There is a Select Committee for each government department; for example the Department of Education. From my own knowledge, these departmental committees have a minimum of 11 members, who decide upon the line of inquiry and then get evidence. The government then usually has 60 days to reply to the committee's recommendations. Committees also have power to appoint specialists. These are not permanent committee members, but specialists from businesses paid by the day. They aim to scrutinise the executive and hold them to account, scrutiny includes policy, administration, and expenditure of government departments.

Source C suggests that Select Committees often have their recommendations ignored, and therefore the effectiveness of the committees is decreased. Due to the reports produced by Select Committees not being binding governments can disregard the advice from specialists, and reports that are produced tend not to be unanimous - especially when a general election is near. Not only that, but governments can refuse to provide certain information which could be important evidence, and often select committees are under-resourced meaning they cannot provide fully effective scrutiny to the actions of the executive.

Public Bill (Standing) Committees are - unlike Select Committees - able to amend and improve legislative bills. They scrutinise each clause of a bill clause by clause and amendments can be made. These committees are formed from between 16-50 members in reflection of party affiliation in the House of Commons from back bench MPs - with the whip system in place - and are established for each new bill, and are dissolved after the report has been made. Examples of the work of Public Bill committees include the Abortion Bill (1967), Tuition fees (2011), and recently Scottish Devolution.

Source A and Source B both mention the presence of the whip system in Public Bill committees, which pressures back bench ties and may reduce the effectiveness of the committee - it is most effective in the House of Lords respectively. Although the ad-hoc nature prevents the committee ties conflicting with party interest. Again, just as Select committees, Public Bill committees are under resourced - comparative to the Westminster, US congressional committees have much larger amounts of staff working for them.

Select Committees and Public Bill committees are both able to influence legislation. However, Public Bill committees, whilst allowed to amend bills through scrutinising bills clause by clause, often have the presence of a whip which means scrutiny of bills may be limited. Select Committees, whilst they do not have the whip system, whips can put forward members to the select committees - which may indirectly have the same effect. Not to mention the ability for governments to disregard the reports from Select committees. I think a merge of roles of both committees into one type of committee with permanent members and a paid chair would be a more effective solution. In the US chairs of committees are very influential, which would provide this greater effectiveness if the same result is achieved in Westminster. The absence of the whip system, alongside the ability to provide amendments to clauses as well as scrutinise the principle and just not clauses of bills would create a much more influencing committee system on bills, and therefore the ideal role of a committee.