Legislative committees which deliberate upon complex issues and/or scrutinize the executive on issues broader than legislation. In the UK House of Commons the Public Accounts Committee, charged with examining accounts of money appropriated by Parliament, dates from 1861, and the system of departmental select committees from 1979. In 1999-2000 there were 37 select committees, which also included non-departmental scrutiny committees such as the Public Administration Committee. The House of Lords has long had select committees for procedural issues, and introduced committees for the European communities in 1974 and science and technology in 1977. House of Commons departmental select committees are charged ‘to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the principal government departments . . . and associated public bodies’. They may invite written and oral evidence from witnesses, deliberate, and make reports with recommendations to the House. Their membership is determined in proportion to party strength in the House, and their members normally serve for a full Parliament. Members attempt to work on a non-partisan basis and it is normal for some select committee chairs to go to members of the opposition parties. Select committees, nevertheless, are criticized for lacking information in undertaking inquiries. Only the Public Accounts Committee in drawing upon the work of the National Audit Office has a substantial information base. The Osmotherly rules (so named after the civil servant who drafted them), governing what civil servants can and cannot say before a select committee, prevent revelations on ministerial-bureaucratic relationships. Membership of select committees is also criticized for being determined by party whips. Their perceived undue influence led in 2001 to the rejection by the House of Commons of proposed new chairs for the Transport and Foreign Affairs select committees. Nor do committees' reports bind the executive, and those which are heavily critical of government policy are often sidelined from further parliamentary discussion by the government. Defenders of the status quo highlight the policy-influencing and legitimizing functions of select committees. Critics seek greater powers reminiscent of the committee system in the US Congress.
In the United states a select committee is an ad hoc body. For instance, the official title of the Erwin Committee, which more than anything else toppled President Nixon over Watergate, was the Senate Select Committee on Campaign Practices.
— Jonathan Bradbury
