I was making the point, when the debate adjourned, that it seems somehow wrong that the Government should be beholden to any individual, no matter how talented or gifted, for the success of this service. It seems wrong that on his participation in this organisation should depend the success, or otherwise, of the undertaking. It would appear as if the Government is handing over a great deal of its powers. As the Minister has said, this is a service which will make a very deep impression from the point of view of entertainment and education. It is rather unwise then that the Government should be so completely dependent on this individual and I do not think they should feel they are dependent to that degree.
In passing, may I say that I think it is very wrong that in two successive weeks here we should be discussing very important propositions without any power of altering decisions taken? One was the Supplementary Estimate for a sum of £7,000,000 for the building of a new University, and now we have this proposition in which a sum of £2,000,000 is involved. As Deputy Carty has said, we come in here and find ourselves presented with a fait accompli. It is very wrong that this Assembly should be deprived of the right of counter decision after discussion and debate here. In these two instances that I have cited, decisions were taken in advance of discussion here.
The Minister said that the individual concerned has given an assurance that he will not allow his business interests to interfere and he would resign should there be any danger of that. The Minister then went on to say that the Government could take a decision. In fairness to the proposed Chairman, I do not think there are any circumstances in which the Government could legally insist on the Chairman resigning because one cannot have gradations of responsibility to the Authority and gradations of responsibility to one's business interests. A person has either no responsibility or he has some responsibility. The Government has made no attempt to define the borderline between the Chairman's personal and private responsibilities and his public responsibilities. The Minister is under an illusion if he thinks the Government could legally go to the Chairman at any time and say to him: "You are allowing your private and personal responsibilities to interfere with your responsibility to the Government." The Minister, therefore, cannot depend on that way out of his dilemma.
We might get a Chairman who was very authoritarian and who might infringe on the bounds of propriety in exercising his dual capacity as a businessman with access to decisions relating to questions of contracts coming before the Authority. Even though the Minister has two precedents in relation to electricity and transport, there is no doubt at all but that the more desirable precedent is the 1927 one in relation to electricity. Just because the Government departed from that in 1950, the Minister should not feel justified in doing so now in 1960. I do not think the Minister has made a good enough case.