Motion to reject Social Security bill rejected

The preliminary motion to reject the 2027 Social Security Financing Bill, submitted by La France insoumise, was rejected by deputies on Tuesday, October 20, at the end of the day. The vote was 259 against 128, allowing the examination of the Social Security budget to begin in the National Assembly.

Debate over Social Security bill continues

If the left-wing groups had joined forces, the motion to reject the Social Security Financing Bill (PLFSS) could have passed. However, other groups expressed willingness to debate the bill in the chamber, rejecting the idea of sending it back to the government. This vote does not indicate a favorable outcome for the text, which had already been rejected in committee the previous week.

Minister calls for compromise on aging population

Before the vote, the Minister of Health, Stéphanie Rist, urged deputies to recognize the challenges of an aging population, rising chronic diseases, and slower economic growth. She called for a compromise to ensure the future of Social Security and emphasized the need to protect the system for future generations.

Labour group praises deficit reduction goals

Jean-Pierre Farandou, a representative from Labour, expressed satisfaction with the bill's goal of reducing the Social Security deficit to 12.7 billion euros by 2027. He praised the effort to cut the deficit in half compared to the 21.8 billion euros in 2026, calling it a step toward a more sustainable system.

Critics call bill a 'social robbery'

Hadrien Clouet of La France insoumise defended the motion to reject the bill, calling it a "class text" and accusing the government of trying to leave with "the furniture" after failing to sell the Social Security system. He condemned the proposed cuts as a "Social Security robbery" and criticized the government's handling of school funding and student protests.

Right-wing group commits to improving the bill

Despite the criticism, the National Rally's Christophe Bentz stated the group's intention to debate the PLFSS and improve the text. He described the bill as "very bad" and "very unfair" but emphasized the need to legislate and try to limit its negative impact.