The Gazette 1986

12 / 330

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND GAZETTE
Vol. No. 80 No. 1 JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1986
In this issue .
Crossword 19
Medico-Legal Society 29
Executive Editor:
Editorial Board:
Advertising:
Printing:
Mary Buckley
William Earley, Chairman
John F. Buckley
Gary Byrne
Geraldine Clarke
Charles R. M. Meredith
Michael V. O'Mahony
Maxwell Sweeney
Liam O hOisin, Telephone 305236
Turner's Printing Co. Ltd., Longford
The views expressed in this publication, save where other
wise indicated, are the views of the contributors and not
necessarily the views of the Council of the Society.
The appearance of an advertisement in this publication
does not necessarily indicate approval by the Society for
the product or service advertised.
Published at Blackball Place, Dublin 7.
Comment. . .
LAW REFORM COMMI S S I ON
— A NEW TERM
THE opportunity of the expiry of the present term of
the Law Reform Commission to review its perform-
ance should not be missed. While criticism has been
expressed in these pages previously on the methods of
operation of the Commission it would be wrong to
blame the Commission for its apparent lack of success,
if 'success' is to be judged by the volume of legislation
introduced or enacted as a result of its deliberations.
It is clear that the lack of any satisfactory arrange-
ments for the presentation to the Oireachtas of draft
legislation recommended by the Commission has been a
flaw in the working of the Commission. Operating, as it
does under the aegis of the Attorney General, whose
department has of course no facility for the intro-
duction of legislation into the Oireachtas, the draft
legislation proposed by the Commission must be adopted
by the relevant Government department before it can
find a place in the legislative treadmill.
Many of the topics so far covered in the Commission's
published reports fall within the jurisdiction of the Dep-
artment of Justice, and it is well known that the Depart-
ment itself is generating a very substantial programme
of legislation which does not encourage optimism that
there will be early introduction of many of the Commis-
sion's legislative recommendations.
It is also clear that the adoption by a Government
department does not lead to rapid introduction of the
measure because further consultation within that
department and with other departments then takes place.
This to a large extent is giving the departments a further
'bite-at-the-cherry' because they have already had an
opportunity of commenting on the Commission's work-
ing papers.
With hindsight, it must also be said that the prog-
ramme of law reform contained in the Commission's
first programme was almost certainly too large and, to
some extent at least, was responsible for the slow prog-
ress of the Commission during its earlier years. It might
be more satisfactory if a much shorter programme
of reform were to be prescribed for the next Commission,
when the views of the Commission as to what areas it
should look at might be given greater weight, so that the
Commission could achieve its more modest targets
within a shorter time scale.
The question of whether the Commission should con-
tinue to operate its previous system, of relying for the
production of its working papers exclusively on its own
(cnnlinued on page 18)
3