Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I sought to deliver what the public expected of me—what was in the Scottish Conservatives’ manifesto. The bill is not that.

As things stand, we risk creating an inconsistent act that would do little to restore public faith in this Parliament, which I believe is badly eroding every day. It is not satisfactory that an MSP could be sentenced to anything up to a year in prison, yet not face removal by any means. The bill would allow an MSP who was in prison for an extremely serious offence to continue picking up a large salary at the taxpayer’s expense. I hardly need to add that the problem is being made worse by the SNP’s soft-touch justice system.

At the same time, an MSP who was suspended by this Parliament for 10 days would be subject to the recall mechanism with no appeal. That clear disparity is uncomfortable for members on the Conservative benches. It is deeply regrettable that my amendments that would have allowed the removal of any MSP who was found guilty by the courts and given either a custodial sentence or a community sentence were also rejected.

SNP and Green members have found very different difficulties with the bill and I understand that, ultimately, their votes will kill it. To be clear, Presiding Officer, I note that our problem with the bill is that it is not tough enough. It would fail to achieve what the public expect and what this Parliament needs. It would fail to turf out the likes of Derek Mackay.

For those reasons, with a good deal of regret, my party is unable to support the bill and we will abstain in the vote this evening. The Scottish Parliament (Recall of Members) Bill is a missed opportunity. However, we in the Scottish Conservatives have long campaigned for a better system of sanctions that will meet public expectations and enhance the standing of this Parliament, and we will continue to do so.

17:45

My amendments ask members to turn up at least once in 180 days, Mr Greer—

Thank you, Mr Hoy. As MSPs, we have very challenging and complex diaries to manage and we cannot be in every single proceeding in every single committee. That is the whole point of having parliamentary and party groups—[Interruption.] Are members okay with that?

I recognise that non-attendance has clearly garnered some concern among members, but I raise the fact that such a provision already exists at local government level, and there have been a number of instances in which disgraced members have been able to continue to draw a salary without doing any work for the constituents who elected them. I invite members to work with me to find a solution that would bring non-attendance back into the bill.

I move amendment 64.

Will the member take an intervention?

Indeed. Such vexatious complaints and what might or might not happen in a future session of Parliament are of grave concern to me. We must be mindful that the individuals in the Parliament who are elected under the regional list are not elected as individuals. The member and I were not elected as MSP or Jeremy Balfour MSP. We were both elected as Scottish Conservative MSPs.

If my amendments in group 2 are agreed to, the reference to the criminal offence ground will be superfluous. That is why amendments 42A, 42B and 42C would change the original wording to remove reference to that ground. They are all linked in that way. If members indicate that they will not support my amendments in group 2, I might be content not to move amendments 42A, 42B and 42C, but I will certainly listen to the debate this afternoon.

The other amendments in the group would remove reference to regional polls to reflect the substantive change that would be made by amendment 42.

The amendments are pragmatic and common sense and are designed to bring down the costs of the bill. The amendments reflect the fact that regional and constituency MSPs are elected in different ways. We might be equal when we enter the chamber, but we should have different recall processes to reflect that difference.

I move amendment 38.

I believe that the law is the law, Ms Slater. Perhaps my black-and-white nature is a little bit uncomfortable for those on the Green benches. I believe that, regardless of the severity of the crime, any MSP who is convicted of an offence should be removed automatically.

We cannot escape the fact that we are in a world right now where trust in politicians is at an all-time low. With the case of Margaret Ferrier—

I think that I have taken enough interventions.

As we saw with the case of Margaret Ferrier, the recall process can be very lengthy, allowing law-breaking politicians to draw their salary for months, even after being found guilty.

At stage 2, there were concerns that my amendments on remand would fall foul of the European convention on human rights, so I removed that reference for that reason. The amendments that I have lodged for debate today are still being challenged under the spotlight of the ECHR, but I lodged them because the Conservatives are tough on crime. [Interruption.]

I press amendment 42.

At stage 2, the minister was clear that the regional recall process would need to be redesigned by the member in charge, and to quite a degree. The amendments in this group go some way towards achieving that. Although I have already expressed my thoughts on how I would have wanted a regional recall process to be, I recognise that the proposed process has been changed. If it is to go forward, Scottish Conservatives will support the amendments in the group.