THE PARLIAMENTARY ROUTE OF A LAW

The parliamentarian is generally attached to the right of initiative conferred on him by article 75 of the Constitution.

For the parliamentarian who submits a bill, it is often a question of submitting an “idea” containing a solution to a problem in the daily lives of citizens encountered “on the ground”, an idea which the press can echo with a certain announcement effect.

The shaping of the idea is at this stage relatively incidental.

He rarely writes his text alone and usually looks for a technician to do it.

Sometimes, he receives “ready-made suggestions for laws”, either in the form of real “offers of service to the legislator” written by specialized actors such as university professors (for example, we will remember the “mixtures of suggestions for laws” in homage to Pierre Harmel, written by notaries under the direction of Professor Paul Delnoy), or in the form of texts prepared by “lobbying” groups concerned with their interests to the point of writing their demands in the form of finalized texts.

A university professor once shared with me the idea that parliamentary assemblies should have a general “mailbox” in which any citizen, group of citizens, or individual representative could submit a legislative proposal for the attention of all representatives of the nation without having to address a member individually, who would necessarily be “colored.” The “naive” idea is not absurd.

Currently, there is nothing to prevent citizens from sending their suggestions to the various leaders of political groups or to the chairs of the relevant parliamentary committees.

Since 1988, parliamentarians have had technical assistance to assist them in their parliamentary work, provided by “staff from recognized political groups.”

These parliamentary assistants draft bills with the only initial requirement being a university degree of some kind.

This general condition of initial training, without continuing training, is insufficient.

The mission of these assistants is both political and technical.

In fact, they are both political assistants in the service of a political group, and therefore of a party, and experts, supposed to be legal experts.

It seems to me difficult to participate in the development of the standard without a minimum of legal and legislative training.

Why, at the very least, not offer or require them to take a course in legislative and parliamentary law organised by Parliament, or in conjunction with it, by universities or administrations?

He is at the service of parliamentarians: to this end, he does not work “in the chamber” but ensures “relays” to the outside world, works “in network” with the party, intermediary bodies, universities, associations, the citizen, the voter; he distributes a mass of information and is supposed to be a rapid expert.

Certainly, if he assists a parliamentarian, it is not only to help him make laws but also to assist him in his role of control over the Executive. This control is exercised in particular through questions, interpellations, laws confirming royal decrees of special powers.

A choice must therefore be made with regard to him: either to give priority to his talents of expertise and raise his legal and legislative training requirements, or to provide him with only minimal training as a legal expert and allow him and parliamentarians to call upon more specialized legal experts for the remainder, civil servants of Parliament, assisted or not by external actors, notably in synergy with universities.