In democratic systems, parliaments represent the sovereign rights of citizens, requiring their consent for drafting laws, collecting revenue and authorising expenditures. They also form the government, endorse its budget, policies and programmes, sanction treaties and agreements, monitor government activities and address citizens’ concerns. This makes the government accountable to the people through parliament. However, the legislative role extends beyond law-making to ensuring that laws achieve their objectives.

Therefore, the Post-Legislative Scrutiny (PLS) concept emerged to meet the intended objective. The Law Commission of the United Kingdom defines it as "a broad form of review, the purpose of which is to address the effects of the legislation in terms of whether the intended policy objectives have been met by the legislation and, if so, how effectively."

The Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD), in its 2023 manual, defines PLS as a systematic and structured process through which parliaments review the implementation and impact of legislation. This process helps parliaments understand what worked well and what did not, and identify the best way forward.

PLS in the UK

In the UK, all House of Commons and House of Lords committees are free to conduct PLS work. The process involves a formal review of Acts three to five years after Royal Assent. A PLS memorandum is published by the competent department and submitted to the relevant House of Commons select committee, which then decides whether further inquiry is needed.

The involvement of both parliament and the government in PLS ensures comprehensive scrutiny. Since March 2008, the cabinet office has produced detailed guidance for departments on PLS, and the Guide to Making Legislation was reissued in 2022, including specific guidance on PLS. This ensures that ministries and departments submit explanatory memoranda on laws to the concerned parliamentary committees, which then endorse them or conduct wider examinations as necessary.

The best part of the UK’s PLS model is its collaborative approach, involving both parliament and government. This makes PLS a parliamentary activity with a comprehensive evaluation involving multiple stakeholders. The UK model highlights the importance of systematic and structured reviews, providing clear guidelines for evaluating legislation and fostering a culture of accountability and continuous improvement in law-making and implementation.

PLS in Nepal

Nepal adopts a bicameral parliamentary system with the House of Representatives (HoRs) and the National Assembly (NA), collectively known as the Federal Parliament. Article 104 of the constitution mandates each House to frame rules to conduct its business, maintain order during meetings and regulate the committees’ constitution, functions and procedures. Based on this, both Houses have developed separate regulations to manage their activities.

Nepal’s NA initiated PLS in 2018 by incorporating provisions for "evaluation, study, and researching the implementation status of the Act" in its regulation. The HoRs followed suit in 2022 by including provisions for evaluating the implementation status of laws within its jurisdiction. The legislative management committee has the authority for PLS in the NA, whereas in the HoRs, all parliamentary committees share this responsibility. The NA’s public policy and delegated legislation committee is tasked with researching delegated legislation, an integral part of PLS.

There are 10 parliamentary committees in the HoRs and four in the NA. HoRs Rule 178 defines the role of these committees, including evaluating the implementation status of laws. The NA’s legislative management committee is specifically responsible for managing PLS issues, as clarified in Rule 147. Although the NA’s regulations do not specify a timeframe for PLS, the legislative management committee has set a procedure for evaluating laws that have been in force for at least three years.

The NA’s regulations, Rule 147(1), allow for "evaluation, study, and researching the implementation status of the Act." Rule 148(B)(c) provides directions to the government based on reports prepared after studying and researching the effectiveness of implementing Acts. This structured approach ensures that the NA can effectively oversee the implementation of legislation and make recommendations for improvements.

In contrast, the HoRs initially did not have specific provisions for PLS. However, the 2022 regulations included a clause in Rule 178(J) that allows the evaluation of the implementation of laws. The HoRs’ regulation now states that concerned committees can evaluate problems in implementation, issues to be improved, or the significance of laws related to their jurisdiction, which have been in force for at least three years. Additionally, the Speaker is responsible for determining the procedure for evaluating the status of law implementation. The parliament secretariat has drafted the procedure and handed it to the Speaker; however, according to a secretariat official, it has not yet been issued.

The legislative management committee of the NA has conducted PLS on five laws so far. Despite the initial lack of formal provisions in the HoRs, the Law, Justice, and Human Rights Committee conducted PLS on two laws in 2078 BS, based on the understanding that PLS is a parliamentary privilege.

An example of PLS in practice is found in the Sports Development Act, 2077. Section 57 of this Act mandates that the Sports Ministry evaluate its effectiveness five years post-authentication. This provision, introduced during the bill's discussions and subsequent parliamentary processes, marked the first inclusion of a PLS clause in Nepali law. Since then, by the end of July 2024, 14 acts authenticated by the president have included PLS provisions, emphasising the growing recognition of the need for systematic legislative evaluation.

Implementation challenges

However, despite these advancements, Nepal faces challenges in implementing PLS. A report by the legislative management committee in 2023 indicated that the implementation status of directions from PLS reports is poor. Similarly, the Law, Justice and Human Rights Committee of the House of Representatives has not shown satisfactory execution of its PLS findings. Awareness of PLS among government ministries and bodies remains low, with many new bills lacking PLS provisions.

Lessons from the UK

Several recommendations can be drawn from both Nepali experiences and UK practices to address these issues. First, there should be uniformity in the terminology used across both Houses of Parliament. The NA’s "evaluation of act" is narrower than the HoRs' "evaluation of laws." A standardised term like "evaluation of implementation status of laws" would align with international practices and provide more precise guidance.

Second, parliamentary committees should evaluate acts and delegated legislation, incorporating these responsibilities within the broader framework of PLS. Additionally, government bodies must become more aware of the importance of PLS. Conducting seminars and training sessions can help make sure that PLS provisions are included in future bills.

The legislative framework should also specify clear timelines for PLS. While the HoRs' regulations allow for PLS on laws in force for three years, the NA’s procedures are less explicit. Aligning these timelines will streamline the PLS process across both Houses.

Furthermore, the Federal Parliament should maintain ultimate authority over PLS, allowing the government to conduct self-evaluations but reserving final quality assessments for parliamentary committees. This balance will ensure thorough scrutiny while maintaining accountability.

Some Provincial Assemblies have now started using this tool. However, considering the coordination issues between the Federal Parliament and the federal government at the federal level, the Provincial Assemblies should first take the provincial government into confidence before proceeding with this work. Unless the provincial government takes full ownership, its full implementation is impossible. The Provincial Assembly and the government should work together.

Nepal’s journey towards effective PLS can benefit significantly from the UK’s model. By fostering collaboration between parliament and the government, standardising procedures and raising awareness among government bodies, Nepal can enhance the effectiveness of its laws and ensure they continue to meet their intended objectives. Most importantly, continuously knocking on the government and parliamentary bodies, including the provinces, is essential. This process will succeed only by keeping them well-informed. Otherwise, it will not. Therefore, awareness programmes and training are the first and mandatory requirements.