|
||
|
|
|
|
Information and investigation procedures
In its legislative role, and particularly when considering the finance bill and the social security finance bill, the Assembly, at the same time as it passes bills, informs itself and exercises scrutiny over governmental action. Apart from this continuous process inherent in parliamentary activity, there are specific procedures which apply either at the Assembly itself, or at committees, or as regards deputies and their questions for written answer.
Apart from the statements set forth by Article 49, paragraph 1, the Government can make statements before the Assembly with or without debate — either on its initiative, or if asked to do so — in order to explain aspects of its policy. The discussion of statements with debate is organised by the Chairmen’s Conference which determines the total time allocated to groups. The Government takes the floor at the start of the sitting to make its statement and at the end to answer the speakers. When the Government statement is without debate, the President may give leave to one speaker only to answer the Government. No vote is taken on these Government statements.
The right to question the Government is a traditional prerogative acknowledged by Article 48, paragraph 2, of the Constitution: ‘At one sitting a week at least precedence shall be given to questions from Members of Parliament and to answers by the Government.’ The Rules of Procedure lay down that these questions sittings are organised by the Chairmen’s Conference. There are several kinds of questions for oral answer, of a somewhat different nature. Questions to the Government Instituted in 1974, outside the Rules of Procedure, these questions were constitutionalised in their principle, by the amendment of August 1995. On 30 May 1974, in his first message to Parliament, Mr Giscard d’Estaing suggested to the National Assembly to ‘set aside on each Wednesday, at the beginning of the afternoon, one hour for topical questions which would be raised with equal speaking times according to a procedure to be defined by the majority and the opposition. I would then ask the Prime Minister and all the ministers to be present at this Wednesday sitting in order to personally answer questions.’ Since then, this procedure, revised many times, has become established. The beginning of sittings on Tuesday and Wednesday afternoons is devoted, for one hour or one hour five minutes, alternately, to questions raised by the deputies of each group, according to an order of passage which successively grants each group the advantage of raising its first question — or its question if it is entitled to only one — at the beginning of the sitting. The following organisation principles apply: - Time is shared between groups depending on their size, per five minutes or five minute multiples; - One hour before the beginning of the sitting, each group transmits a list comprising only the name of the authors of questions and the ministers they wish to question, in the desired order of calling in the sitting. The topic does not have to be transmitted, which grants these questions a spontaneous character. The Government is immediately informed ; - Each question and its answer must normally take no more than five minutes — half of the time for the author of the question, and the other half for the answer by the minister, which does not give rise to a reply. No exception to the time limit rule is made except for the answers by the Prime Minister. While he does not intervene at each sitting, the Prime Minister reserves his attention to answering the questions he considers most important, and his interventions contribute to strengthening the political and media interest of these sittings. Televised by the channel France 3, sittings of questions to the Government form one of the highlights of the parliamentary week. Questions for oral answer without debate The day and the time for sittings of questions without debate have varied. One morning per week is, as a rule, devoted to them (except during the budget review period), alternately with Members’ bills sittings. These mornings consist in a dialogue between a deputy who has previously transmitted a text briefly developing his subject and the minister who answers him. The latter is not always the minister responsible. A decision of the Constitutional Council of 24 January 1964 recalled that, owing to the indivisibility of the Government, any of its members appointed by the Prime Minister is empowered to answer questions by members of Parliament. The dialogue takes place as follows: a few minutes for the question to be presented, the minister’s answer, a possible response, and a possible answer by the minister. The total time for the sitting is shared between groups depending on their size, for a total number of 25 questions per sitting. Questions for oral answer with debate This procedure, which is not frequently implemented at the Assembly, amounts to organising a debate at the initiative of deputies, based on questions raised by a member of each group on a common topic chosen by the Chairmen’s Conference. These questions give rise to an answer by the Government, following which speakers whose names have been put down to speak in the debate intervene for a time determined by the Chairmen’s Conference, in proportion to the size of groups. The Government answers at the closure of the debate.  At the committees
Standing committees are the place of choice for scrutiny over the Government. They exercise such scrutiny continuously in their field of competence, particularly when reviewing instruments brought before them. They exercise even stricter scrutiny outside the legislative framework. They indeed make wide use of hearings of members of Government and, with the authorisation of their ministry, of officials. They may also—which could not be done in public sitting—invite personalities from civil society in France or abroad. These hearings may derogate from the principle of confidentiality of committee work: committees can indeed organise, according to the procedures of their choice, the disclosure of all or part of the hearings they hold. Representatives of the written and audiovisual press may therefore be invited to attend these meetings, which moreover are most often televised on the internal channel. Review of the annual Finance Act is the ideal opportunity for committees to exercise their scrutiny role. They are indeed all involved : the Finance Committee as the committee responsible and the five others for their opinions on the appropriations for ministerial departments entering into their respective field of competence. In this framework, special rapporteurs — in other words rapporteurs appointed by the Finance Committee — play a specific role as they are permanently empowered to exercise scrutiny, on the basis of vouchers and on the spot, over the employment of appropriations set out in the budget. The result of their investigations, like that of the rapporteurs of the other committees, appears in the reports published on behalf of the committee. The Finance Committee may ask the Audit Court to assist it in exercising scrutiny over the management of departments and bodies which it scrutinises, and generally speaking, pursuant to the paragraph in the Constitution ‘The Audit Court shall assist Parliament (…) in monitoring the implementation of Finance Acts’ (Article 47, paragraph 6). Apart from these ordinary powers, bodies can be created to exercise scrutiny or an inquiry in a specific field: the Assembly may create committees of inquiry; each committee may make use of information assignments, and such assignments may be common to a number of committees. RIGHT OF PETITION Petitions are written requests or suggestions addressed by one or several persons to the President of one or the other of the parliamentary assemblies. The right of petition, which has existed almost permanently since the French Revolution, is presently defined by Article 4 of the ordinance of 17 November 1958 on the functioning of the parliamentary assemblies and by their Rules of Procedure. However, the existence of remedies that are sometimes more adapted both outside and within the National Assembly leave relatively little place for this procedure. Petitions received at the presidency of the National Assembly, and which can be recorded as such, are transmitted to the Constitutional Acts, Legislation and General Administration Committee. Petitions deemed admissible are entered on a general list and considered, as a rule, once or twice a session, by this committee which, according to the Rules of Procedure, can take three types of decisions giving rise to publication in the Official Gazette. It can simply take no further action on the petition; refer it to another standing committee or to a minister or to the Mediator of the Republic; or submit it to the Assembly.
According to Article 6 (§1, subparagraph 2) of the ordinance of 17 November 1958 on the functioning of the parliamentary assemblies, committees of inquiry are ‘formed to gather items of information either on given facts or on the management of public services or nationalised industries, with a view to submitting their conclusions to the Assembly which created them.’ Such a committee may be appointed if a motion for a resolution which ‘shall precisely set out the facts warranting the inquiry or [which] shall specify the public services or nationalised industries whose management is to be investigated by the committee’ is carried. (Rule 140, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Procedure). No committee of inquiry shall have more than thirty members, designated in such a way as to ensure proportional representation of groups. At their constitutive meeting they appoint their chairman and their rapporteur. They also decide on the public or secret nature of their work. Like all parliamentary documents, their report is available to the public, unless the Assembly, sitting in camera, decides not to authorise its publication (Rule 143 of the Rules of Procedure). They enjoy far-reaching prerogatives. The powers of their rapporteurs are similar to those of the special rapporteurs and the Audit Court may provide them with its assistance. Also, any person whose hearing they deem useful is obliged to accede to their summons. They are obliged to comply with certain constraints: the length of their operation is limited to six months; they cannot investigate facts giving rise to court proceedings; their members are required to uphold secrecy for their work which does not have a public nature. The creation of a committee of inquiry depends on the agreement of the majority. But it is accepted that each group can obtain the review once a year of a motion for a resolution tabled by its members for the creation of a committee of inquiry.
A FEW RECENT
COMMITTEES OF INQUIRY Committee of inquiry on the health and social consequences of the heat wave (October 2003) Committee of inquiry on the application of the recommended measures as regards the safety of the maritime transport of dangerous or polluting products and assessment of their efficacy (July 2003) Committee of inquiry on the management of public corporations in order to improve the decision-making system (July 2003) Committee of inquiry on the economic and financial causes of the disappearance of Air Lib (June 2003) Committee of inquiry on the conditions of the presence of the wolf in France and the exercise of pastoralism in mountain zones (May 2003)
Rule 145 of the National Assembly Rules of Procedure sets forth that standing committees ‘may entrust one or more of their members with a temporary information assignment concerning, notably, the enforcement of an item of legislation. Such assignments may be common to a number of committees.’ This highly flexible framework allows committees, where applicable on the basis of an initiative common to several of them, to pursue their investigations in the widest variety of fields, and such assignments sometimes play the role of a substitute for committees of inquiry. These assignments give rise to the drafting of an information report whose publication is authorised by the committee(s) which took the initiative to create the assignment. In recent years, standing committees have therefore carried out extensive investigative work by creating information assignments (events in Rwanda, fight against money laundering, amendment of bioethics laws…) which have given rise to as many reports. In order to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny over the use of public funds and the efficacy of public expenditure, an innovative structure was set up by the Finance Committee in 1999, inspired by foreign examples, especially the British National Audit Office. The Mission d’évaluation et de contrôle (MEC — Assessment and Scrutiny Assignment Task Force), created within the Finance Committee, is principally tasked with assessing the results of public policies and has the specific characteristic of being co-chaired by a deputy from the majority and a deputy from the opposition. This task force publishes each year a report on several questions drawn up with a view to reviewing the Finance Act, in order to strengthen the scrutiny exercised by the Finance Committee on this occasion over the Government.
Standing committees also deal with scrutiny over the implementation of acts, which scrutiny concerns not only the publication and the content of regulatory instruments required for the implementation of statutes, but also what is called the ‘assessment’ of acts, in other words appreciating the beneficial or adverse, expected or unexpected effects of given legislation. This scrutiny takes place most often at the time of the review of bills aimed at reforming the enacting clauses in question. Specific provisions (already mentioned: see Financial scrutiny) have been laid down as regards the scrutiny of the Finance Committee over the employment of appropriations budgeted for the various ministerial departments and over the accounts of public corporations. Since 1990, this committee has systematically studied the implementation of the fiscal provisions contained in the Finance Act and publishes each year a report on the subject. A question for written answer is a request for information sent by a parliamentarian to a minister regarding an aspect concerning his ministry. Quite often they are tabled with a critical intention but no personal allegations are allowed. The minister has one month, renewable once, to answer. The text of the question and of the answer are published in the Official Gazette (Edition Débats A.N. Questions). Computerisation of the questions for written answer procedure allows them to be consulted on the Questa database, updated every term. The Official Gazette also publishes an annual table of questions for written answer. Approximately 15,000 questions for written answer are raised each year by deputies. This procedure is especially important in the fiscal field, since it is accepted that a taxpayer can base himself on the interpretation of fiscal texts given by a minister in response to a question for written answer, which therefore allows administrative doctrine to be expressed in the same way as a ministerial direction or a circular. The database of questions for written answer and ministerial answers is accessible on line, on the National Assembly website, at the following address: http://questions.assemblee-nationale.fr Since 1994, each sitting week, groups have had the possibility of distinguishing among the questions which have not received a response, a quota of questions — called ‘signalled questions for written answer’ — for which the Government commits to giving an answer within ten days. FINANCIAL SCRUTINY
As the National Assembly does not have any power to initiate budget legislation, it has always sought to develop financial scrutiny. Even if some expectations remain unsatisfied, recent change in practices has led to undeniable progress in this field. The financial scrutiny it exercises has seen its field of investigation broaden over the years. Scrutiny instruments have grown in number to form today a wide and varied range. 1. Financial scrutiny is based, firstly, on exercising the power of budget scrutiny and analysing budget implementation data. From this viewpoint, the many accounting documents sent to the National Assembly Finance Committee permit detailed budget monitoring: monthly statement of the general budget appropriations and expenditure, monthly comparative statement of the expenditure and appropriations of each ministry, half-yearly statement of expenditure incurred, quarterly statement of expenditure incurred, monthly statement of State income collection, summary statement of Treasury operations, etc. This data is completed by the investigations which the budget general rapporteur may carry out, possibly on the basis of vouchers and on the spot, regarding the general implementation data relative to the Finance Act. It is also completed by the information which the Finance Committee special rapporteurs are entitled to obtain as part of the investigative and monitoring powers granted to them, with a view to permanently monitoring and scrutinising the use of appropriations included in the budget of the ministry on which they are tasked with reporting during the review of the year’s finance bill. In this respect they can in particular make use of the answers to the budget questionnaires sent each year to the ministries concerned. o exercised by making use of the many means of information available, more generally, to Parliament. For instance, over the years, the list of reports, balance sheets, or other documents which the legislator obliges the Government to attach — in keeping with a schedule that can vary — to its finance bills, has considerably grown. The annexes to the initial Finance Act, called ‘jaunes – yellows’ are, in this respect, highly instructive. At the same time, the standing committees, especially the Finance Committee, have developed the practice of information reports, provided for in the National Assembly Rules of Procedure, which — in addition to the hearings, whether public or not, which they can be led to hold — has enabled the progressive transition from the notion of scrutiny to the broader notion of assessment. Budget scrutiny is alsas enabled the progressive transition from the notion of scrutiny to the broader notion of assessment. The review of amending Finance Acts, commonly called ‘supplementary estimates’ and which are tabled during the year by the Government, also provides an unparalleled opportunity to scrutinise implementation of the State budget. The traditional year-end supplementary estimates form an ideal moment in this respect. The Finance Committee general rapporteur devotes a significant part of the report, which he then presents, to credit movements having affected, during the year, for each ministerial department, the amount of the initial appropriations. Lastly, one cannot forget the Settlement Act which, tabled at the latest at the end of the year following the implementation of the budget, is aimed at noting the financial results of each calendar year and approving the differences between these and the forecasts of the initial Finance Act, possibly amended by the amending Finance Acts. In addition to the implementation report presented by the Audit Court, a detailed Audit Court questionnaire has existed since 1975, the answers to which allow the Finance Committee general rapporteur to inform the National Assembly of the final implementation state of the budget of a given year. 2. Financial scrutiny cannot be limited to conventional budget scrutiny. During the past thirty years, Parliament has had to face an upheaval in the field of government finance owing to the emergence of the European budget, the financial consequences of the decentralisation policy and the high growth in social expenditure. The rise of European finance and the increasingly large share of the State’s contribution to the European budget have led the legislator to increase his scrutiny in this field. A specific article of the initial Finance Act and, at the National Assembly, a separate debate, have therefore been devoted since 1993 to the amount of the levy corresponding to France’s participation in the European budget. Similarly, the decentralisation reform and the concomitant transfers of competences and of fiscal revenue have made the review of the Finance Act an unparalleled opportunity for Parliament to exercise a right to follow the evolution of the finances of local authorities.
Lastly, the
size of the ‘Nation’s social budget’, higher than the amount of the State
budget, has led to the introduction in the constitutional text of a new
category of acts, Social Security Finance Acts, already examined in the
second part, whose structure and review procedure have been largely modelled
on those of Finance Acts. |
