Tabled on October 15, it was debated in the Social Affairs Committee on November 20, then will be in the Hemicycle on November 28. The two previous ones, admissible when they were submitted, had been emptied of their substance in committee, and had not succeeded in introducing the same device by way of amendment, the rules of admissibility of which are much more restrictive.
This PPL was this time adopted in committee (35 deputies for, 16 against) because the RN supported this initiative, unlike the NFP for its text. Thus article 1 will be able to be debated in session, or even adopted. However, this legislative vehicle has little chance of revisiting the 2023 pension reform.
First of all, the question of the financial admissibility of the PPL can come back to the Hemicycle. As a reminder, article 40 of the Constitution provides that “proposals and amendments formulated by members of Parliament are not admissible when their adoption would result in either a reduction in public resources, or the creation or aggravation of a public office”. The study of a charge is assessed in a legal and not budgetary manner. It is therefore neither the financial impact nor the sincerity of the pledge that is used for qualification.
Also read:
Why a new pension reform is inevitable – by Philippe Mudry
According to paragraph 4 of Article 89 of the Assembly's regulations, inadmissibility can also be raised a posteriori, by any MP or the government at any time, even during the debate in committee or in the Hemicycle. These referrals by the government remain quite exceptional. According to Jean René-Cazeneuve, while he was general budget rapporteur, 18 PPL or amendments were deemed inadmissible since 2009.
Display. During the session, the PPL could thus be considered inadmissible. The whole difficulty lies in the second part of paragraph 4: “Inadmissibility is assessed by the president or the general rapporteur of the committee on finance, general economy and budgetary control or a member of his designated office for this purpose. » The President of the Finance Committee, Eric Coquerel, being LFI, therefore for the repeal, and the general rapporteur, Charles de Courson (LIOT), having supported a similar text in May 2023, could have a more political than legal assessment and not make a binding decision.
Furthermore, even if the PPL is adopted, this does not mean that the repeal of the reform is ratified. The Senate would have to vote on the text in identical terms, which is unlikely. And if the Senate voted for it, but by modifying a few articles, a joint committee would have to be convened. For this, a request is required from the Presidents of the two assemblies jointly (article 45 of the Constitution), which again seems implausible. Finally, in the unexpected event of a vote on the text by both chambers, the Constitutional Council could perhaps declare the financial inadmissibility of the bill, if it is referred to it.
Thus, it is more of a political display, without procedural reality. Even if the PPL is adopted on November 28, its fate is uncertain: there is little (if any) chance that it will make it to the end of the legislative process. She will then stay warm in her kennel.
A specialist in the National Assembly, Mélody Mock-Gruet is a doctor in public law, a teacher at Sciences Po Paris and author of the Little Guide to Parliamentary Control (L'Harmattan, 2023)
Also read:
“Retirements: beware of the generational divide – and bill” – by David Lisnard
Related News :