Live, the Senate votes on the reform of the Dependency Law

The reform of the Dependency Law that has just passed through the Senate is not yet definitively approved. The Senate approved it with amendments on September 9, 2026, so the bill must now return to the Congress of Deputies, which will have the final say on the amendments introduced in the Upper House. Until the Congress pronounces again and the resulting text is published in the Official State Gazette (BOE), the reform will not have completed its parliamentary process.

The initiative in question is the Bill amending the consolidated text of the General Law on the rights of persons with disabilities and Law 39/2006 on the Promotion of Personal Autonomy and Care for People in a Situation of Dependency, promoted by the Ministry of Social Rights, Consumer Affairs and the 2030 Agenda. It is the major structural reform of disability and dependency of the legislature, preceded by public consultations, hearings, and agreements of the Council of Ministers, and processed by the urgent procedure.

In the Congress, the bill was registered and admitted for processing in 2025. After a long period of submission and extensions of the amendment deadline, a plenary debate on the entirety was held in December 2025, in which Junts' total amendment was rejected, allowing the initiative to continue. Subsequently, the Plenary agreed to reserve the final vote (referral to Plenary), so the reform would not be closed in committee but in the chamber. In July 2026, the Plenary of the Congress approved the bill's report and sent the text to the Senate for the second reading.

In the Senate, the process has been intense. The Committee on Social Rights, Consumer Affairs and the 2030 Agenda approved the report with the votes of the PP and the abstention of the other groups, a step covered in Demócrata's chronicle on how “the dependency reform advances in the Senate” (Demócrata article). From there, the text went to the Plenary of the Upper House, which debated and voted on it on September 9, 2026.

According to the parliamentary record and confirmed by the news “The Senate approves the Dependency and Disability Law”, the Senate Plenary approved the bill with amendments. The absolute majority of the PP introduced substantial changes compared to the text sent by the Congress, in areas such as inclusive education, freedom of choice of benefits, taxation, housing adaptation, system financing, and other technical adjustments. Additionally, numerous amendments from other groups were voted on during the process, many of which were rejected. Meanwhile, the Government has expressed its disagreement with certain amendments, implying that those specific modifications cannot be processed.

From a strictly procedural point of view, the current status can be summarized as follows:

• The Congress has already approved the bill and sent it to the Senate.
• The Senate approved the text on September 9, 2026, introducing amendments mainly supported by the PP.
• Since it was modified in the Upper House, the text must now return to the Congress, which will decide which Senate amendments it accepts, which it rejects, and what the final text will be.
• Only once the Congress closes this second reading and the law is sanctioned and published in the BOE will the reform be fully in force.

Consequently, as of today, the reform of the Dependency Law is in the final phase of its parliamentary processing, having been approved with changes in the Senate but still pending the definitive pronouncement of the Congress on those modifications. It is not yet a law in force, but a bill in the phase of return to the Lower House for the final approval of the text that will subsequently be sent for promulgation and official publication.

It is also worth noting that there are other parallel initiatives linked to Law 39/2006 (such as a bill on financing the dependency system or a popular initiative on copayments and participation in the cost of benefits), but the “reform of the Dependency Law” associated with its passage through the Senate refers precisely to this government bill on disability and dependency. It is this initiative that is currently at the point of “return to Congress” after completing its processing in the Upper House.

The Senate shares the legislative function with the Congress, but its position is clearly that of a second reading chamber: it reviews, amends, or vetoes, while the final word almost always rests with the Congress. Its competencies are mainly regulated in the Spanish Constitution (arts. 66, 69, 74, 75, 81, 87, 90, 166‑168 CE) and in the Senate Rules of Procedure (especially the Title on the elaboration of laws: deadlines, amendments, and vetoes).

1. General role of the Senate in the ordinary legislative procedure

According to art. 66 CE, the Cortes Generales —Congress and Senate— jointly exercise legislative power. The Congress approves bills and legislative proposals in the first instance, then sends the text to the Senate (art. 90 CE), which acts as a reviewing chamber.

Once it receives the text, the Senate generally has:

• A two-month deadline from receipt to pronounce (art. 90.2 CE). The Rules specify that this period is counted during the ordinary session period and allow adjustments to ensure full use, including convening extraordinary sessions.
• In urgent procedures, the Constitution allows reducing the deadline to 20 calendar days (art. 90.3 CE).

2. Legislative initiative of the Senate itself

The Senate is not only a reviewing chamber: it also has legislative initiative. Art. 87.1 CE recognizes initiative to the Government, Congress, Senate, and the Assemblies of the Autonomous Communities. The Senate Rules develop this faculty:

• Senators and groups can present bills, which are processed internally and, once approved by the Senate Plenary, sent to the Congress for consideration and processing like any other initiative.
• Certain Senate committees (e.g., the General Committee of the Autonomous Communities or the General Committee of Local Entities) can, in matters within their competence, exercise initiative through bills, following the same path.

That is, even in its own initiative, the Senate is subject to the Congress processing and approving the proposal for it to become law.

3. Phase of amendments and veto in the Senate

During the processing period, the Senate has three options regarding the text approved by the Congress (art. 90.1 CE and Rules):

• Approve it without changes: the law is definitively approved and proceeds to sanction and promulgation.
• Formulate amendments: the Senate can propose partial modifications to the articles. Amendments are processed in committee and plenary in the Senate, and the text then returns to the Congress, which:
  • Can accept all or part of the amendments by simple majority, incorporating them into the final text.
  • Or reject them also by simple majority, maintaining its initial version. In case of conflict, the Congress decision always prevails.
• Exercise the veto: the Senate can oppose the approval of the law through a reasoned veto message. It is not a definitive block:
  • The Congress can lift the veto by absolute majority in a first vote.
  • If it does not reach it, after two months it can lift it by simple majority (more votes in favor than against).

The Rules specify the presentation of veto proposals and amendments (ordinary deadline of 10 days from publication in the Senate, with possible limited extension, written justification, congruence with the text, etc.).

4. Competencies of the Senate in constitutional reform

Constitutional reform is governed by arts. 166‑168 CE, which place the Senate in two models:

• Ordinary procedure (art. 167 CE):
  • Congress and Senate must approve the reform by 3/5 majority in each Chamber.
  • If there is no agreement, a mixed Congress-Senate commission is created to propose a consensus text, submitted again to both Chambers.
  • If disagreement persists, the Congress can approve the reform by 2/3 of its members, even without the same level of support in the Senate.
  • One tenth of deputies or senators can request a referendum within 15 days following approval.
• Aggravated procedure (art. 168 CE) —reforms of the Preliminary Title, fundamental rights of Section 1 or the Crown:
  • First approval by 2/3 majority in Congress and Senate.
  • Dissolution of the Cortes and election of new Chambers.
  • The new Cortes must ratify the text by 2/3 in each Chamber.
  • The reform must always be submitted to a referendum.

In both cases, the Senate participates on equal formal footing in the qualified majorities, although the Constitution provides a mechanism allowing the Congress to prevail in the ordinary procedure (167 CE).

5. Key differences compared to the Congress

In summary:

• The Congress is the decisive Chamber: it can lift the Senate's veto and decide ultimately on amendments.
• The Senate acts as a review and territorial Chamber: its intervention adds political and technical control and gives voice to regional representation, but it cannot indefinitely block a law.
• In constitutional reform, the Senate shares qualified majorities, except for the final prevalence clause of the Congress in art. 167 CE.

Thus, the Senate's competencies in legislative reforms combine power of initiative, review, amendment, and veto, but always within a framework that constitutionally grants primacy to the Congress of Deputies.

In the Senate, there is no “motion of censure” regulated as an autonomous figure with its own regime. The censure of ministers is articulated, in practice, through non-legislative motions (Title Seven of the Senate Rules) and, very often, as a motion following an interpellation (Title Six). The requirements for it to succeed are, therefore, the general ones for these motions: validity of the initiative, admission for processing by the Board, respect for material limits, and approval by simple majority with sufficient quorum.

1. Nature and effects of censure

Censure is a political act by which the Senate expresses a negative assessment of the performance of a specific minister. From a legal point of view:

• It has no binding legal effects on the minister's position: the Constitution reserves the appointment and dismissal of ministers to the King, at the proposal of the President of the Government (arts. 62 and 100 CE). The Senate cannot dismiss or force their removal.
• The agreement usually takes the form of a motion that “censures” and urges the President of the Government to proceed with dismissal or the minister to resign, but the final decision remains political, not legal.

2. Form and initiative: how it is presented

Censure is conveyed through a motion with content of censure, usually in two variants:

• Ordinary motion in Plenary (arts. 174 et seq. of the Rules): the text proposes that the Senate censures a minister and, if applicable, urges the Government to dismiss them.
• Motion following interpellation (art. 173.2 amended): after an interpellation to a minister, the interpellant or their group may present, at the latest the day after the debate, a motion “following interpellation” consistent with that interpellation, including the censure.

Regarding the initiative holder, the Rules provide that:

• Motions in Plenary are presented by parliamentary groups (and, in certain cases, by a committee or a minimum number of senators), by written submission to the Board for inclusion in the agenda.
• Motions following interpellation are presented by the interpellating senator or their group within the established deadline.

3. Admission and material limits

The Senate Board decides on the admission for processing of motions. According to art. 174 (in its updated wording) and the general regime:

• Motions must fit the intended purposes: urging the Government to adopt measures, make declarations, or for the Chamber to pronounce on a non-legislative text.
• Motions are not admitted that:
  • Directly urge action by bodies not subject to Senate control (e.g., the King or the Constitutional Court).
  • Violate the Constitution or legal order.
  • Constitute interference in the autonomy of other powers or bodies.

Therefore, a motion that intended to “dismiss” a minister by itself would be inadmissible; however, it is admissible for the Senate to censure them and “urge the President of the Government to proceed with their dismissal.”

4. Debate

The debate of a motion of censure follows the general scheme of Title Seven:

• Initial intervention by a representative of the group authoring the motion.
• Interventions by groups that have submitted amendments.
• Turn of the motion's author to accept or reject amendments.
• Turns of spokespersons of groups that request it.

In motions following interpellation, the debate is inserted in the sequence of interpellation–minister's response–replies and, in a subsequent session, discussion and voting on the motion consistent with that debate.

5. Quorum and majority required for it to succeed

The Rules, regulating voting (Chapter “On voting”), establish:

• To adopt ordinary agreements, the body (the Plenary, in this case) must have the presence of at least half plus one of its members.
• Unless a rule requires a qualified majority (which does not happen for these motions), agreements are adopted by simple majority of senators present: more affirmative than negative votes; abstentions do not count for or against but do count for the number present.
• Voting is usually public, either ordinary or electronic nominal. Secret voting is reserved for specific cases (appointment of positions, qualification of senators' conduct, etc.), not specifically for censure of ministers.

In summary, a motion of censure against a minister succeeds if: (1) it has been presented by the legitimized subject (group/senators or as a consequence of interpellation), (2) it is admitted for processing and complies with the limits of art. 174 and related provisions, (3) it is debated according to the Rules, and (4) in the vote it obtains a simple majority of favorable votes with the presence of at least half plus one of the senators.