There you are. That is not an answer. I came to the House with the Bill—and I make you a present of this—without any great technical knowledge of forestry, but with a first-class staff behind me. That is admitted in every country, both here and across the water. The Forestry staff is a first-class one. I wanted to get a good Bill. I would have left every section to a free vote of the House, but we now see what has happended. I pressed no points. I came with a good Bill to which a considerable amount of thought had been given. I radically changed the structure and improved the Bill as a result of suggestions made on Second Reading. I got fifteen days between Second Reading and the time in which amendments had got to be in. When that time came no amendments were put in. The discussion lapsed, and Deputies addressed themselves to the Bill as if they never read a line of it and had no interest in it. Last night you had the same performance. I suppose, however, I have got to take it seriously. There are some objections to the Bill. First of all, it is said that it is bureaucratic. It is bureaucratic. Deputies opposite regret the fact that there is a tendency to bureaucracy in this country. I dislike bureaucracy. I think there is too much of it, but it does not lie in the mouths of Deputies opposite to talk about bureaucracy, because every day the Dáil meets they are asking for more and more bureaucracy. They think that the function of the Government is to do everything for everybody, to spend the taxpayers' money here, there and everywhere, on all sorts of objects which are financed by private individuals in other countries. They must realise that all these demands mean more and more bureaucracy. If they have no respect for the taxpayers' money, for the man who is working, if his money is to be spent here regardless of how much he can afford, they must realise that you cannot take it without a certain expenditure of it. So there is a constant demand from those Benches opposite for more and more bureaucracy. This Bill is attacked because it is a bureaucratic Bill. It is; but why is it? Deputies say that there is not a proper outlook on this question in this country. They admit, and I have never heard it denied, that there is less tree planting among private individuals in this country than in any other State. Deputies will admit that the Irish farmer never has the slightest compunction about cutting down a tree, and often does it quite wantonly.
I could understand the point of view of people who say that if a farmer wants to cut a tree on his own land, let him do it, and do not bother about scenery or any other considerations. That is a point of view I sympathise with. There is a lot to be said for it, and I do not know that it is not sound. On the other hand, it was the general opinion that we must do something to stop the indiscriminate felling of trees. If the State must do that, you must have more bureaucracy. You must have the rather ridiculous position in which a man cannot cut a tree or trees without the consent of somebody authorised by the State to give consent. There was another point of view expressed. I heard phrases such as a big forestry scheme, a comprehensive and ambitious forestry scheme. I heard of the hillside that might be bought for a small amount and covered with timber. I listened to Deputies talking of this country producing magnificent forests such as are in other countries if there was a proper scheme. There is nothing to prevent us doing that except one thing, and that is a certain amount of money. You have to say the amount of money you are prepared to spend on forestry. But this Bill does not affect that problem at all. That problem is a simple one. That problem is one of getting the Dáil to agree to voting £10,000, £100,000, £1,000,000 or £10,000,000 to finance such a scheme. The more money you give the more land you will be able to buy and the more trees you will be able to plant. That does not require legislation, and when Deputies were talking as if it did require legislation, they were talking beside the point. We do not want any legislation for that purpose.
We do require some modifications in the existing legislation, and in the first section of the Bill you have taken power to acquire land compulsorily for forestry. That is the only thing limiting the State, apart from money. Outside that you have the question of trying to protect existing forests. This Bill is the best way, we suggest, to protect existing forests, and all this other talk about a tree and trees is beside the point. There is no doubt that under this section we are giving a general licence, but the fact is that I am afraid that Deputy Carney did not see the forest for the trees, as far as that is concerned.
I am endeavouring to remember whether there were any points of substance really put up against the Bill. There was one point in reference to the saw-millers. That was ruled out of order, and there could be no question that it was out of order. This is not a Bill to encourage the manufacture of wooden articles. This is a Forestry Bill to promote the growth of timber. It would be entirely out of place in a Forestry Bill. Undoubtedly it is a fiscal question, pure and simple. I would ask Deputies to remember that also the amendment which they suggest had a very much less ambitious purpose than was suggested in the speeches later on. The amendment put down, I think, in Deputy Moore's name simply suggested that no timber could be exported unless it was sawn. That is all it came to, but when I listened to the speeches on the Report Stage last night and on the Second Reading, it would seem that Deputies had some scheme in their heads under which no timber could be exported unless it left the country in the form of furniture, caravans or ships.
