In 2020, the Scottish Parliament passed the Scottish Elections (Franchise and Representation) Bill, which expanded the franchise and candidacy eligibility for local and Holyrood elections. The 2020 act expanded voting rights to everyone lawfully resident in Scotland, regardless of nationality and candidacy rights, and candidacy rights to everyone with indefinite leave to remain.

At the moment, only foreign nationals with indefinite leave to remain in Scotland have the right to stand as candidates in Scottish elections, whether for local government or for Holyrood. That includes EU nationals with settled or pre-settled status. However, the 2020 act did not confer candidacy rights on people with temporary forms of leave to remain. The Senedd made similar changes to the local government and Senedd franchise in 2020.

As things stand, EU nationals who are lawfully resident in England have retained their right to vote and to stand in local elections. Through the UK Elections Bill, which aims to remove voting and candidacy rights from EU citizens who arrived in the UK after 31 December 2020, the UK Government is hell-bent on restricting the franchise further. That leaves us where we are, with stage 1 of the Scottish Local Government Elections (Candidacy Rights of Foreign Nationals) Bill.

Following Brexit, the UK Government has already entered into treaties with Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal and Spain that confer reciprocal voting and candidacy rights for their nationals in the UK and UK nationals in those respective countries. That includes anyone with lawful residence, not just people with settled status, pre-settled status or indefinite leave to remain. In some cases, those treaties cannot be fully ratified until they are enshrined in law in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The Scottish bill will ratify existing treaties to ensure that legislation across the four nations is consistent. It will result in an expansion of candidacy rights for local government elections to some EU nationals who are living in Scotland with limited leave to remain.

The Scottish Parliament does not currently have the right to confer legal residence or citizenship on people who live here, but we do have the power to make our electoral franchise as inclusive as possible. Therefore, the Scottish Greens would like to see us go further and ensure that candidacy rights mirror voting rights. If we want a residence-based franchise, that must extend to candidacy rights.

Ensuring that everyone who lives in Scotland has the ability to vote and to stand for election should be an aspiration that we all share. The bill is a step in the right direction, but it risks creating an unequal patchwork of candidacy rights that gives people from a select few countries enhanced rights compared with others. That is something that we should seek to fix.

Let us take refugees as an example. They are initially granted five years’ leave to remain and can then apply for indefinite leave to remain. People in that position cannot stand as a candidate purely because of the type of leave to remain that the Home Office has decided to grant them. We know that we need more diverse representation in elected positions. Our elected bodies at all levels should reflect the people whom they serve, and creating a truly residence-based franchise and candidacy eligibility is an important part of fixing the problem. Otherwise, we will be left in a situation in which people are potentially not able to represent their communities for two or more electoral cycles. We need more young people to stand for election, but the situation could deny young refugees such as those coming from Ukraine that ability for a long time.

The big question is whether it is fair and proportionate to exclude someone from standing for election just because the Home Office has given them a temporary visa. The Scottish Greens remain committed to pursuing electoral reform that enables more people to stand as candidates at Scottish Parliament and local government elections and we look forward to working with the minister and the Scottish Government to achieve that. However, although we would like to see future legislation go further, we will be supporting the bill at stage 1.

In the week ending 13 March, 51.9 per cent of people attending A and E in NHS Forth Valley were seen within four hours. That is the lowest figure of any health board in Scotland. I know that staff at Forth Valley have been working incredibly hard to improve waiting times, and that January saw remarkable improvement, so it is concerning that the figure dropped again. Forth Valley has one A and E unit, and demand is simply outstripping capacity. What more support can the Scottish Government provide to Forth Valley and other health boards that are experiencing similar pressures?

Good morning, panel. Social prescribing covers a wide range of activities and organisations, as we have heard from all of you this morning. Do community link workers have time and capacity to engage with all aspects of social prescribing? Is there a risk that they are being asked to help people with an ever expanding range of issues, from mental ill health to financial concerns, together with the many other things that you have all detailed this morning, but without any increased capacity and support?

In its submission, NHS 24 highlighted that, in stressful moments, when people are feeling unwell or in pain,

“figuring out ... what is available ... can be a new pressure”,

which often results in them reverting to the use of traditional access points such as general practice or accident and emergency.

That suggests that we need proactive communication so that people are already aware of what is available before they reach that stressful point. How successful has proactive messaging been, and what more needs to be done to ensure that people are fully aware of where they should go when they need unscheduled care?

As we have picked up on already, not everyone has access to the internet or to electronic devices that will allow them to quickly visit NHS Inform, for example. During the pandemic, we have seen reactive and quick changes to capacity and to where people should receive care. How do we communicate changes in how care should be accessed to people who are experiencing digital exclusion?

Of course. As we have picked up on already, not everyone has access to the internet or to electronic devices that allow them to quickly access NHS Inform. During the pandemic, places where people receive care have had to change quickly and at short notice. How do we communicate changes to how their care should be accessed to people who are perhaps digitally excluded?

The “Coming Home Implementation” report states:

“Everyone should understand their rights, and be fully supported to take part in developing policy and practices which affect their lives.”

We have heard from families that they were not aware of what rights they had when their loved ones were placed outside their area. What action is the Scottish Government taking to improve rights awareness among people who have learning disabilities and complex care needs, and among their families and carers?

A number of colleges still have not implemented the nationally agreed dispute resolution process. What steps is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that every college—[Inaudible.]

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking in light of reports of concerns regarding governance at South Lanarkshire College. (S6O-00885)

Good morning. Are our witnesses concerned about the ability of the NHS to recruit sufficient staff to fulfil the ambitions that are set out in the NHS recovery plan and the national workforce strategy for health and social care? How likely is it that staff will be redeployed or recruited from elsewhere to fill gaps?