It took the favourite for the French presidency – François Fillon – to explode in mid-candidacy and for an outsider who had never held elected office - Emmanuel Macron - to win the Elysée for France's National Assembly (75% of whose MPs are new) to decide to take real action against the abuse of public money inside that institution. In the early hours of Saturday, July 29th, the nation's lower chamber did just that, voting overwhelmingly for President Macron's flagship law on the “moralization” of public life. France's upper chamber the Senate has already backed it in principle. The two key measures in this proposed new law are the ban on Parliamentarians employing family members and the agreement that Parliamentarians will have to produce receipts for their expenses.
These two were voted through on Thursday July 27th, as part of what was a lengthy debate. The first MP from Macron's ruling La République en Marche (LREM) party, however, took his colleagues somewhat by surprise. “All the citizens, being equal in its eyes, are equally admissible to all public dignities, places, and employments, according to their capacity and without distinction other than that of their virtues,” said MP François-Michel Lambert, citing article six of the Declaration of the Right of Man and of the Citizen to defend the right to employ one's relatives.
During the “fake job” affair which sunk François Fillon's chances of becoming president after the conservative candidate faced allegations over whether his wife Penelope had done any work for the money she was paid as his aide, Lambert had already written a 'love letter' to his wife and parliamentary assistant Marjorie. It stated:“If I have to choose between a second term with her or getting rid of her as public opinion seems to demand, I'll make the right choice: I won't seek a second term.” He sought one anyway. Behind the scenes he insists that his LREM colleagues, far from having a go at him, tell him not to worry about the new legislation as “the Constitutional Council will overturn it”.
In the Assembly chamber Lambert sits close to the president of the LREM parliamentary group Richard Ferrand, a close ally of President Macron and who is himself embroiled in claims that his wife benefited from his actions when he managed a health insurance fund in Brittany, the Mutuelles de Bretagne. Like Fillon, he denies any wrongdoing
Enlargement : Illustration 1
“I won't remind you who the president of your group is, you can't say he's a saint!”one MP from the conservative Les Républicains (LR) jeered at the ranks of LREM members. Generally, however, those on the Right avoided personal attacks. “If we start to throw stones...” said Fillon supporter Annie Genevard, who was fully aware that the Socialist Party also has its difficulties on the 'fake job' issue. In the dying days of the François Hollande presidency the interior minister Bruno Le Roux had to quit after reports he had once employed his two daughters as parliamentary assistants during their school holidays.
The new LREM MPs themselves did not take many prisoners when it came to expressing their views on the issue. “The French public no longer accepts so-called jobs for the family,” said Laetitia Avia, a 31-year-old lawyer. “You can't deny that when you employ your child or spouse, the household is enriched with public money. The fight against nepotism is a republican requirement!”. Her colleague Émilie Chalas, 39, said of the practice: “There's an intrinsic risk.”
The new legislation clearly causes some annoyance. Until June's Parliamentary elections between 20 and 25% of MPs employed a member of their close family – not including short-term summer contracts – from François Fillon to Bruno Le Maire, via Jean-François Copé, the former general secretary of the LR's predecessor the UMP, and the previous president of the National Assembly, Claude Bartolone. These figures are only snapshots, too, as the rate of family employment over a complete Parliament has never been calculated. “Your bill heaps scorn on elected members,” said conservative MP Julien Dive. A number of other LR members followed suit, with some worried about the “transitional arrangements” in cases where a co-worker becomes a partner, but without going so far as to oppose the ban.
“There's no doubt the situation demands radical action,” admitted Annie Genevard. “My regret is that we're legislating while under the effect of media actions which have whipped up public opinion.” The Right insists publicly that it would be better to have the resources to track down fake jobs, whether family ones or not. But it is hard to know how credible this stance is. An example of the reluctance of conservative MPs to allow Parliament to control the work of assistants was shown by how their president, Christian Jacob, fought for an amendment that would have meant MPs themselves define an assistant's “tasks”, rather than the Assembly authorities.
When it come to voting on the article – which gives MPs three months to let go their family members rather than the two weeks the government wanted – no one opposed it any longer apart from François-Michel Lambert. The offence of employing family member will carry a prison sentence of three years and a 45,000-euro fine, as well as providing for specific measures to help those who have to be made redundant under the new law.
Though the government had wanted it to be cast much more widely, the ban will be restricted to an MP's spouse, an MP's children or their spouse's children and the parents of an MP or their spouse. Outside these “direct family” jobs, an MP can still employ a sister, nephew or sister-in-law, for example, as long as they inform the ethics commissioner at the Assembly. They will have the power to stop the appointment and also make their decision public. The same will apply to so-called crossover jobs, where a Parliamentarian employs the relative of a Parliamentary colleague.
The same rules will apply to private offices of local elected representatives such as mayors and presidents of regional councils. Here it will be the Haute Autorité pour la Transparence de la Vie Publique (HATVP) or High Authority on Transparency in Public Life that will make the judgement in discretionary cases. The law will also apply to government ministers although they are already subject to tougher regulation brought in by decree in June 2014.
Some MPs said further action was needed in other areas. “We mustn't stop half way,” said MP Philippe Vigier from the centre-right UDI. “There's no reason that a Parliamentary group should employ the member of an MP's family.” But an amendment on this was rejected. Vigier also said that the same rule should apply to party groups in large local authorities. “Let's stop hiding behind facades!” he said. That amendment was defeated too.
The next big issue was that of MPs and their money. “I've been a lawyer for seven years,” said LREM MP Laetitia Avia. “That's seven years where I've kept a receipt for the smallest expense. Now an MP, I've incurred expenses for a month without having to justify them. I keep my receipts, they're in my files, but they're of no interest to anyone even though they involve public money!” Like all new members, she has found that MPs receive a monthly sum of 5,300 euros, known as the IRFM, to cover 'professional' expenses. These are never monitored and the institution trusts its members to hand over any outstanding amount at the end of their term of office.
Some new MPs had clearly read Mediapart's past accounts of the use that some MPs had made of their monthly expense allowances. “I could cite some cases where a certain suspicion has surrounded the use of IRFM: financing holidays or swimming pool accessories,” said MP Alice Thourot. “The IRFM can't be an extra salary. These unacceptable practices discredit all Parliamentarians, out fellow citizens will no longer accept it!”
'Random checks'
Among MPs from the Socialist Party (PS) - who now sit under the name of Nouvelle Gauche or 'New Left' – there was some irritation. “I think it's useful pointing out that the great majority of elected members used their allowance without cheating,” said MP Christine Pires Beaune. “And let's remember that in terms of regulation a lot was done under the preceding [Assembly] presidency of Claude Bartolone.”
Yet while in 2015 a list of allowable expenses was at last drawn up and the purchase of living accommodation on expenses was banned – because of the issue of any profits made when it was later sold – members still only had to sign a declaration without anyone looking at the claims. And it took an article by Mediapart in May this year with revelations about 5,000 euros of purchases at electrical retailer Darty, golfing holidays and cinema tickets for MP Alain Tourret, formerly from the left of centre Parti Radical de Gauche and now an LREM member, to pay back 16,000 euros to the Assembly authorities.
The LREM group's spokesperson Paula Forteza explained that the IRFM would be replaced by a system requiring “written evidence” using three different methods: reimbursement, advances and payments made direct to suppliers. Some LR MPs claimed this system was “Kafkaesque” and “sacrificial masochism”. But Paula Forteza said: “I assure you, the checks might be random. They will be carried out by a third party, for example an accountant or the Assembly's ethics commissioner.” The MP piloting the bill through the Assembly, Yaël Braun-Pivet, said that it could also be external auditors who carried out the checks. These crucial details and the new expense limits will only be discussed at a meeting of the Assembly's office on May 2nd, behind closed doors, when a reform of MPs' pensions will also be discussed.
Some conservative MPs still tried to convince LREM MPs that it would be better to adopt Emmanuel Macron's initial reform idea, to combine the IRFM expense allowance with the basic salary and then make it all taxable. This would then oblige MPs to keep their receipts so that they could offset their deductible professional expenses against their taxes, and provide them to the tax authorities in case they were subject to a tax investigation. “That's the common law regime,” said conservative MP Philippe Gosselin, who put down an amendment on this. “The tax authorities will check it and in case of problems the MP will have to deal with the tax officials like any other citizen.” Another LR MP Damien Abad added: “It avoids having to hire civil servants [at the Assembly]!” The issue caused problems for the ruling LREM's allies MoDem, too. “I made a commitment to the electors over making the IRFM taxable,” said MP Philippe Latombe, who said he felt “uneasy” at the new approach.
However, the head of the Nouvelle Gauche group Olivier Faure said that such a move would effectively “double” MPs' income. The justice minister Nicole Belloubet, who is overseeing the bill, also said that allowing the tax authorities control over the monies could impinge upon the Assembly's “autonomy”. She said she had nothing against discussing Parliamentarians' pay, but that should be on a later occasion when there is a planned constitutional change to reduce the number of Parliamentary constituencies by a third. In the end the amendment on taxing the IRFM was defeated, with no one from the ruling LREM supporting it. But the LR's group president Christian Jacob will have taken comfort from the fact he was able to cause a little disorder in the government ranks. The amendment attracted support from opposition centrist UDI MPs and, more particularly, from the government's allies MoDem, five of whose MPs backed it.
Some MPs on the Left were a little bemused by the comments of some new MPs from the ruling LREM. “The government MPs are very verbose when it comes to stating the obvious. 'You're a Parliamentarian, you won't steal, you won't break the law...' Okay, we agree with that!” said communist MP Sébastien Jumel.
The leader of the radical left France Insoumise ('Unbowed France'), Jean-Luc Mélenchon, was almost rubbing his hands with delight at the debate. “This endless process of inquisition makes me glad,” he said. “By detailing who's done this, who's done that, you've dug the grave in which what remains of any illusions about Parliament will be buried. Never again will someone believe that anyone is in a position to reform from inside institutions which have brought together 500 people to discuss for days the way in which one handles parliamentary expenses. Welcome to the citizens' revolution, you've contributed to it with great elegance and efficiency.”
Yet at the end of the debate the Assembly seemed to have taken a major step forward on this issue, after years of stubborn opposition and denigration of those who called for reform.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The French version of this article can be found here.
English version by Michael Streeter