I press amendment 42.

Yes, I will give way to Ms Slater.

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.

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—

The bill began life as a Scottish Conservative pledge. We proposed a Mackay’s law as long ago as 2021. The intention was to give people the ability to remove an absentee MSP: an elected representative who, without legitimate reason, simply withdrew from Parliament and ceased to do their job. There was a clear requirement for such a bill. Derek Mackay, the former finance secretary, did not attend Parliament or engage with it in any way after he was forced to resign in disgrace, yet he was paid about £100,000 during that period. Public anger and common sense demanded a Mackay’s law. The bill will not be that law, but that law is still very much required.

Our original proposal was to recall MSPs for non-attendance, either in person or remotely, that exceeded 180 days, with appropriate exemptions and safeguards. However, that simple provision is not part of the bill. The bill does not contain what we pledged and it is not Mackay’s law. It is not what this Parliament badly needs. I am bitterly disappointed that my amendments at stage 3 were not agreed to this afternoon. They would have left us with a still imperfect yet workable bill.

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.

No, I shall not be giving way to Mr Mason.

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.

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—

To ask the Scottish Government what the education secretary’s position is on concerns that, in light of the national review timeline, victims of grooming gangs may have to wait up to 18 months before ministers decide whether to establish a full public inquiry. (S6O-05544)