CO537-6046 — Page 167

members of the Leg. Co.) should form Com ittees

whose duty it would be to advise the Governor on

the administration of the various services.

It was

thought that the official members of the Leg. Co.

should not be mencers of these groups but possibly

should have a right to attend their meetings and

address them, It was suggested that the provision

in the Order-in-Council or other constituent

instrument need not in terms limit their functions

to that of "advice", or alternatively that if they

are constituted us advisory bodies, power might be

reserved to the Govenor to give them certain

executive functions at a later date.

7. Difficulties in the way of this second

purpose are

(at the legal and constitutional responsibility-

for-carrying

foot by

plased fairly and squarely on the

definite pe

be-some-“highway authority'

(a) can be sued for damages

Whatever disguises are

ad ptod, the second proposal ley limits the

ves

representation of the electorate to giving advice,

at any rate at the intach.

The res onsible decision li s elsewhere (presumably

even in matters such as the licensing of a hackney

carriage now entrusted to the Uruan Guncil).

In view of the Government's previou an ouncement

of their pproval in principle of the Young Plan is

it possible now to adopt a proposal which to both

abandoning the idea of a franchise based on

(thus reducing

residential qualification reduser tre'number of

Much

electors by, zore than

280) and

simultaneously reduces the function of the

representativesof the electors to one of giving