REGULAR as clockwork, the issue of the Bailiff’s dual role as president of the States Assembly and chief judge in the Royal Court comes up for re-examination.

The arguments in favour and against the separation of our chief citizen’s powers might be well rehearsed and well understood, but the controversy remains a live issue inside and outside the States Chamber.

However, although traditionalists may be dismayed to learn that the Bailiff’s position is to be examined again, there can be no denying that it is a matter of continuing interest and concern. It can also be argued that the newly constituted Assembly may offer fresh insight into the question.

There is, moreover, a further dimension to the latest review, proposed in the States this week. It is intended to look beyond the role of the position of the Bailiff, taking in all the unelected States Members.

Although we must never lose sight of the impression given to the outside world by the Bailiff’s dual role and the capital that can be made from it by our critics, any new review is likely to reach familiar conclusions – namely that, in practical terms, present arrangements work very well and that there are no compelling reasons for change.

But it is by no means impossible that quite different conclusions might be reached about other unelected Members, notably the Attorney General and the Solicitor General. It is legitimate to ask whether their duty as legal advisers to the States really requires them to occupy seats in the Assembly any more than senior civil servants with an advisory role who manage perfectly well without the concession.

It is also the case that the law officers are exceedingly busy individuals and that they can be more productively employed than by sitting through lengthy debates.

The positions of the Lieut-Governor and the Dean could also be scrutinised, though neither role in the Assembly has attracted much in the way of criticism.

The provision of a seat for the Lieut-Governor, the monarch’s representative in the Island, is a matter of simple respect and courtesy. It is also principally symbolic, having very few attached rights or privileges.

Meanwhile, although some will say that this is no longer a Christian community and that the Dean’s position in the States and his right of address are, therefore, anachronisms, this amounts to a poor argument for depriving the Assembly of wise words based on high principle rather than pragmatism.