Things have gotten a little stacked up so I’ve just got around to reading this document from the House of Lords Select Committee on Digital Skills.

It’s good stuff with familiar themes from the likes of the Government Digital Strategy and Digital Democracy Commission report.

One thing I did pick up on was paragraph 47 on page 14:

“Recommendation 4: Our Committee has completed its work with the production of this report, but it has highlighted an issue of critical importance that will need continuing oversight; we urge the Liaison Committee to consider how best to integrate such a commitment into the future work of select committees in the House of Lords. (Paragraph 302)”

One of the things I said in my response to the Digital Democracy Commission report was:

“Parliament should ensure that each of the proposals from the Report has a nominated owner and conforms to the SMART criteria.”

Often these reports produce new, on confirm existing, good ideas but it seems that after the commissions in question are complete the people involved in them move on to different things and tracking follow-up becomes very difficult. Without assigned or suggested owners of the individual recommendations it’s hard to know how to follow them up. Without suggested testable criteria it’s hard to know if their implementation, if any, is progressing satisfactorily.

I guess this is part of the role of the 3rd sector – to call government and Parliament to account – but in the case of these reports since they don’t fit into specific legislation or any other kind of firm commitment it’s even harder to know what will happen.

Perhaps something to bring up with the holder of the proposed role of being responsible for the “Digital Agenda” if the proposal from this paper is put into practice.