I’m unsure what the HoL does in its entirety though scrutiny of Bills, pre-enactment, must be the primary task. If you believe the House functions adequately as is, then I can understand your position, but your comment suggests otherwise, by making a less than clear case (to me) for something else.

Thanks, Tiz

I’m in two minds as to whether we go for post legislative scrutiny – because it’s another media-friendly story, and goes with the grain of how things work now, or whether we should try something deeper within the civil service, and work towards a system where successful delivery of a policy ranks above policy creation in terms of an official’s career path and rewards. I prefer the latter – but could it be made to work?

Mind you, whatever progress is made in the ‘Houses Of Parliament’, one suspects that the ‘slack’ could always be taken out by ill-thought out legislation from Brussels. Not to mention the fact that in Cardiff Bay the Welsh Assembly are angling for the legislative powers given to Scotland.

Bedd Gelert: there is more general realisation of some of your concluding points that you realise. There have been parliamentary questions abour Bills and particular provisions of Bills that have never been brought into effect. There is a Statute Law (Repeals) Bill presently going through Parliament that repeals a great many obsolete or unnecessary measures.

I remember working for a company that had decided to implement a radical concept called ‘benefits realisation’. Henceforth all project managers were to be ‘accountable’ for ensuring that the ‘benefits’ mapped and enumerated in the Full Business Case for projects would be delivered.

What is so radical about that ? I hear you ask.. Simply that the ‘Full Business Case’ to authorise investment of funds in the said project was normally what could charitably described as a mixture of wishful thinking and creative accounting..

Nobody had EVER stopped to really think whether business changes had the desired effect, or actually saved the amount of money appearing on the ‘back of the fag packet’ used to ‘sell it’ to senior management.

And they weren’t about to start now – after all, if they had been getting paid simply to ‘deliver projects’ and then walk away, how would it benefit them for somebody to uncover the fact that a lot of them really needn’t have bothered as the change to the business was marginal ??

I agree, Lord Norton, that this is a necessary, nay vital, step. But if somebody were to rumble that an awful lot of legislation is :-
A/ Completely redundant
B/ Totally ineffective
C/ Might be effective, but it is never enforced..

.. then the whole edifice will come crashing down as the illusion of progress and delivery disappears like a morning mist – and we can’t shatter the illusions of those poor little taxpayers who are paying for it all, now can we ?

I wish you well in your endeavour, but you would find it easier to herd cats, and more feasible to unmix custard, in my opinion..

Others may disagree..

A good example is the IR35 regulation regarding taxation of people in business. If the then Chancellor (who was it now?) had been required to say how many people would be affected and how much additional revenue would be raised, we might not have ended up with a hugely complicated set of rules where no one has any idea whether they’ve achieved anything.