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 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.

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.]

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

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.

Thank you.

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

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.

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

I think that I would get some points. I would not get a community sentence or a prison sentence—