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.

That was much clearer—thank you so much, Presiding Officer.

Once again, all the amendments in the group have been lodged by me. As I laid out at stage 2, we should be guided by the fact that the public expects far more from MSPs, and we should be held to higher standards than those we represent.

Being a member of this Parliament is a privilege, not an entitlement. I believe that, regardless of the severity of the crime, any MSP who is convicted of an offence should be removed automatically, bypassing the need for a recall petition or by-election. As we saw with the case of Margaret Ferrier—

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

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.

There have been instances in which members of the party of government have not turned up, which is the very reason that we introduced the bill.

I will take the intervention from Mr Hoy.

Will the member take an intervention?

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.

—unless I was driving at 100mph along the Cowgate at 7 am. We know that none of us should be doing that. [Interruption.]

I am not going to give way to Mr Cole-Hamilton.

As we have heard several times, a 10-day sanction can be given by Parliament and there is no appeal process for that. We are looking for parity in appeals, which we hear about time and time again. What opportunity has there been to make the bill what it was originally intended to be and what it is for?

On the standards review, the minister’s comments made me ponder whether the Government may be reconsidering its support for the bill. Maybe we will get into that a bit more at some point in the afternoon.

I say to Mr Dey that I accept that there is no definition of “community sentence” in the Scottish legislation, but the other members and parties in the chamber seem to be rather soft-touch on justice, and to want to allow MSPs who have been found guilty and sentenced to either a custodial sentence or a community sentence to remain representing the public. I do not believe that the public would accept that, so, on that premise, I will press amendment 1, and I intend to move my other amendments in the group.

I will give way to the minister. I saw his name come up on the screen first.