I thank you, Mr. Pike, and your co-Chairman, Mr. Conway, for your obvious skill, your good humour and the light touch with which you have chaired our deliberations during the past three weeks. I also want to thank the Clerks of the House for their direction and supervision of our proceedings, both in Committee and in preparation for it. Many of us have cause to thank them. Once again, they have lived up to their enviable reputation for excellence. I also want to extend thanks to those who have so faithfully recorded our proceedings. They may largely be hidden, but their service is greatly appreciated and valued.

Despite the fact that we have dealt with some difficult and sensitive subjects—the temperature rose slightly on one occasion, but that matter has now been resolved—I am grateful for the way in which all members of the Committee have conducted themselves, and for the nature of our proceedings. I appreciate the contribution that hon. Members have made to our consideration and understanding of the Bill.

As the Committee draws to a close, it would be useful to state my appreciation for the way in which the Bill has generally been handled. Proceedings in Committee have borne out the assessment of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who suggested on Second Reading that the vast majority of the provisions would be useful to the population of Northern Ireland as a whole and were recognised as such. There are obvious areas of strong disagreement, and I do not want to minimise them, but the Bill leaves the Committee with fairly widespread support. That is true of at least the principles that lie behind it, if not all its details.

There has been much discussion about time allocated for scrutiny, and I want to make a few points on that, as it would be inappropriate for me to leave the Committee without doing so. The Government's decision to allocate three weeks for scrutiny in Committee in the House of Commons was taken carefully in the light of the size of the Bill and the main aspects of dispute. I think that our proceedings largely bear out the Government's judgment, but I recognise that that view will not be shared throughout the Committee.

Of the Bill's 91 clauses, 59 have been scrutinised, as have nine of its 13 schedules. The debates have been full and careful. Indeed, our early rate of progress would have required about a day for each three clauses. I have not been aware that hon. Members have felt restricted by the debates and unable to put across points that they wanted to make.

Throughout the process, the Government have sought to smooth the Bill's passage. We did so first by ensuring that it was published in advance and in draft, to enable considerable pre-parliamentary scrutiny. Whatever one does in relation to such matters, it is always criticised for not being enough. However, compared to the level of scrutiny of some legislation introduced by previous Governments, the Bill's level of scrutiny has been unprecedented.

As a Minister, I have been responsible for the decisions that have led to an open and unprecedented approach on briefing the Opposition and others on the content of the Bill. I opened my offer to every political party with an interest in our proceedings. As a result, the Bill that we have examined has been in excellent shape. We have had to take up the Committee's time with only a relatively small number of technical Government amendments, especially considering the size and complexity of the Bill.

That pattern will continue on Report, when we again hope to introduce a limited number of Government amendments, some technical and others that reflect important points that have been raised in Committee and in the wider consultation process. We think it right that the onus is on the Government to deliver our side of the bargain by introducing legislation that is in good shape. That allows Parliament's time to be spent in proper scrutiny of the thinking behind the Government's proposals.

I regret that certain parts of the Bill were not reached during Committee. In addition to the broad programme motion agreed after Second Reading, the Programming Sub-Committee suggested several knives within the Committee proceedings. Those knives were designed to ensure scrutiny of all parts of the Bill. They are obviously an art rather than a science. The record will show that our programming proposals could have achieved even greater scrutiny of the Bill had circumstances been different. For example, our proceedings at the end of part 2 were unfortunately cut off, leaving several clauses unscrutinised. I spoke to Committee members—I will name them if necessary—who said that approximately 15 more minutes would have been sufficient to finish that part of the Bill. Unfortunately, a series of votes in the House meant that the Programming Sub-Committee was unable to reconvene in time, so we lost that 15 minutes by the coincidence of two successive votes in the House.

Similarly, I regret the failure to complete the scrutiny of part 4, in particular the important provisions on youth conferencing. I regret that especially because I believe that we could have completed part 4 and scrutinised parts 5 and 6 fully, had we been able to move the knife on Tuesday night, as was suggested. Agreement could not be reached on that issue. I regret that, and I am sure that my regret is shared by the Committee, not least by the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), who, judging from his contribution on Second Reading, had an important input to make.

I hope that all hon. Members will be able to return to the points missed on Report, when we shall endeavour to ensure that there is sufficient time to

give the Bill the scrutiny that it deserves. Time is at the Government's disposal, but the level of scrutiny relies, to a certain extent, on the level of co-operation. If hon. Members, in particular the official Opposition, wish to use Report to reiterate arguments about the programme motion rather than to focus on the Bill, no amount of time will be sufficient. We must look at the process of scrutinising Northern Ireland Bills, and I agree with you, Mr. Pike, on this issue. More parties are involved in the consideration of Northern Ireland Bills than in the consideration of other legislation. I will reflect further on the matter and bring any relevant points to the attention of the business managers. I am grateful to you, Mr. Pike, for saying that you will bring certain points to the attention of the Modernisation Committee.

I am grateful to all hon. Members for their contributions. Our deliberations in Committee will ensure that the Bill leaves the House in an even better state than it arrived. That is the purpose of the Standing Committee, and I welcome the achievement for which all hon. Members should take credit.