Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister, Children, Schools and Families; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Chope. On Tuesday, the Government tabled 89 amendments. There were 94 Government amendments on the amendment paper before that. I am concerned that just 22 days after Second Reading, the Bill is very different from the one that was agreed by our colleagues. Those amendments have not come from the Opposition, but from the Government. This is not a good way of putting legislation through the House.

The timetable for consideration of the Bill was agreed on the basis of there being 256 clauses and certain assumptions were made about the number of amendments that would be tabled for debate by the Opposition. We even took into account the erudition of my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings in calculating the number of sittings that would be needed to scrutinise the Bill properly. We now discover that we have almost 200 Government amendments to scrutinise and debate between now and 31 March. That is not a satisfactory way to conduct business. Will you advise us, Mr. Chope, on what procedures we can adopt to ensure that the Bill and the Government amendments receive the scrutiny that they require?

Jim Knight (Minister of State (Schools and Learners), Department for Children, Schools and Families; South Dorset, Labour)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Chope. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. I say simply that we have sought to give the Opposition reasonable time to scrutinise the amendments by tabling them in good time before they reach scrutiny in Committee. Very few of them are substantial amendments. The complicated nature of the Bill means that there are many individual amendments, but the substantive changes are few and most of the amendments are consequential.

Charles Walker (Broxbourne, Conservative)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Chope. Given the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, is it possible for the Committee to come back for a few sittings after the Easter recess to consider the new amendments?

Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

Most of the points that have been made are essentially about the wisdom of the Government tabling so many amendments. There is nothing novel about that. If there is a substantive issue about the shortage of time available for proper scrutiny of the Bill, it is a matter for the Programming Sub-Committee. It is for the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and the Minister to discuss whether it should reconvene to change the programme. It is not a matter for the Chair.

John Hayes (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Chope. You will recall that at our last sitting there was an extensive debate about the information made available to the Committee on the costs of the reorganisation that is at the heart of the Bill. Have you had notice of any further information on that? The Minister was invited to make that available to the Committee in written form to supplement the information we have already received. If you have not had notice of that, Mr. Chope, by what means can diligent Committee members obtain the information that is necessary to ensure proper scrutiny of the Bill? If we cannot obtain it, I do not see how we can continue to debate these matters as fully as we would wish.

Jim Knight (Minister of State (Schools and Learners), Department for Children, Schools and Families; South Dorset, Labour)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Chope. As I said in the last sitting, I will write to the Committee. I will definitely do so before Report. I will try to do so before we conclude our Committee sittings. I simply repeat what I said last week. If we need more time, I am happy to work late again next Tuesday.

Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

I think that the Minister has answered the hon. Gentleman’s point.