I propose dealing in my reply with the two amendments, and I would ask the Seanad not to insist on their insertion in the Bill. With regard to Senator Colonel Moore's amendment, there are a number of detailed departmental objections to it. One is that we find, as a matter of practice, that whenever the Department of Agriculture supplies anything, unless it turns out to be 100 per cent., there is a demand afterwards for compensation. For instance, the Department might supply quite good trees, but if they were not properly planted and attended to the person who got them would afterwards come to the Department and say that they were no good. That may not appeal very much to Senators, but we find that that always occurs where a State Department supplies anything. It always leads to endless correspondence. Apparently, persons who get anything from a State Department for nothing, always seem to think that they can treat it as they like and afterwards get compensation if the results are not to their satisfaction. That reason, as I have stated, is not likely to appeal very strongly to the Seanad. I suggest that if this amendment, or any amendment like it, were passed it would inevitably give rise to a most unsatisfactory position, because it means that where a replanting condition is imposed that the person who gets the licence, with that condition imposed, gets the trees free of cost. I do not want to be misunderstood, but I think it is inevitable in the course of administration over a large number of years, that such an amendment as that would give rise to all sorts of abuses. The temptation, for instance, to refuse a licence rather than supply trees which may not be readily available to the Department at the time, is bound to be great, and if Senators will consider it, even if this particular section were inserted in the Bill, there are at least a hundred and one ways of getting round it. The head of the Forestry Branch or a Minister could easily get round it if they wished to do so, and for that reason, if for no other, I think the section should not be inserted.
Exactly the same considerations apply, but with even stronger force, to Senator Bagwell's amendment, because the Senator's amendment comes to this: that where a licence is withheld, and where it is stated that it is withheld so as to prevent the person from cutting trees possessing some scenic value, compensation should be given to the applicant for the licence. That also could be evaded in a hundred and one ways if it were wished to do so. In addition to the abuses that there might be on the side of the Department administering the Act, there could be very grave abuses from the point of view of people, say, in Kerry or Wicklow. Supposing that section were inserted, is it not inevitable that many people would come along with an application to cut trees which they never intended to cut? Of course, there is a way out of that—to refuse the licence, not to put in a replanting condition, and not to give the scenic consideration as the reason. I suggest that, if the section is inserted, it is bound to lead to abuses. People who never intend to cut trees around the Lakes of Killarney or in Wicklow and other places will come along applying for leave to do so. They will not get the leave, and if it is stated that the trees are for a scenic purpose they must get compensation and they are bound to take advantage of that. It might be said it is not dishonest on their part, but it is not a particularly moral transaction.
