Seòmar agus comataidhean

That leads neatly to my next theme, which relates to what should be on the face of the bill—we have heard that phrase being thrown around in committees and elsewhere. We would have some very long legislation if everything was “on the face of” every bill.

We have had some discussion about the rural support plan. Are you content that there is enough in the bill to define its meaning and aims?

I likewise wonder if you will go a little further and offer to work with me ahead of stage 3.

On the basis of the offer that the minister has made to work with me ahead of stage 3, I will not move amendment 90.

Amendment 90 moved—[Rachael Hamilton].

I appreciate that time is wearing on, so I will make a brief point. It is a technical point, but I hope also an important one.

There will be a lot of secondary legislation on the back of this bill, and there is a concern to ensure that the balance is right in how that is scrutinised. What are your plans for parliamentary scrutiny around secondary legislation, particularly in relation to getting the balance right with regard to negative procedure for secondary legislation?

Is it the fact that we agree that presents a problem?

I do not think that anyone would disagree with Rachael Hamilton. We do not want to put in place measures that are unnecessary. However, I am keen to know how concepts such as “excessive pressure” and “efficient”, which appear in the amendment, can be adequately defined in a way that works.

On that point, you are talking about estimates of the time necessary to complete the process. Given the variability of time associated with police and court investigations, is it possible to give those estimates?

Okay.

An issue that has been talked about in the past is what checks and balances there should be on the actions that ministers have to take once the bill becomes an act. In particular, I am thinking about the code of practice. One of those checks and balances would relate to whether regulations under section 7 of the bill were subject to the negative procedure in Parliament.

That might be a very technical point, but it opens up the wider question of what scrutiny there should be of the decisions that ministers take on the back of the bill. I am particularly interested in hearing about the code of conduct, though.

Forgive me, convener, but we are talking about the second theme, are we not?