I am very impressed with Deputy Cregan's enthusiasm to get on with the Bill. As I said earlier, this Bill has very serious implications for agriculture and industry. I must confess that I do not fully understand the extent of those implications, which is why I am asking that the committee obtain some assistance. Deputy Cregan may understand it. For example, what are the implications of this Bill for Aughinish, in his own constituency? Deputy Kelleher's constituency contains a lot of industry. What are the implications for the licensing arrangements for those industries? It is all very well to exhort us to get on with the Bill. When this Bill is passed and problems arise in constituencies - when farmers find that a particular form of activity is closing down, or when the noose is tightened on a particular industry - what will happen? I happen to be in favour of strengthening environmental legislation, but Deputies who are on this committee now will be crying crocodile tears about officers of the EPA doing this, that and the other, when this committee and the Oireachtas are the ones providing the power for it to be done, just as the Oireachtas provided the power to Dúchas to do what it did regarding SPCs and SPAs.
Before we plough ahead, blindfolded, into dealing with the legislation, the committee should take the opportunity of hearing expert opinions on the implications of what we are being asked to do and hearing from bodies that have already signalled that they have a problem with it. The IFA, for example, has already mentioned that it has a problem with some provisions of this legislation. This committee should hear from the IFA directly about its difficulties with the legislation and then we can do our job in light of that information. Deputy Kelleher is right; there is no great urgency about this Bill. This is legislation with which we can take a bit of time. There is no mad urgency with Committee Stage of this Bill. I do not see why we cannot bring in the representative and expert bodies to address the committee and set out their concerns. It will not take forever and it would help the committee. We can park our proceedings, hear what the different bodies have to say and then do our business.
I do not understand why we should not do this. If there is a reason we should not hear from these groups, nobody has said it yet today. I have heard no case made that we should not hear from these organisations, nor has any case been made for great urgency in dealing with the amendments. Why should we not wait a couple of weeks until we have heard from the different bodies?