French Lawmakers Split Over Prime Minister’s Child Abuse Hearing
PARIS – French lawmakers were sharply divided on Thursday following a tense and politically charged parliamentary hearing involving Prime Minister François Bayrou, who was grilled for over five hours regarding his alleged knowledge of sexual abuse at a Catholic school in southwestern France.
The high-stakes session on Wednesday was conducted by a special parliamentary inquiry committee investigating decades-long abuse at the Notre-Dame de Betharram school, located near Bayrou’s hometown. The school, now at the center of national scrutiny, was attended by several of Bayrou’s children, and his wife previously taught religious studies there.
Bayrou, 73, who took office five months ago, faced the toughest test of his tenure as he attempted to defend his past actions—or lack thereof—during the committee hearing. While he insisted that he only learned of the abuse allegations through the media, many French lawmakers questioned the credibility of that claim, given his personal and professional ties to the institution.
“I have no knowledge beyond what was reported publicly,” Bayrou told the panel. “To suggest otherwise is politically motivated.”
His combative stance drew swift responses from across the political spectrum. While some French lawmakers expressed sympathy for the prime minister, others accused him of sidestepping responsibility and undermining parliamentary oversight.
Far-right National Rally vice-president Sébastien Chenu voiced unease about the tone of the hearing, saying it resembled a “Moscow trial.”
“I tend to believe the prime minister’s public statements,” Chenu told TF1. “But the hearing felt more like a Stalinist show trial than a legitimate inquiry.”
Marc Fesneau, a long-time Bayrou ally and cabinet member, went further, describing the parliamentary approach as “disgusting” and accusing members of weaponizing a tragedy for political gain.
“This method of interrogation is unacceptable. It’s political theater disguised as justice,” Fesneau told Radio J.
Yet critics, especially on the left, say the prime minister failed to be transparent. Boris Vallaud, head of the Socialist group in the National Assembly, rejected Bayrou’s testimony as lacking substance.
“At the end of five hours, do the victims or the French people feel any closer to the truth?” Vallaud asked. “Absolutely not. His answers were evasive, at best.”
The central question remains whether Bayrou, who served as Minister of Education from 1993 to 1997, had any knowledge of the alleged abuse while in office and whether he chose to remain silent. Given his deep familial and political connection to the region and the school, opposition French lawmakers argue it is implausible he remained entirely unaware.
Paul Vannier, a co-rapporteur on the committee and member of the left-wing France Unbowed (LFI) party, was particularly critical. On Thursday, Vannier claimed Bayrou had contradicted his previous statements made in February.
French Lawmakers Clash Over Bayrou’s Testimony in Catholic School Abuse Inquiry
“François Bayrou lied to the National Assembly, plain and simple,” Vannier told broadcaster franceinfo. “His testimony will be examined thoroughly for discrepancies.”
Bayrou responded to these accusations by calling the commission’s motives into question, suggesting they were attempting to “destabilize” the government rather than uncover the truth. He directly challenged Vannier, accusing him of using the inquiry as a platform to score political points.
The incident comes at a politically delicate time for Bayrou and President Emmanuel Macron. Bayrou, the sixth prime minister under Macron’s presidency, was appointed in December with a mandate to unify a fractured parliament and steer the country out of months of political instability. Although he survived an early no-confidence vote, the Betharram affair has chipped away at his credibility and slowed his reform agenda.
On social media, calls for Bayrou’s resignation gained traction, particularly among opposition French lawmakers. LFI national coordinator Manuel Bompard was blunt in his condemnation.
“Can we accept a prime minister who lies to members of parliament during a constitutional oversight process?” Bompard posted on X. “For us, the answer is no.”
In response to growing public interest, several civil society organizations and victims’ advocacy groups have urged the government to increase transparency and accountability around historic abuse cases, particularly in religious institutions.
While Bayrou has thus far refused to resign or issue further clarifications, the fallout from the hearing is far from over. The inquiry committee is expected to release its findings in the coming weeks, which may determine whether Bayrou faces further legal or political consequences.
As tensions escalate, it remains clear that divisions among French lawmakers are deepening, with the handling of this sensitive case likely to shape political discourse in France for months to come.
Soure- EWN
