We need think-tanks like the LRC but it must guard against being used by politicians to put issues on the long finger, writes Donncha O'Connell
All democratic systems are sustained by a predictable variety of entities made up of the great and the good. When politicians like or need their proposals they invoke the authority of such bodies by stressing their independence, eminence and general stateliness.
If, however, the advice offered is not liked it can be cursorily dismissed as further evidence of the nuisance value of "quangocracy". It would be wrong to characterise the Law Reform Commission - which this week celebrates its 30th anniversary - in such terms.
The commission has produced a body of work - in the form of working papers, consultation papers and reports - that would stand up to favourable comparison with the output of equivalent bodies in other jurisdictions. It has enriched legal discourse on this island and boasts (perhaps unscientifically) of a 60 per cent implementation rate.
While some of its work has been in areas tending towards the prosaic, this can be excused as an occupational hazard for a statutory body whose focus is, after all, law reform.
The commission's first programme of law reform stretched from 1977 to 2000 and covered a variety of areas including administrative law, recognition of foreign divorces, criminal law, judicial separation, statutory drafting, defamation, privacy and occupier's liability. The second programme - which ends in 2007 and much of which has been accomplished - pushed the boat out further with detailed explorations under thematic strands including modernising the legal system, the position of vulnerable people under the law, and law and the information society.
Establishing a cause and effect relationship between thinking (done by bodies like the LRC) and political action is not an exact science. In Ireland there is an unfortunate gap between the world of ideas and the world. This may arise from a general sub-intellectualism in political life, combined with an over-reliance on the expectation that good ideas travel by virtue of their own intrinsically meritorious velocity.
Where major political shifts in other countries have occurred, and where these cannot be explained by reference to potent social movements, it is usual to find a vibrant think-tank culture as an engine of public discourse engaged with political action.
The so-called Reagan and Thatcher revolutions in the US and Britain were preceded and underpinned by robust New Right thinking driven by unapologetically committed think-tanks. Similar entities (such as IPPR and Demos) underscore the Blair evolution in Britain and it would be fair to say that the two Bush administrations would lack ideological edge were it not for the omnipresence of neo-conservative think-tankers.
There are hopeful signs that a more vibrant think-tank culture is emerging in Ireland with the arrival of non-State bodies such as Tasc and the Open Republic Institute, to add to the inestimably influential work of older bodies such as the ESRI and NESC. Indeed, it would be fair to construe the work of the faith-based Cori Justice Commission to that of a think-tank with unusual access to the centre of power, if the presence of Fr Seán Healy at the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party meeting in Inchydoney is an indicator of anything. The statutory sector, including bodies like the Law Reform Commission, can also be a vital force in a think-tank culture, although its propensity to "think and do" will always be circumscribed by carefully drafted mandates. This is especially so in the case of the commission because of the inherently limited potential of law reform (on its own) as an instrument of social change.
The commission may not grab regular headlines but there is a discernible rise in its profile as an organisation engaged with the political processes of law reform, albeit not one lobbying for such reform. Its authority and credibility are such that discreet contacts with Government are likely to have an impact in ways that are real but difficult to measure.
Its more overt engagement with Oireachtas committees in recent times is an invaluable resource for parliamentarians in a parliamentary system that contrives to impoverish individual TDs and senators in terms of knowledge and expertise.
Of course, as an independent body, the Law Reform Commission must guard against being used as the governmental long finger or the obscure depository of political hot potatoes. It must never be used to turn the objectionable into the respectable. Its reports on bail and defamation reform were admirable in their own right, whatever about the motivations behind the referral of such topics to the commission.
The original intention of Declan Costello SC, attorney general in 1975, was that it would work with the parliament but through the Government. The fact that it now engages directly with parliamentarians may not seem like much of a revolution but its capacity to have an impact directly from within the legislative process must surely be enhanced by such engagement.
Its next reform programme, from 2007 onwards, must build on the successes of the first two. The current president of the commission, Ms Justice Catherine McGuinness, and its research director, Raymond Byrne, are ideally suited to the task of involving a diverse range of actors in civil society in the development of an exciting and ambitious programme.
The space between the State and non-State is now occupied by a multitude of bodies with different but overlapping mandates.
This adds colour as well as complexity to political life. It creates channels for the management of dissent and opportunities for constructive engagement. The place of the Law Reform Commission in this maze is well earned and firmly established.