The French Prime Minister, Gabriel Attal, will be personally answering questions from members of parliament starting on April 3rd, during the Wednesday government question session. This decision was reached as a compromise by party leaders and the president of the National Assembly, Yaël Braun-Pivet, to experiment with this new format for five weeks. Attal will be the only one answering questions for 45 minutes, responding to ten questions from different deputies. The aim of this new format is to increase interest in the question sessions and make it more engaging for both the parliamentarians and the public.
The new format has faced some criticism, particularly from left-wing groups like the “insoumis”, ecologists, socialists, and communists, who see it as giving the Prime Minister too much of a platform. Some fear that it might turn into an “Attal show”, overshadowing the importance of parliamentary debate. Even the centrist MoDem and Horizons groups have expressed concerns about this new exercise, which is inspired by the format used in the UK’s House of Commons. They argue that it limits the ability of deputies to question ministers directly and get detailed responses, as Attal may not have the expertise on all technical matters.
There are doubts about the effectiveness of this new format even within the majority party allies. Some members question whether it is appropriate for the Prime Minister to answer the most technical questions, as it might not be his area of expertise. The aim of these question sessions is to have a more political debate, so if deputies focus on highly technical issues, it might not serve its purpose. This move could also be seen as a hypercentralisation of government communication, with all attention on the Prime Minister during these question sessions.
Overall, the decision to have the Prime Minister personally answer questions in parliament is a significant change in the way government communication is conducted in France. It has sparked debates and concerns among different political groups, with some seeing it as a positive step to make question sessions more engaging, while others worry about the potential drawbacks of this new format. The success of this experiment will depend on how well it manages to balance political engagement and the need for detailed, technical responses to parliamentary questions. It remains to be seen how this new format will impact the dynamics of parliamentary debate and government accountability in the long run.
