It could be introduced again tentatively the next year. I do not know what the Seanad thinks of the principle of the Bill. The idea was that the prohibition which at present lies on the railway company in regard to the running of road motor services should be withdrawn, and that the company should be put in the same position as any other company or person in regard to the running of road services. First one has to safeguard the railway revenue by seeing that no injudicious road service would be run against competition which it could not defeat except by running it at a loss. Secondly, one has to protect the public against the railway company, which being a large corporation and having, at any rate, facilities for finance—if not having loose finances at present—might hereafter defeat the road services which are at present run beneficially to the public, and, having done so, might then clear off the road themselves. Having defeated their competitors, they might come off the road themselves in the hope that the traffic would then flow back to the railway. If that principle be accepted, I think there is a weakening of the liabilities under which the railway company is being put in regard to facilities they are now getting for running road services. In other words, we are going to allow them to run experimental services and allow them to take them off without the permission of the Minister. As set out in the Bill, once the service is established and the rate fixed, the rate is not to be lowered nor the service withdrawn or discontinued without the approval of the Minister. The amendment introduces a new point, namely, that what is described as an experimental road service may be run and afterwards withdrawn without the approval of the Minister. That is an open door to the company which they may push wider and eventually defeat the restrictions put upon them. That may be good or bad, as the restrictions may be too onerous.
