The Draft Law on Amendments to the Law on Inspection Supervision was submitted to the Parliament on May 8 through an urgent procedure, without conducting a public debate.
Institut alternativa has provided suggestions to the Legislative Committee and the Committee on Political System, Judiciary, and Administration, urging members to propose amendments to improve the Draft Law on Amendments to the Law on Inspection Supervision.
We reached out to the members of Parliament because the Government submitted the Draft Law for parliamentary procedure on May 8 through an urgent procedure, without conducting a public debate. No roundtable was held on the proposal, so we were unable to provide suggestions and recommendations on the text of this law, which has been under revision since 2017, when the last public debate was held.
A key change in the systemic framework is the proposal to establish a Coordinating Body for Harmonisation and Monitoring of Inspection Supervision, as a permanent working body of the government that, among other things, “coordinates the work of all inspection bodies.” The powers of the Coordinating Body for Harmonisation and Monitoring of Inspection Supervision, as outlined in the draft law, significantly exceed the nature and objectives of the powers of permanent working bodies stipulated by the Regulation on the Work of the Government. Permanent working bodies of the government include: the Commission for Political System, Internal and Foreign Policy; the Commission for Economic Policy and Financial System; the Commission for Personnel and Administrative Matters; and the Commission for the Distribution of Part of the Budget Reserve Funds.
Suggestions for improving the legal text result from IA’s monitoring of the work of inspections. Analysis “How Do Inspections Operate? – Overview of the Work of Seven Inspections in Areas at Risk of Corruption” is available on the IA website. Monitoring, which covered seven different inspections, showed that the role of inspections in the fight against corruption is underdeveloped, particularly evident in the lack of a unified strategic approach and a well-developed legal framework. The proposed legal amendments do not address the identified shortcomings, such as inconsistent supervision planning, risk assessment based on standardised methodology, and handling of initiatives.
We pointed out to the members of Parliament that it is necessary to clarify methodology and procedure for harmonising the annual work plans of different inspections and that the annual work plan should include a detailed plan for joint/coordinated inspections. Additionally, the procedure for harmonising plans needs to be specified.
Furthermore, we noted that the article relating to risk assessment does not specify whether a standardised methodology is involved, and it is unclear whether each inspection body independently develops its methodology or if it is adopted solely at the ministry level. The possibility of establishing an obligation to prepare and adopt standardised guidelines for developing the methodology (for risk assessment and ranking) should also be considered.
We believe it is necessary to stipulate that an inspection body, or a legal entity, is required to develop an internal procedure for handling initiatives, defining deadlines and procedures, and making it available to the public, i.e., proactively publishing it on the website. If an inspection is not responsible for handling a received initiative, it must promptly, or within a specified timeframe, forward the initiative to the competent inspectorate.
We also suggested making the preparation of checklists mandatory, as the current draft leaves them as an option rather than a requirement, and that the Coordinating Body should prepare guidelines for creating a general form of inspection supervision reports.
We reminded the members of Parliament that, in addition to this Draft Law, the Government also submitted a Draft Law on Amendments to the Laws Regulating Inspection Supervision, that proposes changes to as many as 82 laws. We criticised the Government for rushing the change in the inspection supervision model without prior analysis of the situation, contrary to the public administration framework, which the Institut alternativa has repeatedly pointed out.
We have repeatedly reacted to the fact that the Government initiated a serious reform based on the conclusions from the 2021 Analysis of the Efficiency of the Inspectorate Administration, neglecting the fact that the work of inspections within ministries was not evaluated at that time.
Institut alternativa will continue to closely monitor the ongoing reform process of inspection supervision in Montenegro, respond promptly, provide constructive suggestions for such a serious reform, and inform the public in a timely manner.
IA team
