I defy any minister to examine the impact on the financial services industry of the statutory regulation of mortgages and still maintain that Britain is not in danger of being drowned in a Niagara of bureaucracy.

The three main consultation papers alone totaled 1,620 pages – not counting the papers on subsidiary issues such as fees. Merely to study and comment on what is being proposed, let alone implement it all, absorbs man hours equivalent to many years.

The core of the problem is that – for people working at the point of implementation – the passing of an act is the beginning of a process, not the end. It is not the act that constitutes the burden, but the thousands of rules and regulations that follow.

So let us instead examine what actually happens at the sharp end when an act is passed.

Green papers, white papers and bills have been reviewed, debated, challenged and ultimately voted upon. The Royal Seal has been added and copies sent for printing. Another new act of parliament completes its journey through Whitehall. Mission accomplished?

Alas, no. For those who give effect to the legislation the work is only just beginning. Even seemingly small changes in financial services legislation involve much work for many different departments of a firm. So how do we make sure that we implement changes to rules efficiently?

The first stage is to set up the project. Project team members will come from a number of disciplines with the appropriate skills, knowledge and authority to represent their specialist area – but above all else they must have sufficient time to contribute to the project properly.

It is also important that there is a senior person, a project sponsor, who is responsible for delivering the change and who will ensure that the right resources are available to make it a success.

The next step is for the project team to agree the detailed work to be completed and to allocate responsibility for completion. While specific individuals will be responsible for particular actions, none can act in isolation. The technicians must guide the users; trainers need to understand the process so that it can be communicated effectively; and all along the way, we need to ensure that the IT implications are understood and actioned.

A properly selected project team can, by and large, be left to get on with the job. But this does not remove the directors’ overall responsibility for ensuring that we meet statutory, regulatory and timing requirements. Regular and clear reporting to the board on all major projects of this type is essential.

But setting up a project team is the easy part and often a lot of work has gone on before we reach this stage. Most of the detail that gives effect to the legislation lies not in the act but in rules, regulations and guidance developed by other bodies. They, too, have their consultation processes, and firms must be active in this if they are to understand and influence the final rules.

The real challenge is dealing with the volume of information, contributing meaningfully to the debate and at the same time being realistic as to what will appear in the final rules – for if you wait until they are published, it may too late to act.

At least with mortgage regulation – in contrast to, say, the Financial Services Authority’s depolarisation rules – there was at least 12 months notice of the final rules. This was essential because the degree of change was significant – new authorisation to be obtained from the FSA, redefining of advice and sales processes, development of training, development of new documentation and systems.

Even the most organised project team can find that implementing change on this scale and on time can require burning the midnight oil as the deadline approaches.

If only, at the same time, one could shake off the nagging feeling that regulatory “improvements” often make things worse.