What happens if at the end of the debates, the deputies have not passed the law? A passage in the Senate without a vote, explains the constitutionalist Dominique Rousseau.
By Thibaut Deleaz
© XOSE BOUZAS / Hans Lucas via AFP
Published on
Subscriber-only audio playback
I’clock is ticking for MPs. This Friday, February 17 at midnight, the debates on the pension reform will end… whether the text has been studied in full or not. This is the procedure desired by the government, which has chosen to pass its major reform through an amending social security financing bill and to use article 47.1 of the Constitution to constrain the work of parliamentarians. From the Nupes to the RN, many deputies are worried about not having been able to vote before the deadline. So what will happen at midnight? Lighting.
Article 47.1 sets a deadline of 50 days to vote on social security financing bills. The National Assembly has, in first reading, 20 days. The text having arrived on January 30 in committee, it must be examined before this Saturday – a deadline reduced to Friday, the Assembly not sitting on weekends. A difficult race against time with thousands of amendments to discuss. The deputies only considered a handful of articles and did not even arrive at the 7ethe most symbolic, which pushes back the starting age to 64 years.
READ ALSO“We are next to the plate”: feverish days at the Élysée
Passage to the Senate without a vote
This Friday at midnight, “the debate stops and the text automatically passes to the Senate”, explains Dominique Rousseau, professor of public law at the University of Paris-I. And this, without any vote: the text is transmitted as it is to the senators, modified by the amendments adopted by the Assembly and relieved of the articles possibly deleted by the deputies, such as article 2 on the senior index for companies . Given the turn of events, the constitutionalist believes that it is “very likely that the law will not be passed by the Assembly”.
The Senate then only has fifteen days to debate the text, which they include in Article 1. The elected officials can then amend it in turn or cancel amendments adopted by the deputies. The government, he, “may very well reintroduce article 2 deleted” or modify the text further, assures Dominique Rousseau.
At the end of the 15 days, whether the Senate has adopted a final text or not, the direction of the joint committee. Composed of seven deputies and seven senators, it must find common ground to arrive at a common text which must then return to each of the hemicycles. If the deputies, who have the last word, adopt it as is, the reform passes. Otherwise, they can debate it again, “and the government can then use 49.3” to pass the law without a vote.
READ ALSOPensions: three cases to understand the impact of the reform on women
If, at the end of the statutory time of 50 days, the law has not been voted on – therefore neither adopted nor rejected – by Parliament, “the provisions of the draft can be implemented by ordinance” by the executive, indicates the Constitution. A maneuver legally provided for by the texts, but politically very risky.
The reform censored by the Constitutional Council?
For Dominique Rousseau, the procedure chosen by the government is very questionable, and could be challenged by the Constitutional Council. “Article 47 can be used for a social security financing law: the delays are understandable, because the budget must be adopted before 31 December. However, there is no obligation for the reform to be voted on in March rather than in June or later…” The Wise Men could thus censor the entire text for “misuse of procedure”, without commenting on the bottom. “My analysis is that there is a serious risk of unconstitutionality, because the use of 47.1 in this case undermines the sincerity of the debate. Everything is a question of interpretation of the texts.
If the government chooses to proceed by ordinance at the end of the 50-day period, the Constitutional Council cannot, however, decide on the reform. It will then be necessary to turn to the Council of State, which should examine the merits of the choice of this procedure.