A letter from a number of leading advocates published last week on the island’s proposed new inheritance law highlighted the difficulties States members find themselves in when considering legislation.

Where do they turn for impartial advice on whether approving far-reaching new regulations is a good idea or not?

As is now accepted, the States own grandly titled Legislation Select Committee cannot provide a steer. It merely proof-reads what is placed in front of it and is largely a satellite of St James’ Chambers, which drafts the projects and ordinances that are supposedly being scrutinised.

A quick glance at the Billet d’Etat indicates that the 50-page law which so concerns the advocates who wrote here is not something lay people will find easy to understand and is largely impossible to place into context unless they have a legal background.

In addition, it seems that restrictions have appeared in the draft legislation that were not fully explained in the original Billet. On that basis alone, the draft goes further than the States intended and should be challenged.

Whether it will be is, however, a moot point. It has reached the stage where deputies are being asked to send it to the Privy Council for approval even though there was no real demand for its far-reaching changes, which so trouble the lawyers who wrote here.

The proposals come from an investigation committee, headed by a lay States member, even though its own consultative process showed that just 26 islanders wanted change. Yet on the strength of that ‘mandate’, the certainty of the current inheritance laws will be torn up and replaced with something that creates huge swathes of uncertainty.

This is not transparent, evidence-based law-making.

For islanders who are interested in the political process, it is what happens next that will be telling. If the draft is approved, those who vote for it will be saying that they fully understand all the provisions and the potential ramifications and believe that any benefits more than outweigh the downsides.

If they cannot – and treat with suspicion those who claim they can – the proposal should be rejected.