Reforms to departmental select committees have enhanced their authority and independence within the House of Commons. Some committees have used this enhanced profile to investigate the actions of specific individuals or private corporations or organisations. Typically, this is in response to media reports that allege some form of wrongdoing. As the standing orders of the House of Commons empower committees to scrutinise government departments and agencies, this is a departure from established practices. This article examines the emergence of these ‘topical inquiries’, determining the features that indicate their value. In particular, topical inquiries that fill an ‘accountability gap’ are the most valuable. An accountability gap arises when other forms of scrutiny or accountability are merely performative or have failed. When conducting a topical inquiry, committees are underpinned by parliamentary privilege, meaning that those subject to criticism have little opportunity to respond regardless of any reputational, commercial or other damage caused. Consequently, if thought a desirable function of Parliament, then topical inquiries require enhanced processes to ensure procedural fairness and to address potential human rights concerns. This would require amending the standing orders specifying topical inquiries as a type of inquiry that a select committee could pursue, complying with this enhanced process.