At the initiative of LFI, a coalition of oppositions in the Assembly decided on Tuesday to refer the agricultural orientation and sovereignty bill to the Constitutional Council, considering the government’s impact study potentially insufficient and disingenuous.
The president of the LFI group Mathilde Panot wrote Monday to that of the National Assembly Yal Braun-Pivet (Renaissance), to raise the question of the inclusion of the impact study presented by the government on its draft law of agricultural orientation.
It is based in particular on the reservations made by the Council of State. In an opinion dated March 21, he considers, for example, that certain measures proposed by the government, to accelerate litigation in the event of appeal against water storage or livestock building projects, are likely to present risks. of constitutionality.
He also underlines that the government’s impact study is very insufficiently motivated on this subject to the extent that it limits itself to anticipating an increase in the number of appeals.
The conference of presidents of the Assembly meeting on Tuesday debated this question, and decided under article 39 of the Constitution that the Constitutional Council should decide on the inclusion in the agenda of the Assembly of this law project.
This morning we won a victory and made Parliament respected, responded Mathilde Panot at a press conference at the Assembly.
According to a parliamentary source, the presidents of the opposition groups validated this referral, unlike those of the presidential camp, in a relative majority situation in the National Assembly. It is now up to the President of the Assembly or the Prime Minister to refer the matter to the Wise Men, who will then have eight days to decide.
If they validate the impact study, the bill could be included on the menu of the lower house from May 14, according to a parliamentary source.
Reworked due to the farmers’ crisis, the government’s text sets itself the objective of accelerating the arrival of new generations of farmers relieved of certain environmental constraints.
Mixing subjects as varied as training, hedges or the status of livestock protection dogs, it is praised by the majority agricultural unions for its simplification measures and the promised facilitation of irrigation or livestock projects.
Environmental NGOs, on the contrary, criticize it for perpetuating the current model, to the detriment of ecosystems.