Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee: Post-implementation Reviews

My Lords, I should like to use the gap to make one small but very important point, which I do not think has been covered by any speaker so far. It arises out of my observations over the three years I have spent on this committee. When the National Audit Office came to us, it was very diligent and thorough in what it sought for its briefing. We covered one particular point with it; namely, that it should particularly follow up where the Merits Committee had decided that, in passing through an SI, there should be a precise follow-up on some specific aspect of its implementation, which usually occurred where the department had to delegate to another government body the sharp end implementation. I believe that there was one case involving medical prescriptions, another on an aspect of traffic control and one on education. When we selected the two dozen or so cases that we wanted the National Audit Office to review, there were two cases where such a follow-up should have been pursued. When the report came back, there was a total absence of any comment on the follow-up points. Through the officers of the committee, we asked why not. In each case, we were told that there was no record in the departments of the need to follow up and no process had been followed so to do. I believe that this is a very important point and that a number of occasions will occur where departments should have noted this. There needs to be a central index or something like that. Indeed, our committee should maintain—I believe that it now does—such an index. But the departments should have such an index which can be inspected by the National Audit Office or anyone on behalf of the committee at any time. Otherwise, a major part of the process is being failed completely by the lack of this very important point.