Oversight and consultative hearings represent the most significant mechanisms available to Members of the Parliament of Montenegro for exercising parliamentary scrutiny, gathering information, and clarifying issues that give rise to uncertainties in the work of state authorities and other competent institutions.
In practice, parliamentary hearings are not always conducted in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Montenegro. Delays of several months are commonplace between the submission of an initiative and the actual holding of the hearing. Such delays undermine the parliamentary oversight function and make it largely dependent on the “good will” of representatives of the executive to attend the scheduled sessions. Even when hearings do take place, their substantive impact is limited due to shortcomings in following up on the conclusions, i.e. the assessments and positions intended to serve as recommendations to the executive branch.
This parliamentary term has also been marked by the constant questioning of the opposition’s right to invoke the so-called “minority” initiative. Some initiatives have been rejected, some were never put to a vote, and only a small number resulted in the launch of oversight hearings. The most recent amendments to the Rules of Procedure further restricted this right, so that the opposition may now use it only once, rather than twice as previously, during a regular session.
Our findings indicate that committees are not adequately monitoring the implementation of adopted conclusions. The Rules of Procedure contain no explicit obligation requiring committees to track conclusions, nor are follow-up sessions organised to review their outcomes. Even when committees commit to conducting an evaluation six months after the adoption of conclusions, as was the case with the Committee on Health, Labour and Social Welfare, no publicly available information can be found on the Parliament’s website regarding the results.
To strengthen parliamentary oversight, existing mechanisms must be improved by ensuring that hearings are held within clearly defined timeframes, that conclusions are adopted as a matter of course, and that regular information is provided on their implementation. Automatic acceptance of the “minority” initiative and restoring its previous scope of use, twice during a regular session, are essential steps in this process. It is also necessary to establish a publicly accessible register of hearings containing all key information: submitted initiatives and related decisions, dates of scheduled and held hearings, minutes, conclusions and assessments, and data on the follow-up of their implementation. Such measures would enhance the effectiveness of hearings as instruments of parliamentary oversight.