A More Coherent Committee Structure
37. The term "select committee" covers
a wide range of different committees of different functions. It
does not convey to the public any real meaning of the purpose
of these committees. If we wish to give greater prominence and
status to Parliament's role of scrutiny it would be sensible to
give the committees which discharge that role a title which reflected
it. We recommend that the investigative select committees should
be named "scrutiny committees".
38. In the last Parliament the Liaison Committee
emerged as an authoritative voice on developing the scrutiny role
of Parliament. Its reports helped shape the debate on the future
of the select committees and had a strong influence on the reports
of bodies outside the House, such as the Norton Commission and
the Hansard Society Commission. We welcome the development of
the Liaison Committee to a leadership role in promoting the scrutiny
function of Parliament.
39. We see great value in an effective body which
co-ordinates the scrutiny committees and can provide an authoritative
voice for their common concerns. The Liaison Committee is among
the largest in the House with over thirty members. It also embraces
in its membership the chairmen of the committees which are not
tasked with a role of scrutiny. We see merit in a smaller, more
focussed, Liaison Committee which would provide a focal point
for debate on the future development of scrutiny. We recommend
that there should be a Scrutiny Liaison Committee including the
chairmen of the scrutiny committees, and also the chairmen of
those committees which have a legislative or procedural role such
as Deregulation and Regulatory Reform, Procedure, and Standards
and Privileges.
| 
