If none are to be initialized, becoming ‘working rules’, individual officials must see them as being useful in discharging their responsibilities. Power-conferring rules will normally be perceptibly useful, although certain powers may not be exercised If their use would compromise other aspects of the job, or prejudice con-sensual working relationships (such as those between regulators and regulated enterprises) on which success depends."‘ Legal rules which restrict the way in which public authorities can operate (as opposed to those which confer additional powers) will then tend to be seen within the authorities merely as obstacles to be circus-vented, or as hoops to be jumped through, unless staff appreciate how the standards which legal rules encapsulate can help them to do their jobs well. Norris specifying procedures to be followed are particularly likely to be seen as counterproductive if they demand additional paperwork and time spent in meetings, and come between the official and the objective. For example, social workers may see procedural protection for the rights of children and their parents in childcare investigations in this light. If the rules are regarded as ‘inhibitory’ rather than initialized as ‘working’ Niles, they will be most fully implemented where the threat of review or reversal of decisions by another body is most potent. The perceived threat is likely to be heightened, in the case of legal rules, where the people affected are particularly likely to be able and willing to litigate; well-informed people who are eligible for legal aid are likely to be treated more carefully than less well-informed people who, despite limited means, are unlikely to be granted legal assistance out of public funds.