The conference was attended by MPs, National Assembly support staff and representatives of civil society organisations.

Representative of CRTA Vukosava Crnjanski stressed that the National Assembly as the supreme legislative body and the MPs are responsible for making sure they pass quality laws. Since 1991 one in two laws has been passed by urgent procedure, said Crnjanski stressing that the excessive use of the urgent procedure diminishes the democratic potential of the National Assembly, while USAID representative Jelena Avramovic underlined the importance of allowing the public to take part in the creation of laws and public policies.

The participants of the conference were presented the results of the “Making better law” research conducted by CRTA and SeConS Development Initiative Group. SeConS representative Ksenija Rakic said the research aimed to examine the entire urgent procedure for passing laws and understand the factors influencing the application of said procedure, as well as come up with suggestions how to improve the procedure itself.

The research has shown that the use of urgent procedure undermines the quality of the legislation, and that there have been instances when the procedure was abused and the submitters have given unclear reasons why a law should be debated by urgent procedure. Among the suggestions how to improve the procedure is the need to be specific in the explanation why a law should undergo urgent procedure and set up mechanisms to check the explanation. Some of the recommendations based on the results of the research suggest that urgent procedure could also be improved if the Government submitted an annual activity plan to the National Assembly and if the dialogue within the National Assembly were improved.

National Assembly deputy speakers Prof. Dr Vladimir Marinkovic, Gordana Comic and Veroljub Arsic and MPs Marko Djurisic and Vladimir Pavicevic took part in the debate. They shared their views on the reasons for and effects of adopting laws by urgent procedure. In the course of the debate, the participants opined that in is very important to stick to the letter of the National Assembly Rules of Procedure and the laws, and some suggested that the law-making procedure should be amended to include the public in the process to a greater degree. They also pointed out best practice examples in which the interested public took part in the drafting process through public debate.