I would have preferred had the advisory council been a little less restricted. The proposal that there should be an advisory council is a good one, but in the interests of all concerned, particularly the Minister, it should be seen to be an independent body. In saying that, I do not mean to reflect on the Minister, former holders of the office or future Ministers, but a Minister may come under pressure in this regard. It is possible that the advice tendered to a Minister would be what the council think the Minister wants to hear rather than what they would like to give him. The council may only consider matters referred to them by the Minister, and the chairman and ordinary members appointed by the Minister will hold office for such a period as the Minister may decide. Subsection (3) provides that, on the request of the advisory council and subject to the consent of the Minister, an inspector may attend a meeting of the advisory council for the purpose of giving any information which the advisory council may request for the purposes of discharging its function. Therefore, the council cannot request an inspector to attend a meeting. First of all, he must obtain the consent of the Minister. I presume, if the Minister says, "Yes" the inspector will go but the subsection says that an inspector "may" go. I should prefer that to read that an inspector "shall" go. Perhaps the Minister is being over-cautious in these provisions. For example, would he consider amending subsection (3) to read:
On the request of the Advisory Council an inspector shall attend a meeting of the Advisory Council for the purpose of giving any information which the Advisory Council may request for the purposes of discharging its functions.
In other words, this would mean the deletion of the words "and subject to the consent of the Minister" and the substitution of the word "shall" for the word "may" in the second line of the subsection.