All the amendments in this group have been lodged by me and concern changes to the recall process for regional members. One of the key challenges of the bill is establishing a regional recall process that is fair, simple and cost effective. At stage 2, improvements were made to remove the two-step process for regional members, which was criticised in the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s stage 1 report. However, I still believe that the process as laid out does not represent value for the taxpayer.

The financial memorandum to the bill found that a regional poll could cost the taxpayer £1.3 million, compared to £0.3 million for a constituency petition and the subsequent by-election. In the United Kingdom Parliament, six recall petitions were triggered between 2018 and 2024. If, in the next session, we had a similar number of recall petitions and polls, we could be talking about millions of pounds being spent at a time when fiscal resources remain tight. I know that there is hope across the chamber that we will never have to use the legislation, but we must ground ourselves in the reality that we might have to use it. That is why I propose to abolish the recall process for regional MSPs and instead move to a system of automatic removal when the parliamentary sanction ground or criminal offence ground is triggered.

Amendment 42 is the substantive amendment in the group. It would establish a new process by which regional members would automatically be removed if they were sanctioned by Parliament for 10 sitting days or more, or if they were convicted of a criminal offence. Amendments 42A, 42B and 42C would change the wording of amendment 42 to remove reference to the criminal offence ground.

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.

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.

The sound was all over the place there, Presiding Officer. It was coming in and out, and I did not quite hear everything. Perhaps whoever is working the sound can—

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.]

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 will, Mr Greer, if you give me a second.

Amendment 71 would mean that, if my amendments are agreed to, the bill would allow for the immediate removal of MSPs in some circumstances, not just recall.

I give way to Mr Greer.

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.

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.

I will, Mr Greer, if you give me a second.

Amendment 71 would mean that, if my amendments are agreed to, the bill would allow for the immediate removal of MSPs in some circumstances, not just recall.

I give way to Mr Greer.