Question: Why is there a need for a consultation on post-legislative scrutiny? Is there a consensus that it is done poorly at the moment?

Sir Roger Toulson: We were asked to look at it by the government because they wanted to see whether there were other and better ways that ought to be considered.

It is something that has been raised by a lot of parliamentarians, and in fact there was a House of Lords committee chaired by Lord Norton which emphasised, they thought, that there should be more post-legislative scrutiny.

That led to a debate in the House of Lords and there was a lot of support for the idea of more post-legislative scrutiny. The government expressed itself sympathetic to the idea but wanted to look more carefully at what it might entail and how it might be done - so that was why we were asked to come in.

Question: This could involve a big change for government departments and politicians, spelling out in detail what they expect individual pieces of legislation to achieve. Is that the kind of response you are expecting to see?

Sir Roger Toulson: I expect a lot of people will say it is actually a good thing if the object of legislation is spelt out as clearly as possible at the time. It will involve extra work being done, that is self-evident, but how much will depend on how much post-legislative scrutiny you do.

This will be a matter for parliament, but I think it will be better if this is done as a kind of audit process on a smaller number and done well, rather than done on a large number and became a sort of tick-box or perfunctory exercise.

There is nothing in this paper that would suggest this is something that should become automatic for all legislation or anything of that sort.

The real point is that we have got a very large amount of legislation coming through every year and the question people are asking themselves is should we be having some audit system, above what we have already got, to look at some of this legislation and see how it is working and what lessons can be learned.

Question: Is it going to be difficult to distinguish between whether the policy itself is at fault or whether it is the legislation and its implementation?

Sir Roger Toulson: We are clear that we don't see what we have been asked to look at as a way of just continuing the policy debate after it has already been decided.

At the time when the act was passed there may have been very controversial issues, but parliament has decided them. This is not intended to be a way for the losing side to carry on the debate and it just being an argument of 'told you so'.

What it is really intended to do, given the policy underlying the bill, is ask how is it working? Is it being delivered? Has it had unintended side effects?

And from that point of view time is quite important. Normally we think you would want to have enough time passed that you really can see how it is operating and it is fair to judge it. That will help to stop it just being a continuation of these arguments.

In other words, you want to wait until the dust has settled and the act has had time so that people will be able to fairly see how it is working in practice before you then take a view of it.

Question: In the consultation document there are a range of options for how the scrutiny could be undertaken. Could it become a quite complicated interplay between parliament and departments in terms of who does what?

Sir Roger Toulson: There are two things about that. One is that we are not actually suggesting a one-size-fits-all approach. I think if you did suggest a one-size-fits-all approach it simply wouldn't be appropriate.

The second thing is that, as we point out in the paper, there is already quite a lot of scrutiny work of one kind or another being done. What you are really trying to do is look at the overall picture and see how it joins up.

Parliament is a pretty sophisticated place and interaction is needed. We can see in post-legislative scrutiny the possibility for government, parliament and outside bodies all to have a contribution to make.

Really what we are asking people to do is look at this and come up with their ideas about how it could best work.

Question: What kind of response to the consultation are you looking for from parliament and Whitehall?

Sir Roger Toulson: This was not work which we initiated. We were asked to do it by government because we know there is a lot of interest out there.

Before preparing this paper we spoke to a lot of parliamentarians, officials, parliamentary clerks, parliamentary counsel and academics, so we know there is a lot of interest but we really want to have their views.

But also, and this is really rather important, we would like to bring into the process people from outside the Westminster square mile.

There are all sorts of outside bodies whose members are affected by legislation and we would like to get their views on this.

Question: Is there a danger that parliamentarians will say the decisions should rest with them, the departments will say the same and it could be difficult to find a consensus?

Sir Roger Toulson: We shall see. I emphasise that we are not being prescriptive here. We are not saying that there is one perfect way forward, that we the Law Commission have found it and this is what you must all do.

What we are saying is that you have asked us to look at this, here are some ways forward. What are your views on this and what are other people's views?

But ultimately whether it comes to anything will depend on political and parliamentary will, both in principle and in practice to work together and make it work.