Vaccination pass: "The majority underestimated the time it took to examine the bill"

LE FIGARO .- How do you analyze the surprise suspension of the examination of the bill this night?

To discover

• Presidential 2022: where are the candidates in the polls?

Annie GENEVARD -

The problem is the underestimation by the majority of the time it took to examine this text.

I had never seen such a lack of appreciation.

There were over 600 amendments and I never saw 600 amendments considered in two sittings.

And the more time went on, the more evident it became that the text couldn't be wrapped at midnight, but it couldn't be wrapped at 9am either, even though we had extended the exam all night.

No matter how hard we tried to fit the foot in the shoe, it didn't fit.

We were at an average of 25 amendments per hour, which was not bad, but it would have taken 20 more hours.

Whose fault is it ?

To the majority.

She should have realized the problem right away.

During the conference of presidents on Monday morning, it would have been necessary to measure the extent of the amendments, especially since this conference brings together the President of the Assembly, the vice-presidents, the Minister for relations with the Parliament and the presidents of groups .

Moreover, from the start of the examination of the text, several voices were raised to say that it was not possible.

What did you decide as midnight approached?

There were more than 500 amendments left and I brought together the group leaders and Minister Olivier Véran asking them: “what are we doing?” If everyone had told me "we are extending", it was possible, but many considered that such an extension would not allow the text to be examined under normal conditions. In general, a prolonged session makes it possible to finish a text but there, even a prolonged session did not guarantee anything. The majority wanted to continue but the oppositions were for a postponement. The minister then called for an extension of the debate, and we voted on a set procedure that I personally had never practiced. And finally, after a double count, the vote was played with a few votes: 121 deputies were for the maintenance, 125 for a postponement.If the majority deputies had been more numerous, they carried the decision.

Could the majority not ask for a recess?

Yes, but they probably thought they were in the majority.

It is a little easy to beat the opposition by accusing it of being irresponsible, but in reality the problem is not there.

If we manage to find time on Tuesday and Wednesday, the text can be found in the Senate on Friday and the joint committee can be done on Saturday because we sit on weekends.

It is therefore still playable and blaming the opposition for this failure is a bad trial.

I intervened in the meeting to say that there were neither winners nor losers in this affair because the text is not called into question.

How did you perceive Minister Olivier Véran in this situation?

He was taken aback.

What are you expecting now?

A conference of presidents is expected to be announced.

A way out is possible because we are in control week and we could make available time if all the groups give up this control.

This seems possible and desirable to me because we should not give the feeling of a desire to obstruct.

On Monday, there was a real desire to seriously debate.

Members did not want this debate to be taken away from them.

But Olivier Véran launched a procedure without seeing that he could not control it.