The rise and relevance of select committees
Why Commons select committees matter more to public affairs since the 2010 Wright reforms
Select Committees have not acquired powers to match the executive’s, and their recommendations generally remain just that. What has changed is their prominence: a committee appearance can now set the day’s political agenda before the session ends, as a chief executive’s awkward answer or a short exchange is clipped and shared far beyond the committee room.
The modern story starts with the 2010 Wright reforms, which had most chairs elected by the whole House and made chairing a committee a serious alternative career. Coalition, Brexit and minority government then made Parliament costlier to ignore. For public affairs, the work around an inquiry now runs from monitoring and evidence to analysing the committee itself and preparing senior witnesses.
At the furthest end, committees become actors in the stories they scrutinise, from Owen Paterson and Partygate to the Foreign Affairs Committee calling Sir Oliver Robbins to give evidence in April 2026 over the security vetting of Lord Mandelson. Prominence is not power, but the strongest committees have become forums where policy is contested and political pressure builds.
The full report · 20 pages, with every chart.
Get the full reportWhat we found
1. The 2010 Wright reforms gave committee chairs a mandate of their own
Since 2010 most Commons Select Committee chairs have been elected by secret ballot of the whole House, with members chosen in elections within their parliamentary parties, rather than largely by the party machines. Chairing a committee became a serious alternative career for backbenchers, and chairs such as Margaret Hodge at Public Accounts, Andrew Tyrie at Treasury, Frank Field at Work and Pensions and Damian Collins at Digital, Culture, Media and Sport gave their committees distinct identities.
2. Most of a committee’s influence comes from softer sources than its formal powers
The Institute for Government’s 2015 study, drawing on more than 40 interviews, roundtables and meetings, identified six sources of influence: status, formal powers, relationships, expertise, respect and communications. It found impact often comes from the inquiry process itself and from “predictable scrutiny and pester power”, not only from whether government accepts a report’s recommendations.
3. A few seconds of an evidence session can now travel further than the report
Commons committees now distribute their work on Instagram, LinkedIn, X, YouTube, Bluesky, Facebook and Reddit, and the Liaison Committee’s 2019 review called their use of social media sophisticated and innovative. That rewards the sharp question over the careful one: members may chase the clip rather than the information, while witnesses conscious of reputational exposure may be so heavily prepared that they say very little.
4. Getting evidence on the record can shape policy before positions harden
Which witnesses appear, which statistics are accepted and how a problem is defined can influence the policy conversation that follows. In 2024 the Transport Select Committee’s pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Rail Reform Bill heard from the Office of Rail and Road, passenger and industry interests, regional transport bodies and the Welsh Government while the proposal could still be reshaped. Even a recommendation government rejects can give an organisation a credible platform to keep making its case.
What’s in the report
- How the 2010 Wright reforms and the turbulent politics since changed the committee system
- Corporate witnesses from Amazon, Google and Starbucks to Sports Direct, BHS and the Post Office Horizon hearings
- Calls for evidence, Climate Assembly UK and the widening stakeholder map around an inquiry
- The Liaison Committee, the “gotcha” clip and what it all means for public affairs
Thanks. The report has opened in a new tab.
