I shall make my comments in the reverse order to the Minister. I am grateful to him for acknowledging that he regrets that certain elements of the Bill have not been considered in Committee. I have already made several substantive points about the timetable, but want to put one or two more points on the record.

The official Opposition opposed the programme on the Floor of the House and voted against it. We opposed the programme motion that was presented to the Programming Sub-Committee when we arrived at 8.30, before the first sitting of the Committee, in order to discuss the knives that were imposed on our proceedings. That resulted in the farcical position of the Government coming to appreciate that they could have completed consideration of part 2, had the knife not been inserted where it was. They then had to make desperate efforts to get the knife moved in time, but their efforts were thwarted by two consecutive Divisions in the House. We should never have been in that position in the first place.

From the way in which the Minister conducted himself in this and in a previous Committee of which I was a member, I know that he takes his duties in presenting Government legislation extremely seriously, and also takes seriously the contributions of members of the Committee. In many ways, he is a model Minister. He has command of his brief and can respond properly to the issues raised. Therefore, it is wholly unsatisfactory that he should be unable to do justice to this legislation, because a great chunk of it has been insufficiently considered. By my calculations, 56 clauses were considered completely, 3 were considered partly and 32 were not considered at all.

The problem does not relate only to this Committee, but is an issue throughout the House. We have legislation by lottery, because it is a lottery whether legislation receives consideration in Committee. That is not good enough and all of us, as parliamentarians, must address that problem. I have said enough about that, but I do not hold the Minister personally responsible. He is a victim of the system, as

we all are. It is up to us, as Members of this House, to sort it out.

Moving on to more gracious territory, I commend you, Mr. Pike, and Mr. Conway, for the way in which you have chaired the Committee. I would also like to thank the Clerks, who have rendered enormous assistance to me and, I am sure, to all the other opposition parties. I would also like to commend everyone who has been involved in the process, from the review team onwards. Although this legislation involves substantial issues of principle and there are differences over it, it is much better because of the way in which it has been developed and the amount of time that has been available for consultation.

That consultation has not been sufficient at the end of the parliamentary process, but I want to thank the Government for making Stephen Webb and his team available to brief members of the Opposition. That was immensely useful, particularly for those of us who are not lawyers and who have to get up to speed on issues that are meant for lawyers rather than lay members of the House. Their time was much appreciated.

I also want to join the Minister in thanking those who have transcribed the proceedings. On one occasion, their work was immensely important and helpful, and I want to place on the record my thanks for that. I would also like to thank other members of the Committee for the way in which the Committee's business was dealt with in general. By and large it has been good natured and enjoyable, and if we had been able to give full consideration to the whole of the Bill, we would have done a proper job as parliamentarians. However, given the limits within which we have worked, I think that we have done so.