News

A withering select committee takedown - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 69

24 Jan 2025
© UK Parliament
© UK Parliament

This week we highlight Professor Alexis Jay’s damning verdict on the Conservative government’s lacklustre response to child abuse inquiry recommendations and the first major test of Northern Ireland’s “Stormont Brake” under the Windsor Framework. Plus, we take a look at the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill and how it measures up to its German counterpart.

Child abuse inquiry fallout: Professor Alexis Jay, chair of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse pulled no punches in her evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee, criticising the Conservatives for inaction while in power. We unpack her appeal to MPs to stop treating the issue as a political football and discuss what difference select committees can make in situations like this.

Northern Ireland’s Stormont Brake: Unionist members of the Assembly triggered the “democratic safeguard” to give Stormont’s politicians a say before new EU chemical regulations take effect in Northern Ireland. But Hilary Benn has concluded the provisions do not meet the threshold to invoke emergency arrangements. What does this mean for the UK-EU dynamic and parliamentary politics at Westminster and in Belfast?

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill: We take a deep dive into the Government’s plan for a new welfare watchdog for service personnel and families—how does it compare to Germany’s powerful parliamentary commissioner?

Hansard Society

UK Parliament

German Bundestag

Please note, this transcript is automatically generated. There may consequently be minor errors and the text is not formatted according to our style guide. If you wish to reference or cite the transcript copy below, please first check against the audio version above.

Intro: [00:00:00] You are listening to Parliament Matters, a Hansard Society production, supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Learn more at hansardsociety.org.Uk.

Ruth Fox: Welcome to Parliament Matters, the podcast about the institution at the heart of our democracy, Parliament itself. I'm Ruth Fox.

Mark D'Arcy: And I'm Mark D'Arcy. Coming up this week

Ruth Fox: No action for seven months in government, now sound and fury in opposition. A withering Select Committee takedown of the Conservatives' response to systematic child abuse.

Mark D'Arcy: No handbrake turn as Hilary Benn declines to invoke emergency rules on the EU's single market in Northern Ireland.

Ruth Fox: And it's supposed to be the very model of a modern Armed Forces Commissioner. It's inspired by the system in the German parliament, but is our version all it's cracked up to be?

Mark D'Arcy: And Ruth, let's start [00:01:00] with a quick community note. People may be expecting to hear all about the assisted dying bill in this edition of the podcast. We've spun off a separate edition of Parliament Matters devoted entirely to events around the assisted dying legislation currently before Parliament, so all the analysis of what's being said and done, what's going on, what might happen in the future, will all be on that separate podcast, also out now, wherever you get your podcasts from.

Ruth Fox: That's right, and we're going to have this as a running series. over the coming weeks. So look out for that. And if you can, share it, forward it on for friends, family, colleagues who you think might be interested. Because this is genuinely, I think, Mark, a piece of legislation that people really are talking about in the wider public.

Mark D'Arcy: Absolutely. But Ruth, one of the big events this week in Parliament has been an absolutely stunning Select Committee hearing, the Home Affairs Committee talking to Alexis Jay who chaired the big public inquiry into systematic child abuse that we were discussing in last week's pod. This week she was in front of the Committee and she gave a [00:02:00] pretty damning verdict on the way the recommendations of her inquiry were handled by the previous Conservative government when they came out in 2022.

Essentially she said they did very little about it, to the point where she and colleagues eventually wrote a letter to The Times complaining that nothing had been done, at which point she got a telling off from a Government Special Advisor. So it was actually a pretty blistering takedown of the sound and fury that is now coming from the Conservatives in opposition, having done nothing about her inquiry recommendations when they were in government.

To be fair, they had a certain amount of excuse given the churn of government that was going on at the time. I mean, her recommendations were coming out at about the time that the Liz Truss government was imploded, which was not that long after the Boris Johnson government had imploded.

Ruth Fox: I think it came out, her report came out, the day Truss resigned, so it sort of got shrouded a little bit.

Mark D'Arcy: It hit in the interregnum, you might say, but, um, all the same, this is the kind of thing that you don't want [00:03:00] getting lost in the cloud of politics as usual. Politics as very unusual, I suppose you might say, going on at the time.

Ruth Fox: Yeah, nothing like getting the story straight from the horse's mouth, is there?

And the select committee got that. Sure of all, as you say, the sound and fury, the political fog that has surrounded this issue since Mr. Musk tweeted about it and set it all off. She was pretty blunt. I mean, she described the government's response at the time, so back in 2022, as inconsequential, unsubstantial, committed to nothing.

And she said, I've had lots of media requests in recent days to comment on this, to talk about it, and I haven't. But she did come to the select committee, and I think that's an important point about the role that select committees can play in moments like this, where the key player comes, gives evidence, very clear, very blunt, and sets something on the record, which everybody can then see. It's transparent, everybody can see the questions being asked, [00:04:00] see the responses, and it's on the record, it's recorded in Hansard, in contrast to all these sort of media briefings where you don't know who's talking to who.

Subscribe to Parliament Matters

Use the links below to subscribe to the Hansard Society's Parliament Matters podcast on your preferred app, or search for 'Parliament Matters' on whichever podcasting service you use. If you are unable to find our podcast, please email us here.

Blog / Once again, there is still no alternative: the costed proposals for Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster

The Restoration and Renewal Client Board’s latest report once again confirms what Parliament has known for nearly a decade: the cheapest, quickest and safest way to restore the Palace of Westminster is for MPs and Peers to move out during the works. The “full decant” option was endorsed in 2018 and reaffirmed repeatedly since. Remaining in the building could more than double costs, extend works into the 2080s, and increase risks to safety, accessibility and security. With the Palace already deteriorating and millions spent each year on patchwork repairs, further delay would itself be an expensive course of action, one that defers decisions without offering a viable alternative.

07 Feb 2026
Read more

News / A Humble Address: How MPs confronted the Mandelson scandal - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 130

It has been a bruising week for the Prime Minister after the House of Commons backed a Conservative “Humble Address” demanding documents on Sir Keir Starmer’s vetting of Lord Mandelson for the Washington Ambassadorship. We explain how the procedure works, what role the Intelligence and Security Committee may play in decisions on disclosure, and how legislation to strip a peerage could be introduced. Plus, the latest on the Restoration and Renewal of Parliament as yet another report lands with a new set of costings. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

06 Feb 2026
Read more

News / Why MPs can’t just quit: The curious case of the Chiltern Hundreds - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 129

Why can’t MPs simply resign, and why does leaving the House of Commons still involve a medieval-sounding detour via the Chiltern Hundreds or its less glamorous cousin the Manor of Northstead? This week we unravel the history, constitutional logic and legal fudges behind this curious workaround, with some memorable resignations from the past along the way. We also assess the Government’s legislative programme as the Session heads toward its expected May close, including the striking lack of bills published for pre-legislative scrutiny. Finally, as Parliament begins the five-yearly process of renewing consent for the UK’s armed forces, we examine why an Armed Forces Bill is required and hear from Jayne Kirkham MP on how her Ten Minute Rule Bill helped extend the new Armed Forces Commissioner’s oversight to the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

01 Feb 2026
Read more

News / Assisted dying bill: How could the Parliament Act be used? - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 128

As the assisted dying bill grinds through the House of Lords under the weight of more than a thousand amendments, Lord Falconer has signalled that time is running out. With the Bill unlikely to complete its Lords stages this Session, he has openly raised the possibility of using the Parliament Act to override the upper House in the next Session. In this episode we explore what that would mean, how it could work in practice, and the political choices now facing ministers and Parliament. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

30 Jan 2026
Read more

News / Who really sets MPs’ pay – And why you might be wrong about it. A conversation with Richard Lloyd, chair of IPSA - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 126

What are MPs actually paid and what does the public fund to help them do their job? In this conversation with Richard Lloyd, chair of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) we explore the delicate balance between supporting MPs to do their jobs effectively and enforcing strict standards on the use of public money. We discuss how IPSA has shifted from a rule-heavy “traffic cop” to a principles-based regulator, why compliance is now very high, and the security risks and pressures facing MPs‘ offices as workloads rise and abuse becomes more common. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | ACAST | YouTube | Other apps | RSS

21 Jan 2026
Read more