Evaluate the view that Select Committees do not adequately scrutinise government
Have access to interview key individuals and work with pressure groups
Have the power to interview and work with outside groups in order to bring specialised
knowledge on issues e.g. groups working with BMA
They also have a range of issues on which they can impact with many separate groups e.g.
select committee on brexit and HS2
Link to how members can also have key connections, most common in the lords due to their life
experiences
However gvt can also block members e.g. May blocking head of MI5 shows how govt can
influence them, they also only have limited levels of funding especially after Cameron’s austerity
cut funding to gvt committees in 2010, this limits the amount of issues they can look into deeply,
reforms advised do not have to be taken on board, around 42% are but only tends to be smaller
recommendations to bills
Members can have key experience and views
HOL reform means lords with key knowledge now able to sit on committees, as well as HOC
members able to chair committees for long periods of time, giving similar weight and knowledge
to that of a ministerial position due to level of expertise e.g. Steve Brine has spent over 4 years
on a range of committees, as well as this, the move to elected rather than selected chairs in
2010 allows the picking of those with special expertise
Link to how lack of gvt control over membership means chairs picked on merit rather than party
affiliation
However high turnover rate still remains, more so within the commons due to ever changing
majority and MP’s due to power of whips and patronage meaning MP’s can be given new
positions ect, much less common in lords, life terms make select committees much more
effective
Lack of govt control over membership after reforms
2010 SC reform gave them much more power due to removing gvt influence over who sits on
committees, rather them having to now be elected. This allows members to be picked based on
their personal merit rather than loyalty to the gvt making select committees less partisan - same
in lords after removal of life peers and growth of crossbenchers ending conservative dominance
and promoting more effective debate on topics
Link to this lack of gvt control giving more freedom with the outside specialists brought in, as
can work with pressure groups which gvt may disagree with
However, seats still based on the proportion in commons, therefore still largely partisan and
weakened by this fact, also do not have to be listened to and certain individuals may see select
committees as a jumping off point to get into cabinet rather than a key position, this problem is
less shared by lords select committees due to individuals being picked for specialised
knowledge ect but their lack of a mandate weakens their impact as unelected.
Have access to interview key individuals and work with pressure groups
Have the power to interview and work with outside groups in order to bring specialised
knowledge on issues e.g. groups working with BMA
They also have a range of issues on which they can impact with many separate groups e.g.
select committee on brexit and HS2
Link to how members can also have key connections, most common in the lords due to their life
experiences
However gvt can also block members e.g. May blocking head of MI5 shows how govt can
influence them, they also only have limited levels of funding especially after Cameron’s austerity
cut funding to gvt committees in 2010, this limits the amount of issues they can look into deeply,
reforms advised do not have to be taken on board, around 42% are but only tends to be smaller
recommendations to bills
Members can have key experience and views
HOL reform means lords with key knowledge now able to sit on committees, as well as HOC
members able to chair committees for long periods of time, giving similar weight and knowledge
to that of a ministerial position due to level of expertise e.g. Steve Brine has spent over 4 years
on a range of committees, as well as this, the move to elected rather than selected chairs in
2010 allows the picking of those with special expertise
Link to how lack of gvt control over membership means chairs picked on merit rather than party
affiliation
However high turnover rate still remains, more so within the commons due to ever changing
majority and MP’s due to power of whips and patronage meaning MP’s can be given new
positions ect, much less common in lords, life terms make select committees much more
effective
Lack of govt control over membership after reforms
2010 SC reform gave them much more power due to removing gvt influence over who sits on
committees, rather them having to now be elected. This allows members to be picked based on
their personal merit rather than loyalty to the gvt making select committees less partisan - same
in lords after removal of life peers and growth of crossbenchers ending conservative dominance
and promoting more effective debate on topics
Link to this lack of gvt control giving more freedom with the outside specialists brought in, as
can work with pressure groups which gvt may disagree with
However, seats still based on the proportion in commons, therefore still largely partisan and
weakened by this fact, also do not have to be listened to and certain individuals may see select
committees as a jumping off point to get into cabinet rather than a key position, this problem is
less shared by lords select committees due to individuals being picked for specialised
knowledge ect but their lack of a mandate weakens their impact as unelected.
