File n° 26 

The Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly were adopted on June 3, 1959 and were recognized as compliant with the Constitution by a decision of the Constitutional Council on July 24, 1959. They constitute one of the sources of parliamentary law, whose importance has nonetheless been reduced by the rationalization of parliamentarianism implemented in 1958. The mode of adoption and modification of the Rules of Procedure, the content and the way in which they are applied, all display important characteristics which are vital to the understanding of the position and role of Parliament in the institutions of the Fifth Republic.

I. – The Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly,
a source of parliamentary law

In his treatise on political, electoral and parliamentary law, Eugène Pierre wrote: “Outwardly, the Rules of Procedure merely represent the internal law of the assemblies, a collection of instructions designed to apply a methodological approach to the running of a meeting where many contradictory aspirations meet and clash. In reality, they are a formidable weapon in the hands of the parties. The Rules of Procedure often have more influence than the Constitution itself on the course of public matters”. This statement, which was made during the Third Republic, continued to be valid during the Fourth Republic but could, no longer, be made today. This is due to the fact that the Constituent of 1958 sought to protect itself from the excesses of parliamentarianism observed during the preceding regimes.

Thus, though the Rules of Procedure remain one of the sources of parliamentary law whose legal nature should be detailed, it is nonetheless a source which is limited and monitored.

1. – The legal nature of the Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly

As Paul Bastid underlined in 1954, “the Rules of Procedure are the internal laws of each chamber, laid down by themselves. The Chamber in establishing its Rules of Procedure acts not as a branch of the legislative power but as an autonomous corporation possessing the power of organization and wielding disciplinary authority over its members”.

The Rules of Procedure are part of the legal category of measures of an internal nature, i.e. the validity of the rules they lay down is limited to their internal application. These rules are set out by the bodies of the National Assembly whose duty it is also to apply them. They concern all those who come under the authority of such bodies, be they M.P.s, staff or those who are on the premises of the National Assembly (visitors, members of the Government, officials of the executive, members of ministerial staff etc.)

As regards the position of the Rules of Procedure in the hierarchy of legal norms, the Constitutional Council decided in 1980 that “the provisions of the Rules of Procedure do not have a Constitutional status”. This means notably that the simple lack of knowledge of the Rules of Procedure could not, in itself, be cited in support of an appeal to the Constitutional Council.

2. – A highly limited source

The texts which regulate the Rules of Procedure are both numerous and significant given their content.

According to article 61 of the Constitution, the Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly must be compliant with the Constitution.

The Constitutional Council decided that this requirement of compliance should be extended to the provisions of institutional laws concerning Parliament which were taken in application of the Constitution. In fact the vast majority of such laws were decided upon by ordinance in the four months following the promulgation of the Constitution. They are very numerous and concern such important fields as the length of the powers of each assembly, the number of their members, their allowances, the conditions of eligibility and ineligibility as well as incompatibility, the conditions for the election of those replacing M.P.s in the case of a seat being made vacant, the regulation of proxy voting or the vote on the finance bill.

Through a ruling made in 1966, the Constitutional Council also decided that the Ordinance of November 17, 1958 concerning the working of the parliamentary assemblies, which has a simple legislative status, took primacy over the Rules of Procedure of the assemblies. This clarification is significant, as this text, in addition to the traditional provisions concerning the premises provided to the parliamentary assemblies, their financial autonomy or their civil liability, makes provision in particular for rules concerning committees of inquiry and parliamentary petitions and delegations.

3. – A monitored source

According to article 61 of the Constitution, “the Rules of Procedure of the parliamentary assemblies, before their entry into force, must be referred to the Constitutional Council, which shall rule on their conformity with the Constitution”.

This detail marks a break with French constitutional tradition which, by applying the principle of autonomy of parliamentary assemblies, allowed the latter total freedom concerning their Rules of Procedure.

This obligatory, preliminary verification guarantees that the Rules of Procedure of the parliamentary assemblies respect the texts which have primacy over them, according to the hierarchy of norms and which were mentioned above. It was applied 63 times between 1959 and 2006.

As regards the extent of this monitoring, Professors Pierre Avril and Jean Gicquel underline in their manual of parliamentary law that, “the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Council considers that the provisions of the Rules of Procedure which apply a constitutional rule must strictly respect the letter of that rule, without adding or subtracting anything, whilst those which are not, strictly speaking, in the field of constitutional provisions, must simply not enter into conflict with them”.

II. – modes of adoption and modification
of the Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly

In this particular field, the initiative is strictly in the hands of the M.P.s in keeping with the principle of the autonomy of the parliamentary assemblies. In concrete terms, this means the tabling of a motion for resolution, which, to be admissible, must, according to article 82 of the Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly, “formulate internal measures or decisions which, since they have to do with the operation and discipline of the Assembly, are entirely within its jurisdiction.”

The procedure of examination of such a motion is the same as that applicable to Members’ bills on first reading. Once it has been tabled, the motion for resolution is examined by the Law Committee and adopted in plenary sitting.

The provisions of articles 34, 40 and 41 of the Constitution (financial inadmissibility and respect of matters for statute) are not applicable to such motions.

Since coming into force, the Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly have been modified thirty times. In examining only the most recent of these modifications, amongst the most significant have been that (January 26, 1994) which aimed at improving legislative work by giving greater importance to the role of standing committees, through the reduction of the role of the plenary sitting and the strengthening of the monitoring procedures. Another dating from October 10, 1995 drew important consequences from the constitutional revision of August 1995. Also deserving mention is that (October 3, 1996) which introduced clarifications regarding the laws governing the financing of the social security system and the monitoring powers of committees or that (March 26, 2003) which allowed the Conference of Presidents, upon the proposal of the President of the National Assembly, to set up fact-finding missions and which recognized the opposition’s right to appoint a rapporteur or chairman of a committee of inquiry set up upon its own initiative. That of February 12, 2004 provided for the presentation of a report on the implementation of laws six months after their entry on the statute book or on the application of the recommendations of committees of inquiry six months after the publication of their reports. One of the most recent (June 7, 2006) put a time limit on the discussion of the procedural motions as to the tabling of amendments (the eve of the bill’s discussion at 5p.m.)

III. – the content of the Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly

The Rules of Procedure of parliamentary assemblies are meant to organize the internal working of the assemblies, to set out the procedures of deliberation and to determine the disciplinary rules which apply to their members.

The Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly contains nearly 200 articles set out in three sections.

Section 1 concerns the organization and the working of the National Assembly and contains provisions dealing with the Bureau, the Office of the President, the political groups, the committees, appointments, the agenda, the holding of plenary sittings, the methods of voting and discipline.

Section 2 deals with the legislative procedure and looks successively at, the ordinary legislative procedure, finance bills and bills governing the financing of the social security system as well as special legislative procedures (referendum motions, institutional laws, reform of the Constitution, international treaties and agreements and declarations of war).

Section 3 focuses on parliamentary monitoring and describes the information and supervision procedures (Government communications, questions, committees of inquiry, budgetary verification etc.), motions of confidence concerning Government accountability and the criminal liability of the President of the Republic and members of Government (the High Court of Justice and the Court of Justice of the Republic).

In accordance with its own articles 14 and 17, the Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly are specified and completed by the General Instruction of the Bureau.

IV. – the application of the Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly

The President of the National Assembly has responsibility for applying the provisions of the Rules of Procedure. As Eugène Pierre explained in his aforementioned work, “it is the duty of the President of the National Assembly to interpret the texts and to apply them to the various situations which might arise”. In doing so, he often makes reference to previous practices (“precedent”). The M.P.s may, at any moment, call for the respect of the Rules of Procedure by asking a point of order.

1. –   Precedent

It often happens that during a plenary sitting certain problems linked to the Rules of Procedure may arise. In this case, the President refers to precedent in order to see how such a problem was dealt with in the past. The Table Office keeps an up-to-date record of such precedents. Reference to precedent may be useful in avoiding having to improvise decisions in the heat of the action, but it is not obligatory. In fact, even if the precedent enables the definition of a well-established “jurisprudence” in a particular case, the President is not obliged to follow it. He maintains, in all cases, total liberty of decision.

It should however be stated that, in practice, precedent plays an important role in the application of the provisions of the Rules of Procedure.

2. –  Points of order

The M.P.s may, at any time, make a point of order; they have five minutes to do this. They are given the floor either immediately or at the end of the speech taking place. These requests have priority over the main issue and lead to a suspension of the discussion.

Points of order must concern the Rules of Procedure or the running of the sitting. They may not call the set agenda into question. If these rules are not respected the President may deprive the speaker of the right to speak. 

Points of order are regulated by article 58 of the Rules of Procedure. It may happen that the President replies by stating that he will refer the matter to the Bureau or to the Conference of Presidents. In practice, points of order are often used to make reference to an event without any clear link to the discussion or in order to slow down a discussion. They can then appear to be a means of obstruction. They are in fact, a right which the President and vice-presidents must handle with much dexterity.