A socialist adviser to the court of auditors and former minister has just been reprimanded by her superiors for speaking out in favour of a mass regularisation of illegal immigrants, even though her position normally requires her to exercise discretion. A reprimand such as this is extremely rare. Left-wing parties, which in France hold strategic positions within the senior civil service disproportionate to their electoral weight, have become accustomed to believing themselves indispensable and able to act with impunity.
Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, former minister of national education during the presidency of François Hollande, joined the court of auditors as an adviser last summer. Her appointment caused quite a stir at the time, given that she had no particular qualifications for this position, which is responsible for auditing the use of public funds. Her arrival was made possible because of the support of her comrades in the Socialist Party, who are present at all levels of the court of auditors—as in other major state bodies.
The mainstream press and left-wing parties defended the former minister, putting forward the usual arguments and condemning attacks from the ‘far right’ based on the new adviser’s ‘origins’ or ‘gender’.
And yet, despite the de facto collusion that helped Vallaud-Belkacem get her job, she has just been reprimanded by the ethics committee of this high state body for comments she made on immigration, according to the centre-right weekly Le Point.
In early November, the association France terre d’asile (France, Land of Asylum), of which Vallaud-Belkacem is president, presented an immigration plan with numerous proposals. In particular, it advocates reducing the number of OQTF (obligation to leave French territory) deportation orders to better focus efforts on examining residence permit applications. The organisation also put forward a calculation that has sparked heated debate: regularising the status of 250,000 undocumented workers would bring in €2.9 billion per year to France. When the report was published, the court adviser communicated extensively on the figures put forward—offering the guarantee of her professional position to support the argument. “It is time to have the political courage to reconcile our principles of fraternity with economic efficiency,” she concluded.
Today, Vallaud-Belkacem combines her duties at the court of auditors with the presidency of France Terre d’Asile. Recently, Court of Auditors President Pierre Moscovici defended her, arguing that “the Court of Auditors has never forbidden anyone from engaging in politics: it imposes a duty of discretion.” He then asked her to “exercise restraint in her statements.” This time, he felt that a red line had been crossed and that the duty of discretion was no longer being respected.
“In the midst of a budget review, this kind of statement may seem out of place, to say the least,” Moscovici said. He is well aware that the cost of immigration is a highly politically charged issue at a time when the National Assembly is divided over public spending cuts and no budget agreement can be reached. The Rassemblement National (RN) continues to insist that deficit control cannot be achieved without a policy to control immigration, a position backed by public opinion. “The rules of professional conduct at the Court of Auditors apply to everyone. I am not her buddy; I am her president,” Moscovici bluntly insisted.
Will this remain an isolated case? Vallaud-Belkacem does not risk much at the end of this disciplinary procedure. At most, she runs the risk of a reminder of the rules. But the symbolism remains strong. In any case, this is the first time that a prominent member of a left-wing party, a former minister, has been reprimanded for expressing views that the mainstream wants to consider as universal truths—immigration is a good thing; it has a positive financial impact on the host country; immigration should be encouraged—but which are in fact political and militant statements.
