Post-implementation reviews should require consultation

There are many kinds of consultations.

In the field of public policy-making, we normally consult at the stage when options have been developed and where the involvement of a wider audience of stakeholders or the general public will be helpful. It has long been recognised, however, that there is a strong case for going back to those whose views were gathered at the start, and asking them for their opinions once the enacted policy has been properly implemented. The post-implementation review (PIR) is a long-standing feature of best practice project management – being the opportunity to learn lessons and avoid repeating similar mistakes. Arguably it took too long for public bodies to adopt the same approach, but in principle, everyone today signs up to the wisdom of the method.

A recent example is the consultation that was launched on 29th January on the subject of Tobacco-related Regulations. It is not a particularly good consultation, though we have seen much worse. A smoker who completed the online questionnaire at our request expressed surprise that whereas he had been asked about his age, his ethnicity and even his income, the Department of Health & Social Care (DHSC) did not want to know if he was, or had been a smoker. This is despite the main thrust of the questions seeking views on whether the Regulations were meeting their objectives of deterring young people from starting to smoke or encouraging existing smokers to quit—all sensible matters to review.