Criticized for substantive reasons, the pension reform also raises many questions in terms of method. While its presentation has been postponed to January 10, 2023, the government is now suggesting that it could pass the measures through an amending Social Security financing bill (PLFRSS). An option criticized by elected leftists because it is likely, according to them, to lead to a evaded debate in Parliament.
During a press conference given on December 15, the Minister of Labour, Olivier Dussopt, acknowledged that recourse to the PLFRSS constituted ” a track [qu’ils] regard[ent] »while indicating, in essence, that the ” quality “ from “legislative vector” was not yet officially defined. The fact remains that this is the scenario favored by the advisers of the executive and by elected representatives of the majority, when they are questioned on this subject. The idea of using a “Secu” draft budget – whether initial or amending – is not new. It had, in particular, sprung up at the end of the summer, when Emmanuel Macron had suddenly put the issue of pensions back in the foreground and maintained the hypothesis of a reform introduced by way of amendments to the bill for the financing of Social Security (PLFSS) 2023. Solution finally discarded after a lively controversy, the power in place then being accused of being “undemocratic”.
Today, the government plans to legislate through a PLFSS – not initial but corrective – because such a procedure proves to be very convenient for it. First, it limits “the duration of the legislative debate, the examination of the text having to be carried out – like what prevails for a “simple” PLFSS – within a period of fifty days between the deposit of this one on the office of the National Assembly and final adoption by Parliament, beyond which the bill can be adopted by government order.says Michel Borgetto, professor emeritus at the University of Paris-Panthéon-Assas.
Second advantage: like any financial text, the PLFSS can be passed to Parliament with the help of Article 49.3 of the Constitution – which allows adoption without a vote –, while leaving the possibility for the executive to use this provision to another bill, during the same session. The fact of preserving this “cartridge” is precious for the government, which only has a relative majority in the National Assembly and is, consequently, exposed to the risk of seeing its reforms rejected.
You have 54.87% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.