Seòmar agus comataidhean

—that the certificate of legislative competency was not a guarantee. I also said that, frankly, any legislation can be challenged in the courts.

I said to your colleague in my contribution at stage 2—

I know that, like the corporate body, Pam Gosal values the impact on people when they come into this building and experience the Parliament. Indeed, I am aware that she has raised the question previously with the corporate body.

For many people and schools, coming to Edinburgh is not realistic, given the distance and barriers that are linked to that. In our research, teachers told of the struggle to take pupils out of school because of lost learning time or because the teachers were needed to cover other lessons. For some, it is simply impractical to get local transport to Edinburgh and back within the school day, and they cannot afford residentials. Due to barriers such as those, our staff travel to schools throughout the year and provide online sessions for those who want them. Last year, they delivered sessions to almost 350 school classes across Scotland.

I am not quite sure of the argument that Stephen Kerr is making. I am not quite sure whether it is an argument about the bill being emergency legislation, which is a question of process. I objected previously to certain legislation being treated as emergency legislation when I was convener of the Justice Committee.

I am also not sure whether his argument is about the bill’s retrospectivity, which is rare but has happened in the Parliament before. Again, it is for committees and the Parliament to object to that.

I am concerned about the wording of Stephen Kerr’s amendment, which says:

“The Scottish Ministers must, within 2 months of Royal Assent, publish and lay before the Scottish Parliament a statement setting out whether, in their opinion”—

that is, the Government’s opinion—

“this Act is compatible with the Scotland Act 1998.”

It is my understanding, convener—you are in that role just now rather than that of Presiding Officer—that it is for the Presiding Officer to determine whether a bill is within the legislative competence of the Parliament by issuing a certificate as to its competence or otherwise under section 31 of the 1998 act. That is not a guarantee—as we know, it is not always guaranteed that even the best legislation in the world will not be open to challenge at some point—but it means that, when it is introduced, the bill already has a certificate from the Presiding Officer.

The member must not become more confused by talking about post-legislative scrutiny. That is not what this is about. This is about whether something is legislatively competent.

Let me take the member right back. When a bill is lodged, the certificate of competence comes from the Presiding Officer, and of course the bill can be amended at stage 2 and at stage 3. However, at stage 3, it is, again, up to the Presiding Officer to decide whether any proposed amendments are within the ambit of the bill. If they are not, they are not competent, so they are not lodged. When an amendment is lodged at stage 3, we are in the hands of the Presiding Officer and not a political Government, thankfully.

I do not have details of what those costs might have been for the school in Ardrossan and for Loretto in Edinburgh, or why they did not have other means of getting here. I know that other schools come here on buses from their local authorities. I do not know about those things but I can have a look at the issue.

You mentioned the UK Parliament—we looked into that scheme. The UK Parliament offers to pay up to 85 per cent of the travel costs, to the value of £2,400. However, even then, it welcomes a very small number of Scottish schools, because the travel costs are only part of the problem. I do not dismiss that part, but the main issue is the disruption to class activities, particularly at secondary level, and the cost if a class has to stay overnight on a residential trip.

We are continuing to look at that, but I must advise the member that it is a pretty tricky area. It is more complex than whether we can get a bus to get pupils to the Parliament and back. So far, if we cannot do that, we have parliamentary staff going out to schools in the likes of Shetland and Orkney to deliver contact and tell them all about the Parliament. Of course, that can be done online, too. We will continue to see what can be done.

It would be churlish not to welcome the about-turn on the two-child benefit cap—it is better late than never. That, of course, benefits children and their families, but it also puts money into the local economy, because that money helps people to pay inflationary food and energy bills. It is a good thing all round.

I thank the member—that was not so much a question as giving me advice. I will take that advice. It is certainly good if one can do those things, and I might even try it myself.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I thought that the member was speaking against the business motion. I am not quite clear what he is addressing. I ask for clarification, please.

It was respectful.