Mr. John Kinsella:

You would ordinarily find details such as these in secondary legislation while only the principles would be set out in primary legislation. This Bill is somewhat unusual in that it contains much of the detail. As the Minister was saying, some of that detail may well be stripped out of the primary legislation as the Bill progresses and then included in secondary legislation at a later point. There are a number of reasons for it being where it is at the moment. It is useful because it gives everybody involved, including the farmers and the committee, a good snapshot of the thinking with regard to the compensation scheme, the various heads of loss and other matters we are looking at. It is useful to have a debate and to get good input from everybody involved at this stage. That might not be the case if the detail was to be held back and if we were only to talk about the very high-level stuff you normally see in primary legislation. It is there at the moment, but whether it will remain in the primary legislation after we have input from the committee and further input from the farmers remains to be seen. It might be more appropriate for detail like this to go into secondary legislation, which would allow for greater flexibility. It may not be ideal to hardwire figures or detail on matters such as the issue of five years' debit versus ten years', about which there was a lot of discussion today, into the legislation. It might be better to leave things like that to the secondary legislation. It is certainly good to have it out at this point so that we can discuss it with the farmers and with the committee and so that people can see what the thinking is. Does that answer the Chair's question?