At stage 2, the committee voted in favour of removing the non-attendance element from the bill. At that stage, I lodged a series of amendments that recognised that, whether we like it or not, we have accepted that hybrid attendance is as valid as physical attendance.

However, I believe that it is right for the full Parliament to debate and vote on the element of non-attendance. That was originally a key provision of the bill, and much was made of its removal in the press. In our 2021 manifesto, the Scottish Conservatives pledged to

“introduce Mackay’s Law, allowing the public to recall MSPs who have broken the law, grossly undermined trust or failed to contribute to Parliament for more than six months.”

I remain committed to that element of the bill, but I recognise—as I have said—that there were concerns at stages 1 and 2 that there would be an impact on the privacy of members. I totally agree that attendance provision needs to be balanced with the need to respect the personal lives of members. That is the reason why I lodged amendments 64, 65 and 66, which set out alternative provisions for reintroducing removal for non-attendance.

Amendment 64 would make provision for an MSP to be removed automatically if they fail to attend Parliament within a 180-day period, unless they receive a leave of absence from the Presiding Officer. There is a prescribed list of reasons for which the Presiding Officer can grant such a leave of absence.

Amendment 65 would make provision for an MSP to be removed automatically if they fail to attend Parliament within a 180-day period, unless they have received a leave of absence from the Presiding Officer, who would have discretion over the leave of absence and could grant it for any reason.

Amendment 66 would make provision for an MSP to be removed automatically if they fail to attend Parliament within a 180-day period, unless they request a leave of absence in line with a process set out in standing orders.

Amendment 67 sets out a process for standing orders as mentioned in amendment 66. The Presiding Officer must then refer the decision on whether to grant the leave of absence to a committee, which would then vote on the decision. I think that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee—and I, as a sitting member of that committee—would not be too keen on that, which is why I have presented alternatives. The MSP would be able to appear in front of the committee in order to make representations, and the committee would have the final decision on whether to grant the leave of absence, although it would not be able to disclose any personal details about the MSP’s circumstances for requesting such a leave of absence.

One of the suggestions that I have put forward is something that is akin to the current system for giving members a proxy vote, which I accept has worked well. I do not think that any member has had an issue with that being presented to them. That is why I lodged that specific amendment.

I find it slightly ironic that two regional MSPs are supporting my amendments but the Government minister who was elected in a constituency is not. I push back on the member who introduced the bill, who, in my opinion, did a fair bit of heavy lifting in that section.

We have to figure out whether the public will understand the process. If we want to involve the electorate, the process must be simple and understandable. We should avoid creating a complex and unwieldy process that, quite frankly, might push the electorate away from engaging whole-heartedly in it.

I press amendment 38.

I am content that the minister drew attention to the fact that there would have to be a custodial sentence or a community sentence that was given following a guilty verdict. I say to Mr Cole-Hamilton that it is not just about someone being found guilty. However, Mr Cole-Hamilton was correct to state that the law is often an ass. It certainly is if we consider some of the legislation that we have passed in this place.

I do not think that the public believe that it is okay for an MSP who has been found guilty to be in this place representing them.

I think that the public expect us to attend and participate in Parliament. I accept the challenges with the definition of attendance and perhaps with that of participation.

I press amendment 64.

Thankfully, we do not have Sinn Féin on the ballot paper in Scotland. To be frank, I think that if someone is elected and has the privilege to represent their constituents, they at least need to turn up for work.

My amendment 67A would change the wording of amendment 67 so that the process set out in amendment 67 is not legally binding but, rather, advisory. Amendment 71, which I believe has a little bit more support among members across the chamber, would reintroduce “removal” back into the long title to reflect the fact that if my amendments are agreed to—

I press amendment 42.

Thank you.

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—

My amendments would still abolish the criminal conviction ground for recall.

Instead, members given a custodial or community sentence would be removed automatically. My amendment 34 would modify the Scotland Act 1998 to make provision for the automatic removal of any member who is convicted of an offence. Other amendments in the group would remove references to the criminal offence ground to reflect that change.

Collectively, the amendments would strengthen the principle that MSPs should be held to the highest possible standards of conduct. Members who break the law should not be afforded the opportunity to keep their job through costly petitions, polls or by-elections. They should be treated like the vast majority of the public, who would likely lose their job if they committed a crime. The amendments would provide the Parliament with clear and coherent mechanisms to give effect to that principle, because that is what the public expect from their MSPs who they elect to this chamber.

I move amendment 1.