File n° 51 

The notions of governing majority and opposition appear neither in the Constitution, nor in the Rules of Procedure. With the motion of November 7, 2006, the National Assembly attempted to modify its Rules of Procedure in order to give a legal basis to these two notions. A new paragraph was added to article 19 stating that political groups had to declare whether they were part of the governing majority or of the opposition. Protests would be dealt with by the Bureau.

The Constitutional Council decided that such a declaration was contrary to article 4, paragraph one of the Constitution (“Political parties and groups are created and function freely”). Thus provisions giving specific rights to the opposition were also declared contrary to the Constitution.

I. –  the participation of all political groups in the bodies
of the National Assembly and in its running

1. – The participation of all political groups in the bodies of the Assembly

a) In the main bodies

According to article 10, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Procedure “every endeavour shall be made to ensure that the Bureau reflects the political make-up of the Assembly”. In the XII^th Parliament, the opposition groups held one third of the positions on it (two of the six vice-presidents, one of the three questeurs and four of the twelve secretaries).

The opposition is represented at the Conference of Presidents by two of the vice-presidents of the National Assembly who belong to the minority political groups and by the chairmen of these groups (article 48, paragraph 1 of the Rules of Procedure).

 b)  In the committees

All political groups sit on the committees – standing or ad hoc – in proportion to their size, (article 37, paragraph 2 of the Rules of Procedure) and since 1988, also sit on the bureaux of standing committees.

For the 2006-2007 session, the opposition had eleven of the forty-seven positions on the bureaux of the six standing committees (i.e. one vice-president per committee and one secretary in five of the committees).

Within the Finance Committee, the position of special rapporteur has been entrusted several times since 1973 to members of the opposition (this was the case for nine out of forty-two such positions for the 2007 budget). The situation is similar for the “rapporteurs for opinion” in the other committees. It should also be remembered, in this context, that the substantial monitoring powers of the special rapporteurs were increased by the Institutional Law on Finance Laws of August 1, 2001.

In addition, the participation of the opposition in the Assessment and Monitoring Mission (MEC), a body set up in 1999 by the Finance Committee, and in the Assessment and Monitoring Mission on the Social Security Finance Laws (MECSS), set up in 2004,  by the Cultural, Family and Social Affairs Committee has been reinforced. In such bodies the opposition sits in more or less equal numbers to the governing majority and it has the co-chairmanship, along with an M.P. of the governing majority.

c) In the work of specialized bodies, delegations and parliamentary offices

These bodies, some of which are shared between the National Assembly and the Senate, are in fact composed, in accordance with the laws which set them up, in proportion to the size of the political groups.

d)  In the delegations representing the National Assembly
 in various international assemblies and in the Inter-parliamentary Union

2. – The participation of all political groups in the running of the National Assembly

a)  Several sittings per session are given over to the discussion of Members’ bills
 or to the organization of a debate requested by the political groups

As the August 1995 reform of the Constitution introduced a monthly sitting reserved for an agenda set by the National Assembly (article 48, paragraph 3 of the Constitution), several sittings per session can thus be divided between the political groups, according to an agenda set by the Conference of Presidents. The distribution of such sittings is made in proportion to the size of the political groups, with each one ensured of having, at least, one sitting.

The chairmen of the political groups can choose to include on the agenda the discussion of a Members’ bill, of a motion to set up a committee of inquiry or a debate.

During the 2005-2006 session, the opposition groups thus had three such sittings as opposed to five for the groups making up the governing majority.

b)  The right to speak of all political groups is guaranteed during the debates

The general discussion of bills is organized so that each political group has the same minimum speaking time. As the overall speaking time is decided by the Conference of Presidents, the remaining available time is shared between the political groups according to their size (article 49, paragraph 3 of the Rules of Procedure).

The organization of debates, which is optional, though traditional for the general discussion on texts, is obligatory for debates on non-legislative subjects. The overall speaking time allotted to political groups by the Conference of Presidents is then divided between them by the President of the National Assembly, in proportion to their size (article 132, paragraph 3 of the Rules of Procedure). Normally, each group has a minimum of 30 minutes speaking time, the remaining speaking time being shared by the group between two speakers at the most, with at least 5 minutes for each of them (article 132, paragraph 3 of the Rules of Procedure).

Except in the cases where the Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly prohibit it, explanations of votes may be permitted by the President. In this case, each group may appoint one speaker and all speakers have equal speaking time.

c)  All political groups have ways to interrupt or delay the debate

Points of order, requests for adjournment, objections of admissibility and preliminary questions are regularly used by members of the opposition.

― Points of order and requests concerning the running of the sitting have priority over the main question. They lead to a suspension of the discussion. The floor is given for five minutes, at the most, to any M.P. who requests it (article 58, paragraphs 1, 2 and 5 of the Rules of Procedure). The priority given to points of order explains why they are frequently abused to raise issues which are not included on the agenda or to question the Government. Since 1981, more than 70 % of the points of order have been made by the opposition.

― Requests for an adjournment of the sitting may not be refused if they are made by the chairman of a group or by his representative (article 58, paragraph 3 of the Rules of Procedure). Certain limits have been placed on these requests which are sometimes used by opposition groups as a sign of protest or even as a means of obstruction and which can contribute in a substantial way to the disorganization of parliamentary work.

― The purpose of objection of admissibility is to “have recognized that the proposed text is contrary to one or several provisions of the Constitution” and it leads to, if passed, the defeat of the text. Its discussion, which takes place before preliminary question, has a time limit imposed[2] and involves speeches only by the signatory, the Government and the chairman or the rapporteur of the relevant Committee. Before the actual vote, the floor is given, for five minutes, to a representative of each group.

― The purpose of preliminary question is to “have it decided that there is no reason to debate” (article 91 of the Rules of Procedure). It concern the timeliness and not the constitutionality of the text in question. The conditions for its tabling, the terms for its discussion and the effects of its adoption are the same as for objection of admissibility, with which it is often coupled at the National Assembly. It sometimes appears as an obstructionist technique and is almost never passed.

The development of the checking of conformity to the Constitution has increased the use of this procedure substantially and it often acts as a prelude to referral to the Constitutional Council.

The possibility which exists for sixty M.P.s or sixty Senators to refer bills, before their promulgation, to the Constitutional Council (article 61, paragraph 2 of the Constitution) has strengthened the role of the opposition in Parliament, by enabling it to submit the governing majority (and thus the Government it supports) to the respect of fundamental Law. This provision, which is a result of the October 1974 constitutional revision, is widely used by the opposition. It should be noted in this context, that the Constitutional Council gave around fifty decisions before 1974 and almost four hundred since then.

II. – the limited role of the political groups
in the legislative functions

According to the Constitution, the right to initiate laws, as the right to amendment, belongs to every M.P. (articles 39 and 44).

However, in addition to the general limits on the legislative initiative of parliamentarians (articles 40 and 41 of the Constitution), the priority agenda, which is given over to the examination of Government bills or proposals accepted by the Government, leaves no space for the Members’ bills tabled by members of the opposition. As for the monthly sittings reserved for an agenda set by the National Assembly, they may allow the minority to have Members’ bills that it has tabled, be discussed but this does not at all guarantee their being passed.

Thus, during the three sittings which were given over to them during the 2005-2006 session, the opposition groups had seven Members’ bills included on the agenda but all, except one, were defeated.

Similarly, the adoption of opposition amendments remains impossible without the agreement of the Government and of the governing majority.

III. –  Progress in matters of information
and monitoring of government functions

In the fields of information and Government monitoring, the opposition essentially plays a role outside the restrictive procedures of the making of Government responsibility an issue of confidence.

a)  The making of Government responsibility an issue of confidence by the tabling of a motion of censure

With the objective of overthrowing the Government, the use of this procedure is relatively ineffectual (only one such motion has been adopted since 1958). In practice, however, the procedure is used quite regularly by the opposition as a way of showing its disagreement with Government policy. In this context, its main interest is to force the holding of a formal debate.

b)  The procedure of Government question time

Introduced by a direct agreement between the Executive and the National Assembly, outside of the provisions of the Constitution, this procedure was added to the classic procedure of oral questions which was provided for by the Constitution.

Since the introduction of a single parliamentary session in 1995, two one-hour sittings per week are given over to this form of questioning (even during the budgetary discussion), instead of the one weekly one-hour sitting, originally laid down. The sittings are, in addition, broadcast live on television.

During the XII^th Parliament, the distribution of speaking time between the political groups was in proportion to their size with a proviso that each group should be allowed to ask, at least, one question. The governing majority had 40 minutes whilst the opposition had 20 minutes. This organization, which dates back to 1981, was nonetheless, less favourable to the opposition than the system implemented in 1974 which gave the opposition the same time allotment as the governing majority.

During the sitting, the order in which the questions are called enables each of the groups to speak first, alternately and allows a question from the governing majority group to alternate with a question from an opposition group.

It should be remembered that since October 1, 2003, the Conference of Presidents has decided to give over the first questions of the first sitting of each month, to European subjects and that, in addition, the discussion on the second part of the finance bill, includes since 1978 and, in particular, since 1981, a phase of questions by M.P.s to the minister whose budget is being discussed. This procedure follows that of Government question time.

c) The committees of inquiry and the fact-finding missions

The committees of inquiry also provide the opposition with efficient information and monitoring means, in particular thanks to the widening of the scope for investigation since 1997 and to the public nature of their proceedings since 1991.

The positions of chairman and of rapporteur are given, as of right, to a member of the group to which the first signatory of the motion proposing the setting-up of the committee belongs (article 140, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Procedure). In addition, the committees of inquiry have always been made up in proportion to the size of the groups. This practice, which was the result of a compromise, was confirmed by the reform of 1991.

As an illustration, the committee of inquiry on the health and social impact of the heat wave, set up in October 2003, was the result of four motions proposed by the chairmen of parliamentary groups of the governing majority and of the opposition. It was chaired by a member of the opposition whilst the rapporteur was appointed by the governing majority.

Like the committees of inquiry, the fact-finding missions established by the Conference of Presidents in application of article 145-3 of the Rules of Procedures ensure the representation of all political groups.

d) The Assessment and Monitoring Mission (MEC) and the Assessment
and Monitoring Mission on the Social Security Finance Laws (MECSS)

A particular position is reserved to the opposition in the Assessment and Monitoring Mission (MEC), set up in 1999 by the Finance Committee and in the Assessment and Monitoring Mission on the Social Security Finance Laws (MECSS), set up in 2004 by the Cultural, Family and Social Affairs Committee of the National Assembly. They are co-chaired by a member of the governing majority and by a member of the opposition and their composition is more equal than proportional to the size of the political groups. The role of these bodies is to carry out, each year, an assessment of the results of different public policies. The conclusions may serve as a basis for the examination of the following finance bill and of the following social security finance bill. They both benefit from the assistance of the Court of Auditors.

e) The possibility, within the framework of the monthly sitting based on parliamentary initiative,
to request the holding of a debate on an aspect of Government policy

This is how, for example, a debate was held, on May 13, 2003, on the subject of health insurance and health policy, upon the request of the Socialist group.

Bicameralism can facilitate the representation and the right to speak of the opposition: when the Government and the governing majority are on the left, the Senate, which is traditionally a more conservative assembly, plays the role of the opposition chamber, where the minority in the National Assembly may find some form of support. However, this situation has no equivalent, when the majority in the National Assembly is on the right.