16 Timeframes  for  implementation  will  frequently  be  frustrating.    A  superb  report  was published on reform of our property law 10 years’ ago⁵¹.  Because it is not a politically attractive or high-profile area of the law, this has been left to languish.  I am confident that  one  day  the  fruits  of  it  will  emerge  in  the  same  way  as  the  monumental  task  of evidence law reform (carried out in the late 1990’s) has been critical in the framing of an Evidence Code which we are told is due to be introduced into Parliament this year. An  aside.    There  can  be  a  temptation  for  government  to  refer  to  a  Law  Commission matters  that  are  in  the  ‘too  hard’  basket.    There  will  be  issues  about  which  there  is controversy  and  emotional  division.  The  Law  Commission  can  be  seen  as  a  handy parking  place  or  at  least  a  safety  valve.    This  can  lead  to  unhealthy  pressure  and explosive tension, particularly if the subject is one which gets near to the party political agenda.    Law Commissions must ensure that they stick to their knitting and do not become used as a dumping ground.  Basically I suggest they should be proactive rather than reactive.   So much law change is driven by political necessity, perceived electoral advantage and special   interest   pleading.      There   are   abundant   opportunities   for   reactions   to   those criteria.    For  Law  Commissions  to  justify  their  existence,  they  must  be  in  a different league.    Unless  we  can  demonstrate  that  we  can  add  value  to  the  society  in  which  we operate, we can hardly expect the continuation of funding streams. What is our knitting? What  would  I  see  then  as  the  fundamental  requirement  for  selection  of  work  to  be undertaken?                                                     51   Above 43