When he came to be given his appointment notwithstanding the friendship that the Government had for him, they made him comply—and properly made him comply—with Section 11 of the Electricity Supply Act of 1927. In relation to this Bill the Minister proposes to have no such restriction. The Minister makes the case that it is necessary to have in this Authority someone who has prior knowledge of broadcasting. Surely to goodness, the Electricity Supply Board in 1927, if that argument were good today, could have used the same argument in 1927, that it was desirable then to have people with experience of electrical undertakings to serve on the new electrical grid board that was then being set up? The Government of that day decided it was not desirable, that it was essential that for the reputation of the country and of the board that there should be a provision against people doing continuous business with the board, the continuous business that they would do if they were engaged in an electrical undertaking. They were right in so doing and we would be right in so providing today.
In relation to this Bill, there is nothing whatever making it necessary that the chairman or any of the members of the broadcasting Authority should be a person with technical knowledge of broadcasting. In fact, on the contrary, it would be far better for the members of the Authority to be people able to look at the broad national picture in relation to broadcasting rather than that they should be people who had such technical knowledge as would inevitably make them take a narrow view of the issues involved. I believe it is true of the members of the Authority; I believe it is doubly true or trebly true of the chairman of the Authority.
Above all else, the job of a chairman of a body like this is to take the broadest general view on matters of policy, to be sure that he gets the best possible technical advice from his officials or from consultants but, having got the best possible technical advice, to be certain that the board over which he presides considers that advice in the light of broad general principles of policy. He should not be constrained, restricted or in any way narrowed in his consideration of the problems by the fact that he himself has technical experience from one aspect only because remember the person we are concerned with has technical experience from one aspect and from one aspect only and that is from the aspect of producing and acting.
That is not what is required from a chairman of this Authority. What is required is a person with a broad national policy outlook related to television and sound broadcasting. I say that in reference to a particular person who has been named. I wish to make it clear it is not for the purpose of criticising him or in any way attacking him but for the purpose of making it clear beyond question that there is no need for the Minister to insist that he takes his chairman from persons who have broadcasting experience as such. Being clear therefore myself, and I think all of us on this side of the House are absolutely clear—and I believe most members on the other side are, but they are not equally able to express their views—that what is wanted here is a broad basis for the board like that. When one considers whether it is desirable to have a person there who is dealing day in and day out with the Authority, I want to say in the most categorical fashion I can that there is nothing more undesirable. It was thought to be highly undesirable in 1927 in the case of electricity and it is perhaps even more undesirable today for an Authority of this type.
If this amendment is not accepted it means that a person can buy in Canada, in America and elsewhere throughout the world, the Irish copyright rights of suitable television material and having bought that material, having bought the Irish rights for it, can come along and sell those Irish rights to the Authority of which he is the chairman and in respect of which his colleagues are bound to be influenced by the fact that they are being sold to the Authority by the chairman. That is not a fanciful story. I could understand people saying, if a member put the amendment to the House on a basis of that hypothesis, that it was a hypothesis that was never likely to happen. But it is not an hypothesis; it is a fact and it is to the honour of Mr. Andrews that he has acknowledged in a public interview in Radio Review that he has been doing that and that he intends to do that. The fact that he has so disclosed his position is to his honour but it is a thing that should not be permitted by this House.
He said there that his company, the company of which he was a founder and of which he is a director has been buying for Ireland the Irish rights for television material in America, Canada and elsewhere; that he has been buying it for the purpose of selling it to the Broadcasting Authority when an Irish television station is set up; and that he has obtained options. I do not see when that is the position, how anybody who wishes to question or to criticise the price which is to be paid for that material by the Television Authority when it is set up, could be satisfied that the sale was carried through in a normal businesslike way.
I am not suggesting in any way that because these options have been taken up an unfair price will be charged to the Broadcasting Authority for them. But, I am not merely suggesting, I am stating categorically that no matter what may be the facts, nobody whose material is turned down in favour of material purchased in this manner will believe that he got a fair run. That is a dead weight round the neck of the new Broadcasting Authority that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs should not put on it, when it is just starting off.
Any member of the public who has something that he wants to put on television and that he feels is good enough to be produced on television, and who is turned down will certainly feel he has a grievance if this arrangement is adopted. Whether he has a grievance or not is not really the question. The question is that in relation to public concerns what is done must not merely be what is right, fair, just and proper, but what appears to be right, fair, just and proper. This arrangement that the Minister wishes to provide in his Bill that a person can be chairman of the Authority and at the same time that his company can be selling programme material to that Authority, day in and day out, is not one that could possibly appear to be fair, right, just or proper.
We had some discussion in relation to the analogy that arose in respect of the county councils and the County Management Act. One defence put up for the County Management Act was that that would not happen then. But there is a difference and it is that now a member of a local authority under statute has no power to influence the way in which a contract is given by the county manager. Under statute the member of a local authority has had the power taken away from him. It is the manager alone who, under statute, has that power and it is for that reason alone now that a member of a local authority can, shall we say, supply milk to a hospital in the local authority area. He can only do it because under statute he is prohibited from having any effect in any way on his colleagues and his colleagues have no statutory permission in any way to make that contract.
In the present case the colleagues are being permitted by statute to do it. The intention, from what the Minister himself has said, is that the man can serve two masters at one and the same time. It is quite outrageous to suggest that it is proper in a public concern. It is quite outrageous to suggest that it will not give rise to grave public uneasiness that a man should be chairman of a broadcasting Authority at one second and in the next second chairman of the company supplying the Authority, and that intends to supply the Authority, on his own admission. I pay honour and tribute to him for having made the admission. On his own admission, he intends to supply most of the material for that Authority. A man cannot serve two masters and the Minister is trying to put a person into that unfortunate position. This amendment prevents that happening and for that reason I recommend it to the House.
