passage of the Bill. In 2003, Parliament passed 45 Acts which ran to a total of over 4,000 pages. There were also 3,354 Statutory Instruments, running to 11,977 pages. There is a perceived need to take stock of this by providing a mechanism that will enable  Parliament  to  look  back  and  review  the  effects  of  legislation  once  it  has been  implemented.  We  do  not  suggest  that  review  of  this  kind  would  have  any impact at all in stemming the flow or volume of legislation, rather that the fact of the  flow  necessitates  looking  back  to  see  what  lessons  may  be  learnt.  Post- legislative scrutiny should translate into better regulation. If there is to be public commitment  to  better  regulation,  an  obvious  part  of  that  is  the  examination  of legislation  once  it  has  been  brought  into  force;  it  may  be  that  wider  lessons  can then be learnt on the method of regulation and the necessity for legislation. 94 There seems to be a lot of support for the concept of post-legislative scrutiny in the  United  Kingdom.    The  difficulty  with  it  is  to  provide  an  effective  set  of intellectual tests as to what it comprises and how it can be delivered.  The first issue is whether Parliament itself should engage in this activity.  In New Zealand, Select Committees can conduct inquiries on  a very wide range of matters.  But Parliament is busy, and there are resource restraints. 95 Furthermore,  there  are  many  different  types  of  legislation.    A  one  size  fits  all concept would not be workable, as the English Law Commission’s paper makes clear.    Indeed,  the  paper  makes  it  clear  that  post-legislative  scrutiny  could  be governmental,  Parliamentary,  or  external.    Or  it  might  involve  all  three.    The English Law Commission charts two avenues by which the goal may be achieved.   The   first   is   a   pre-planned   post-legislative   scrutiny   for   which   a   positive commitment to review is made in advance of the enactment.⁴² 96 In New Zealand it would always be possible to put within a statutory provision the requirement  for  a  review  of  the  statute  to  be  tabled  in  Parliament  within  a specified time period, after it has been in operation.    97 The  second  avenue  proposed  by  the  Law  Commission  “contemplates  post- legislative scrutiny for which there was no prior commitment and therefore relies on  post-enactment  triggers  for  review”.    The  process  could  be  started  by  the Executive  Government,  a  Select  Committee,  or  indeed,  possibly  by  external agencies like the Law Commission.                                                    42   Law Commission (consultation paper no 178) above n 36, 35.   29