In this episode, we explore the outcomes and implications of the latest Select Committee Chair elections in Parliament. The newly elected chairs will play a pivotal role in scrutinising the government, but can they effectively work together? We talk to Dr. Marc Geddes, a leading expert on Select Committees, who highlights how this year’s competitive elections compare to previous parliaments and what that could mean for committee dynamics in the future.
What did the candidates promise in their nomination papers? We discover the unique candidacy of one MP who ran on a platform of "Stop this Nonsense," railing against the flood of campaign emails and leaflets during the election process (or what she described as the “Select Committee Chair silly season”). Another newly elected chair is proposing weekly summaries of public hearings in a "crop and drop" format, allowing colleagues to easily communicate updates to their constituents.
Throughout the episode, we tackle listeners' pressing questions:
how much influence do party leaders wield in Select Committee elections?
which committee chairs are likely to make it to the government frontbench before the next election?
how do Select Committees decide which inquiries to prioritise?
what role does public engagement play in their inquiries?
In addition, Ruth and Mark dissect the latest Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) session. Despite the influx of new MPs, PMQs remains a spectacle of soundbites and jeering, with little progress on substantive debate. They discuss how newer MPs seem to be following in the footsteps of the old guard, continuing the orchestrated shouting matches led by party whips.
One key issue raised during this PMQs was Rishi Sunak’s focus on whether the government will publish an Impact Assessment related to the decision to means-test the Winter Fuel Allowance. Ruth explains the significance of Impact Assessments and why they matter for government transparency and accountability.
The episode also explores the political dilemma faced by Labour MPs who abstained from the Winter Fuel Allowance vote. Voting against the motion would allow the wealthiest to continue receiving the benefit, while voting for it would mean supporting means-testing, potentially disadvantaging struggling constituents. Ruth and Mark debate whether constituents will understand the nuances behind MPs' decisions to abstain and how this might impact their future support.
Dr Marc Geddes
Marc Geddes is a Senior Lecturer in Politics at the University of Edinburgh and a Research Fellow at the Institute for Parliamentary Research in Berlin. Marc's research focuses on the role of parliaments and their place in democratic politics. In 2020, he published Dramas at Westminster: Select Committees and the Quest for Accountability, which offers a detailed analysis of the work and dynamics of Select Committees in the UK Parliament. He is the former Co-Convenor of the Political Studies Association's Parliaments Group and the former Co-Director of the Centre for Science, Knowledge and Policy at Edinburgh.
Prime Minister's Questions: how are the new MPs performing?
Winter Fuel Allowance vote: did we learn anything from the debates in the House of Commons and Lords?
Impact Assessments for legislation: why do they matter?
Select Committee chair elections: how do the results compare with previous years?
Select Committee scrutiny: will it be siloed or more strategic?
Select Committee candidate nominations: who promised what?
How much influence do party leaders wield in Select Committee elections?
Are Select Committee chairs likely to make it to the government frontbench before the next election?
How do Select Committees decide which inquiries to prioritise?
What role does public engagement play in their inquiries?
The Liaison Committee: how will its chair be chosen?
The Modernisation Committee: how much institutional knowledge do its members have?
Hansard Society
Is chairing Select Committees in the House of Commons really an 'alternative career'?, Stephen Holden Bates, 5 January 2023
Marc Geddes
Dramas at Westminster: Select Committees and the quest for accountability (Manchester University Press, 2020)
House of Commons
Please note, this transcript is automatically generated. There are consequently 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/PM.
Ruth Fox: Welcome to Parliament Matters, the podcast about the institution at the heart of our democracy, Parliament itself. I'm Ruth Fox. And
Mark D'Arcy: I'm Mark D'Arcy.
Ruth Fox: Coming up. Meet the new kids on the committee corridor. What are the challenges facing the newly elected chairs of the Commons Select Committees? We'll be talking to parliamentary expert Mark Geddes, who's been crawling through the detail of the elections.
Mark D'Arcy: No change for the better at PMQs. The Commons Weekly Highlight is still as trivial and shouty as ever.
Ruth Fox: And the gathering financial storm. We're a month away from the budget, and everything in politics is now about the money.[00:01:00]
Mark D'Arcy: But let's start, shall we Ruth, with Prime Minister's Question Time....
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.
The UK Spending Review outlines how Government funds will be allocated over several years. Unlike the Budget, which raises revenue, the Review decides how it is spent. But how is it approved? What role does Parliament play if it doesn’t vote on the Review itself? This blog explores how the Spending Review works, how it differs from the Budget, and how Parliament holds the Government to account through the Estimates process.
On Friday 13 June, the House of Commons will once again debate the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which would legalise assisted dying in England and Wales. Specifically, it will hold a second day of Report Stage, during which the whole House will debate and vote on amendments. This briefing explains the structure of Report Stage, what happened on the first day of Report Stage, how amendments are selected and grouped, on which amendments a decision can still be taken, and the likely sequence of events this Friday, including whether a final vote will take place.
The Chancellor, Rachel Reeves MP, will deliver a statement on the Spending Review. MPs will resume Report Stage of the assisted dying bill and debate key legislation on football governance, mental health, and planning and infrastructure. Peers and MPs are expected to resolve their standoff over AI and copyright in the Data (Use and Access) Bill. The Commons Defence Committee will hear from the lead reviewers of the Strategic Defence Review, while a Lords Committee will examine the Chagos Archipelago sovereignty issue. The Hansard Society’s Director will give evidence to the Modernisation Committee about access to the House of Commons and its procedures.
In this episode, we explore why ministers keep bypassing Parliament to make major announcements to the media — and whether returning to the Despatch Box might help clarify their message. We unpack the Lords' uphill battle to protect creators’ rights in the Data Use and Access Bill, challenge claims that the Assisted Dying Bill lacks scrutiny, and examine early findings from a Speaker’s Conference on improving security for MPs, as threats and intimidation against politicians continue to rise. Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.
Our evidence on treaty scrutiny has been published by the House of Lords International Agreements Committee. Our submission outlines the problems with the existing framework for treaty scrutiny and why legislative and cultural change are needed to improve Parliament's scrutiny role. Our evidence joins calls for a parliamentary consent vote for the most significant agreements, a stronger role for Parliament in shaping negotiating mandates and monitoring progress, and a sifting committee tasked with determining which agreements warrant the greatest scrutiny.
