Having served for almost 30 years under some 10 attorneys general, I am often asked which of them was the best. Names like Peter Sutherland and John Kelly are suggested, but my answer is invariably Declan Costello, the recently retired president of the High Court. My reason for this choice is simply because he it was who set up the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Statute Law Reform Commission.

If only because of the spate of sensational criminal trials of recent years, the DPP's role is by now familiar to the public. However, the LRC rarely hits the headlines. Yet, as a recent LRC publication, Statutory Drafting: Plain Language and the Law, shows, this cannot be for want of productivity by the commission.

In little over 25 years it has published 60 reports, 11 working papers, 16 consultation papers, 21 annual reports and some more specialised papers - in all, over 100 publications. For a statutory body which occupies only one floor of a modern office block in Ballsbridge and employs only about 20 people - excluding secretarial staff but including three part-time commissioners - this output speaks for itself.

In its 126-page consultation paper in 1999 on plain English and the law, which contained six chapters, the commission made 15 provisional recommendations. In a recent report on the same topic*, running to 90 pages and containing seven chapters, the commission makes 16 recommendations. Already the 1999 paper has led to the introduction in August 2000 of a new Interpretation Bill.

This will probably need amendment in the light of the new report, assuming that the draftsman's office (now the Office of Parliamentary Counsel) takes on board all (or only even some) of the 16 recommendations. Indeed, a major section (Section 5) of this Bill clearly owes its inspiration to this report. Furthermore, the report announces with approval the impending publication by the Attorney General of a style manual for drafters, as recommended in the 1999 consultation paper.

To assume that this report is of interest only to the wig-and-gown brigade (whether on the Bench or at the Bar) would be wrong. For 150 years now statute law (i.e. Acts of the Oireachtas since 1922) has been the major source of law in this country. Consequently, not merely judges and barristers but solicitors, trade union officials, social workers and civil servants all have a vital interest in seeing the reforms advocated by this report speedily implemented.

Modern principles (and practice) of legislative drafting and statutory interpretation are essential to the smooth operation of the whole legal system - and those twin activities are what this report is all about. Interestingly, in its first report some 25 years ago, the LRC stressed the need for both a flexible approach to interpretation and an improvement in drafting styles. So it hardly comes a moment too soon.

In general, the LRC recommends a standard approach which would be set out in a new Interpretation Act. In other words, judges and drafters would sing from the same hymn-book. While not condemning the hallowed literal approach (based on the plain intention of the Oireachtas) to statutory interpretation, judges should be free to depart from this practice and ascertain the plain intention from reading the Act as a whole and, when necessary, using certain aids to interpretation.

In addition, statutes (particularly older ones) would be interpreted in the light of modern changes in the meanings of words. The aids to interpretation would be either intrinsic (i.e. in the Act itself) or extrinsic (found elsewhere, as in government commission reports or even reports of Oireachtas debates).

The reason for advising (as the LRC does) the inclusion of most of its ideas in a new Interpretation Act is to avoid different views on interpretation being adopted in their decisions by the judiciary. A searching analysis by the report of recent leading Irish cases in this field reveals disturbing differences among even the most eminent judges. Clearly the LRC believes that if its new ideas on interpretation are to be universally adopted, this cannot be left to the discretion of judges.

Because legislative drafting is the twin of statutory interpretation, it is not surprising that a whole chapter of the LRC report is devoted to the topic. This is where the document's sub-title, "Plain Language and the Law", becomes relevant. The commission places itself firmly (if at times cautiously) on the side of plain English and supports recent initiatives by Irish drafters.

Indeed, some readers may interpret some of this chapter as a rap on the knuckles for drafters for not moving with the times as their counterparts elsewhere have done. The widespread use of familiar language, of shorter sections, of the active voice and of positive (rather than negative) statements, as well as the increased use of examples, maps, diagrams and even of mathematical formulae are all encouraged, but with the important proviso that plain English should not be achieved at the expense of legal certainty - the good drafter's golden rule.

An older generation of drafters may regard as too daring some of the LRC's ideas on plain language in Acts, for plain English has its opponents as well as its supporters. But there is more to come, as these are not the end of the LRC's innovative ideas on legislation by any means. The use in our Acts of "purpose clauses" is recommended, indicative of a clear leaning towards the continental drafting style since EU law has now become part of Irish law.

Indeed, the LRC urges the adoption of purpose clauses particularly in Irish legislation giving effect to EU laws, where such clauses commonly occur. Finally, the drafting recommendations deal with such ancillary topics as explanatory memoranda, often published with our Bills. More of these, the LRC urges, should be used; moreover, they should be drafted by drafters rather than departmental officials and they should be updated to reflect amendments to a Bill during its passage.

BOTH the content and style of this important report are refreshing and positive, coming from a profession usually regarded as resistant to change. Moreover, the sudden publication last August, within weeks of the appearance of the commission's consultation paper, of a comprehensive 23-section Interpretation Bill (to replace the existing Act passed as long ago as 1937) probably indicates a willingness by drafters to take on board moderate proposals like those in this document.

While the Attorney General, Michael McDowell SC, deserves praise for this step, some at least of the praise should go to his predecessor, Dermot Gleeson SC, who had a small team of drafters working on what is now the new Bill when he left office in 1997. Moreover, unlike Gleeson, McDowell did not have to pick up the pieces left by the unfortunate Father Smyth episode.

It is clear from comparing the report with the earlier consultation paper that in framing its recommendations the LRC has taken on board reaction to its 1999 document, in particular that expressed at the two public meetings ("Colloquia") convened by the current Attorney General in April 2000. The commission will naturally await with interest changes to the new Interpretation Bill before it starts its course through the Oireachtas.

Finally, a brief historical note. Half a century ago Chief Justice O Dalaigh and Judge Brian Walsh (both now dead) spearheaded a new revolution in Irish constitutional jurisprudence. Others such as Judge Seamus Henchy and Chief Justices O'Higgins and Finlay (all three happily still with us) carried on this revolution.

It may be forgotten that, among other judges to take a liberal approach to the 1937 Constitution, was the late Mr Justice Gardner Budd. It may be a happy omen that the new president of the Law Reform Commission is his son, Mr Justice Declan Budd.

*Statutory Drafting and Interpretation: Plain Language and the Law; Report LRC 61-2000 of the Law Reform Commission

Marcus Bourke is a former parliamentary draftsman