One of the less-seen roles of MPs is the “line-by-line scrutiny” of legislation in committee.

During the committee stage of a bill, there are generally four scrutiny sessions a week. There is also quite a lot of preparatory work to do – and, as I am discovering, rather more so when in opposition.

Places on each committee are allocated proportionately to the Commons overall. With the big Labour majority, the committee I sit on at the moment has 11 Labour members, two Liberal Democrats, a Green, and three Conservatives: the shadow minister, the whip, and me.

The bill in question is the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools bill. There has been quite a lot of publicity and public debate about aspects of the bill which would remove freedoms for academy schools. Under some pressure the Government has now rowed back on one of these: the rule they had proposed that academy trusts could not pay more than ‘standard’ pay and conditions.

It also enacts two of the new government’s headline election manifesto ‘offers’: 30-minute free primary school breakfasts, and a limit on the number of specified school uniform items.

Obviously, on the face of it, giving free breakfasts or limiting the cost of school uniform will be popular with many. But it is our job to ask the difficult questions, to understand where the problems might be.

Whereas in the main chamber debates are broad and often rhetorical, in the committee room they are generally detailed about matters of fact and intent. Will this law really have that effect? The idea is that as a result, the legislation improves from the draft initially introduced to the eventual Act of Parliament.

On breakfasts, for example, I sought assurance on the future of existing secondary school breakfast clubs. I also pointed out that many schools, including in East Hampshire, already have a breakfast club with a modest charge, that may be longer – what happens to them? These are detailed questions, but they matter to those schools and families.

Some parts of the bill I am simply opposed to (like on academies), others I believe need clarification or improvement. But there are also parts of the bill that are essentially matters of political consensus. Indeed some of this bill was also in a bill that my party introduced in government.

This includes provisions on, for example, supporting children leaving the care system. It can be in these consensus matters that lie the greatest risk of unintended consequences, if everyone agrees on the objective and so nods it through. So extra vigilance is needed to identify areas of concern, things to push and probe on.

Once our committee finishes, the bill returns to the main Commons chamber for more amendments – and then on to the Lords.