since 1995. Due to the right to issue decrees, the head of state is considered an ordinary legislative body.
Note: The figure depicts the adjusted legislative process due to the PLC’s absence. In the absence of the PLC, there is a gap between the official mandates of the institutions as per the Basic Law and the practice.
Source: Author’s own elaboration based on responses received during the OECD’s fact-finding mission.
Multiple factors influence the identification of policy issues and their incorporation into the governance agenda, including the capacity of representative institutions (for instance the centre of government2) to co-ordinate on and articulate policy issues. In addition to identifying policy problems and defining challenges that require policy action, policy prioritisation forms an important part of the early stages of policy development process (OECD, 2020[4]). Governments usually do not have resources and capacity to address all problems (simultaneously, at least). They therefore need to prioritise and sequence between various policy projects in the early stages of policy- and law-making to work towards more realistic commitments and better designed government interventions (OECD, 2020[4]).
Strategic planning is a key tool to allow for the co-ordination between different institutions to enhance the quality of policy design and law-making and positively shape policy outcomes (OECD, 2020[4]). Well-embedded legislative planning can be instrumental in translating political commitments and priorities into both long/medium-term strategies and operational action plans that directly guide the work of government. Planning should be systematic, ensuring alignment between various plans as well as between long-, medium- and short-term policy priorities towards a common goal. Strategic planning needs to ensure that policy instruments such as budgeting, regulations and workforce planning are oriented towards this strategy (OECD, 2020[4]).
Across the OECD, the formulation of government policies and legislation is generally based on a planned and co-ordinated process that involves discussions and exchanges between different line ministries as well as actors outside of government. Ideally, all policies and legislation form part of an integrated whole-of-government work programme that may take the form of a strategy or action plan. An example of such an integrated whole-of-government work programme is the Korean New Deal (see Box 2.1).
For strategic planning purposes, the Palestinian Authority has adopted various relevant planning documents, drawing on the assignment letter handed by the President to the Prime Minister. In addition to the multi-year strategic document of the “National Development Plan 2021-2023”, different sector strategies as well as cluster operational plans exist. These strategies and plans aim at setting the PA’s objectives and priorities and bringing together otherwise scattered policies.
In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, Korea adopted the Korean New Deal. This strategic work programme offers a clear vision for a future-proof trajectory. The Korean New Deal builds on a clear and broad vision to transform the country from a fast-follower to a first mover economy, from a carbon-dependent to a low-carbon economy, and from a socially-divided to an inclusive society. These integrated policy priorities are translated in two focus areas: a Digital New Deal and a Green New Deal. This is then further operationalised in key projects. From these projects, ten have been selected as the building blocks of the forthcoming whole-of-government transformation due to their significant contribution to the creation of jobs and new industries, and to a well-balanced form of regional development.
Note: The strategic work programme can be consulted here: https://english.moef.go.kr/pc/selectTbPressCenterDtl.do?boardCd=N0001&seq=4948
Source: (Government of Korea, 2020[5])
However, despite the existence of a multitude of strategic plans, interviews with various institutional stakeholders revealed that line ministries only have limited knowledge about the PA’s whole-of-government policy agenda and the legal proposals in progress. Rather than providing a wider framework for the PA’s action, many of the existing strategies and legislative plans are only sector or institution-specific and lack take-up across the whole-of-government. Interviewees further pointed to frequent unexpectedly emerging legal needs and the subsequent development and adoption of legislation that does not form part of existing strategic documents. Due to the associated time pressure and limited resources, these urgent responses may not always meet the quality standards for legal drafting, stakeholder consultation and policy coherence. The OECD’s interviews during the fact-finding missions have further shown that limited formal co-ordination mechanisms represent a major challenge for legislative planning. It was reported that in many cases, single pieces of legislation that are not linked to the PA’s wider strategies or policy are developed by individual institutions without prior co-ordination with other ministries. This confirms the conclusions from previous reports that “individual institutions producing drafts on their own and pushing them through […] has become wide-spread practice” (EUPOL COPPS, 2017[2]). Such low levels of co-ordination limit the PA's ability to identify clear policy priorities, address multidimensional challenges and achieve its strategic objectives.
The PA’s centre of government (CoG) uses various instruments to ensure greater levels of horizontal policy co-ordination with line ministries and agencies. Responses to the OECD questionnaire show that besides the meetings of the Council of Ministers, inter-ministerial committees at minister, vice-minister and director level (e.g. the Harmonisation Committee led by the Ministry of Justice) also serve as instruments for co-ordination. However, it seems that the PA makes only a limited and inconsistent use of this type of committee (EUPOL COPPS, 2017[2]). The PA confirmed the existence and frequent use of ad hoc working groups that deal with policy issues for a fixed period of time and are composed of representatives of different public institutions (both of line ministries and other institutions or civil society organisations). One example of such temporary working groups are the various special committees that are established by decision of the Council of Ministers to review individual legislative proposals. Contrary to many OECD countries, the PA has not issued any written guidance such as strategic plans, written rules, manuals or guidelines on procedures that may be conducive to co-ordination.
In addition to ad hoc co-ordination mechanisms, a standing mechanism exists in theory for the sharing of draft legislation among line ministries prior to the meetings of the cabinet. The General Secretariat of the CoM is required to provide all line ministries with all relevant documentation to enable the provision of comments on draft legislation discussed by the CoM. There is currently no standing mechanism for sharing draft policies among ministries for internal consultation. The PA should consider to further streamline the planning process to foster more co-ordinated policy- and law-making. To overcome the number of challenges related to the fragmentation of the current planning system, the PA should consider reforming the dedicated institutional structures for legislative planning. The PA could foster co-ordination between line ministries on the one hand and line ministries and key units in the centre of government on the other hand by establishing a standing body, such as an inter-ministerial committee to discuss and articulate policy challenges and agree on prioritisation, policies and legislative planning. Such a committee under the chairmanship of the Ministry of Justice could not only help to identify policy conflicts early on, but also help improve visibility of the PA’s policy objectives and provide guidance to policy-makers for the preparation of new legislation.
In the past, the PA already had two institutional mechanisms to institutionalise legislative planning. In 2007, the CoM created the Higher National Committee on the Legislative Plan (HNC), which was composed of representatives of line ministries, civil society and the private sector (OECD, 2011[3]), to prepare and implement the PA’s annual legislative plan. In 2012, the PA established the Ministerial Committee on Legislative Policies (MCLP), which consisted of the General Secretariat of the Council of Ministers, relevant line ministries and representatives of ministerial committees. Led by the Ministry of Justice, the committee was in charge of presenting legislative priorities and reviewing draft legislation prior to submission to the CoM. It ensured the compliance of line ministry proposals with the “National Sector Plan”, the PA’s programme and individual ministerial plans, and returned them to the HNC in case of mismatches.
Both the HNC and the MCLP existed for a couple of years, but were eventually discontinued. Despite their dissolution, many stakeholders underscored the beneficial impact of both institutions in terms of co-ordination and planning during the OECD’s fact-finding missions. While their functions were to a certain extent overlapping, the PA could consider re-establishing a committee similar to the MCLP that takes on the HNC’s responsibilities for the annual legislative plan that sets out the PA’s legislative priorities. Without undermining the mandate of the CoM, the committee could be led by the General Secretariat of the Council of Ministers or the Ministry of Justice and consist of a number of relevant ministers and the head of the Diwan. It could build on the reported successful functioning of the Harmonisation Committee under the Ministry of Justice that helps to better co-ordinate the legislative process by analysing the compatibility of all new legislation with the PA’s international commitments. Such a committee could be mandated to review draft legislation and the PA’s priorities to enhance co-ordination and coherence between the financial, legal and policy planning and legislative drafting between line ministries and the centre of government. Supported by the strategic planning teams in line ministries, it could also help determine the financial costs of legislative projects.
Complementary to a new or strengthened committee, the processes for formulating and drafting individual pieces of legislation should be planned in advance. One way to do this is through the creation of a plan of legislative tasks that is established on a yearly basis through a whole-of-government effort and which is followed by all line ministries for the creation of new legislation. The legislative plan could thus serve as an annual work plan listing specific actions and legislative interventions that are expected to implement the PA’s strategic priorities and the consequences of adopting such priorities (EUPOL COPPS, 2017[2]). The plan could enshrine the different challenges and gaps in legislation the PA intends to address and provide an overview of the associated priorities. Ideally, the annual legislative plan would specifically list these actions and interventions for all line ministries, include detailed timelines to operationalise them with specific implementation mechanisms, and provide principles and standards for setting the legislative priorities. Each year, line ministries could prepare their sector specific legislative plans (e.g. in specialised sectoral sub-committees) and submit them to the new inter-ministerial committee. The PA could also consider introducing incentives for institutions following the legislative plan and adhering to the included deadlines. An annual legislative plan could thus contribute to further streamlining the legislative planning process.
While the PA first had a legislative plan in 2007, the practice is currently reported to be put on hold. The 2007 version of the plan included the following eight priorities (EUPOL COPPS, 2017[2]):
There is currently no overview of the various draft laws and proposals that are being prepared by different entities in the PA. In addition to publishing work plans and legislative plans of line ministries to enhance transparency of the policy development process, keeping a regularly updated overview of individual proposals and their timelines can thus improve legislative planning and help identify bottlenecks and capacity gaps. The current establishment of an electronic file management system under the General Secretariat of the Council of Ministers could be helpful in that regard and help the centre of government track all legislative interventions.
Interviewees during the OECD’s fact-finding missions pointed to the varying quality of draft legislation across different line ministries. Under the PA’s current arrangements, policy formulation and legal drafting fall within the responsibility of the line ministries. While all ministries employ legal staff in dedicated legal units and despite the binding nature (pursuant to Resolution No. 17/174/07 of 2017) of the 2018 Legislative Drafting Guidelines (Palestinian Authority Ministry of Justice, 2018[6]), stakeholders pointed to significant challenges with the quality of legislation. In addition to the overall quality of draft legislation, important parts of the legislative proposals such as impact or background assessments are regularly reported to be missing (for more information see Chapter 8).
The varying quality of draft legislation renders the work of institutions performing the quality check all the more indispensable. In the Palestinian Authority, various bodies are involved in independently ensuring the quality and legality of new legislation. The Diwan reviews referred legislation to verify proposals’ legislative wording, compliance with the Basic Law and consistency with other existing legislation prior to ratification and publication in the Official Gazette. A unit in the General Secretariat of the Council of Ministers also engages in quality control to ensure that proposals fit their intended purpose and do not conflict with the Basic Law, before they are sent to the Council of Ministers. A third institution performing quality control is the President’s Office, where legal advisors perform a final scrutiny of all draft legislation. The Ministry of Justice also reviews draft legislation from a formal legal perspective, verifies the adherence to legal drafting standards and assesses all proposals’ consistency with international treaties.
Despite the existence of various quality checks, the roles and responsibilities of the different institutions involved in quality control are not sufficiently clear, both regarding the legal verification (e.g. legal drafting quality, consistency with existing legislation, compliance with the Basic Law), but also in terms of overall quality control (e.g. alignment with the PA’s objectives, affordability, compliance with procedures). This lack of clearly defined mandates leads to overlaps between the functions of different institutions and is reported to have led to misunderstandings and tensions in the past. Close co-ordination may help resolve duplications of work, but currently no formal mechanism exists. In order to improve the efficiency of the quality control on both legal and overall quality of draft legislation and avoid duplication of functions, the Palestinian Authority could consider consolidating the responsibility for legal review and task an institution with the lead on quality control. Following the practice in many OECD countries, an existing institution could become the centralised body tasked with providing legal services to public entities (OECD forthcoming, n.d.[7]). Following a review of its mandate, the institution in question could provide legal information and advice on all draft policies and legislation to the Office of the Prime Minister and the Office of President. It could co-ordinate legal positions with the General Secretariat of the Council of Ministers and line ministries and review the legal conformity of proposals submitted to the Council of Ministers. Moreover, the institution could play a more prominent role in capacity-building. A strengthened role for the verification of the quality of draft legislation and the provision of legal services and more active involvement in the policy- and law-making process will also entail the need for additional staff and budget.
In order to improve the quality of legislative proposals, the PA could consider reforming the quality check by involving the centralised body in question early on in the policy- and law-making process. A closer cooperation with line ministries ex ante could support policy-makers with more legal expertise and support, notably in the area of legislative drafting. Through such an early involvement, the compliance with already existing legislation and the Basic Law could be ensured throughout the process. The Legal Unit in the Office of the President could continue to perform a final legal quality check before legislation is adopted and published.
The centralised body could provide specialised training on policy formulation and legislative drafting to the legal units in the line ministries. In this regard, the allocation of staff members with specialised skills in legislative drafting in all line ministry units could further be conducive to the quality of legislation. Additional exchange of expertise between legal staff in all line ministries, but also in the centre of government’s different institutions could also contribute to capacity building. Regular meetings for legal staff can provide a forum to discuss and exchange views on legal drafting across the PA. The PA could thus consider to re-introduce the inter-ministerial workshops on legal drafting that were last held in 2013. A rotation of legal staff in line ministries’ legal units with a temporary work placement in the centralised body may further help build capacity for policy formulation.
Another major challenge highlighted during the fact-finding missions, related to the varying quality of costing assessments. While all line ministries are asked to provide an estimation of policy proposals’ costs, this assessment is reported to be often of insufficient quality. The PA may thus not only wish to establish procedures to verify that adequate costing was carried out, but also support ministries with their costing assessments. The Ministry of Finance, which verifies the assessment for the Council of Ministers, could help ministries improve their costing assessments. Instead of involving the Ministry of Finance at the end of the policy- and law-making process, its experts could already be invited during the policy formulation phase and participate in the meetings of the policy formulation committees in line ministries to provide assistance with costing assessments. In addition, the Ministry of Finance may consider creating concrete guidance on costing assessments and organising capacity building for line ministry staff.
Beyond the guidance included in the Legislative Drafting Manual, the PA could define and implement minimum standards for the quality of proposals. Similar to checklists for regulatory decision-making (see Part II) (Palestinian Authority Ministry of Justice, 2018[6]), a checklist or dashboard for all policy and legal proposals could further contribute to improving the quality of policy formulation. A checklist could reflect basic information about the proposals, including an overview of the timeline, stakeholder consultation, the Diwan’s review, preliminary costing as well as the impact assessment. This tool may also help prioritise and set the agenda for the Council of Ministries. Proposals that do not meet the quality requirements can systematically be identified for remediation. The General Secretariat of the Council of Ministers and the Diwan could help with the preparation and implementation of the checklist. In Finland, for example, the Bureau of Legislative Inspection in the Law Drafting Department of the Ministry of Justice uses legal drafting guidelines to monitor the quality of all legal proposals (Box 2.2).
In Finland, the government adopted instructions for legal proposals upon presentation by the Ministry of Justice. These instructions lay down common principles and standards. The Government stresses the importance of observing these instructions, so that the Parliament receives the information it needs on the legislative proposals it is to consider. The Bureau of Legislative Inspection in the Law Drafting Department of the Ministry of Justice monitors compliance of the drafting instructions.
The general drafting principles cover:
The instructions also propose a uniform structure, which must be followed as closely as possible, and the various elements of legislation that must be covered to ensure sufficiently high and uniform quality of all legislation.
Note: The drafting instructions can be consulted here: https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/75937/omju_2006_3_bill_drafting_instructions.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Source: (Government of Finland, 2006[8])
Recommendation 2.1 - Further streamline the legislative planning process to foster more co-ordinated policy- and law-making.
Consider reforming the dedicated institutional structures for policy and legislative planning by establishing a permanent inter-ministerial planning committee to discuss and articulate policy challenges, agree on prioritisation, policies and legislative planning. The PA may consider re-establishing the inter-ministerial committee on legislative policies (MCLP). The PMO and the Ministry of Justice may take a leading role in this reform.
Create an online information and document sharing portal to facilitate the exchange of draft policies and legislation prior to meetings of the Council of Ministers.
Recommendation 2.2 - Develop and adopt an annual legislative plan for the Council of Ministers, containing the priority initiatives, the responsible institutions, deadlines, outputs and outcomes.
Prepare mandatory annual work plans in line ministries to monitor specific actions and legislative interventions that are planned to implement the PA’s strategic priorities.
Include detailed timelines for individual institutions to operationalise the annual legislative plan.
Recommendation 2.3 - Consider reforming the quality control performed by the centre of government.
Clearly define the roles and responsibilities of the different institutions involved in quality control regarding the legal verification and the overall quality control in formal mandates to reduce functional overlaps and duplication of work.
Create a single institution responsible for providing a quality check of all draft legislation submitted to the Council of Ministers that also provides legal information and advice to the CoG, co-ordinates legal positions with other centre of government units and line ministries.
Involve the centralised body responsible for the quality check of draft legislation early on in the policy- and law-making process and establish close cooperation with the line ministries to provide policy-makers with more legal expertise and support, notably in the area of legislative drafting.
Consider providing the centralised body in charge of the quality check of draft legislation with the necessary staff and financial resources.
Expand the centralised body’s training programme to provide specialised training on policy formulation and legislative drafting to the legal units in the line ministries.
Recommendation 2.4 - Enhance capacity building for policy formulation and legal drafting.
Consider introducing, in line with existing capacity, a rotation scheme of legal staff in line ministries’ legal units with a temporary work placement in the centralised body providing the quality check of draft legislation to further build capacity for policy formulation and legal drafting.
Assess existing legislative drafting capacities in line ministries and allocate staff members with specialised skills in legislative drafting in all line ministry units to enhance the quality of legislation.
Consider creating a policy profession role with functional focal points in each ministry, to strengthen mainstreaming of policy development skills, standards and guidance tools across ministries.
Establish regular meetings between legal staff in all line ministries, but also in the centre of government’s different institutions to provide a forum for discussion and exchange views on legal drafting across the PA. The Prime Minister’s Office could call on these regular meetings, while the Ministry of Justice and the Diwan could facilitate the discussions and exchanges to cross-fertilise good practices.
Recommendation 2.5 - Improve the quality of cost assessments for all legislative and policy proposals.
Establish procedures such as quality checks to verify that adequate costing was carried out for all proposals submitted to the Council of Ministers for approval. The General Secretariat of the Council of Ministers together with the Ministry of Finance could take a lead role for the establishing of these procedures.
Support ministries with their costing assessments by fostering cooperation with the Ministry of Finance already at the policy formulation phase. The Ministry of Finance could help line ministries improve their cost assessments by involving its representatives in the meetings of the line ministry policy formulation committees. In addition, the Ministry of Finance may consider creating guidance on costing assessments and organising capacity building for line ministry staff.
Provide line ministries with the Ministry of Finance’s expert guidance through a designated manual or guidelines on how to conduct costing assessments of draft legislation, through advisory services (‘help desk’ approach) or though participation in relevant sessions of the budget committees in line ministries.
Provide designated training programmes on cost assessments to increase the quality of legislative and policy proposals.
Recommendation 2.6 - Define and implement minimum standards for the quality of proposals
Consider introducing a checklist or dashboard with basic information about the legislative and policy proposals, including an overview of the timeline, stakeholder consultation, the Diwan’s review, preliminary costing as well as the impact assessment for all policy and legal proposals to further contribute to improving the quality of policy formulation. This checklist or dashboard should be aligned with the regulatory process (see Part II). The General Secretariat of the Council of Ministers and the Diwan could help with the preparation and implementation of the checklist.
References
[2] EU Co-ordinating Office for Palestinian Police Support (ed.) (2017), The Legislative Process in the Palestinian Authority - An Assessment.
[8] Government of Finland, M. (2006), Bill Drafting Instructions.
[5] Government of Korea (2020), Korean New Deal.
[4] OECD (2020), Policy Framework on Sound Public Governance, https://www.oecd.org/governance/policy-framework-on-sound-public-governance/ (accessed on 21 July 2020).
[9] OECD (2018), Centre Stage 2 -The organisation and functions of the centre of government in OECD countries.
[3] OECD (2011), Regulatory Consultation in the Palestinian Authority - A Practitioners’ Guide For Engaging Stakeholders in Democratic Deliberation.
[7] OECD forthcoming (n.d.), Review and support of Portugal’s State Legal Competency Centre (JurisAPP).
[6] Palestinian Authority Ministry of Justice (2018), The Legislative Drafting Guidelines.
[1] Palestinian National Authority (2005), Basic Law of the Palestinian National Authority.
Notes
← 1. A new Presidential Decree published on 24 July 2022 further defines the mandate of the Bureau and its role in the legislative process.
← 2. The OECD defines the centre of government (CoG) as the body or group of bodies that provide direct support and advice to heads of government and the council of ministers, or cabinet (OECD, 2018[9]). Following responses to the OECD’s questionnaire, the President’s Office, the Prime Minister’s Office and the General Secretariat of the Council of Ministers are most frequently attributed to the centre of government in the Palestinian Authority.