I think that Bob Doris has a question, too, convener.

My only concern about this is the emphasis on declaring one’s private residence, which we MSPs do not have to do. It would be useful to remove one’s private residence from the requirement to bring things into line with what we do and to make everything equitable and fair.

I am now totally confused. It has been suggested that the figure is aligned with the MSP code, while the obligation in paragraph 4.18 that I previously asked about is not. One argument goes one way, and another goes the other way.

In any case, the £25,000 figure seems fairly arbitrary. It is a lot of money, but then £10,000 is a lot of money, as is £1,000. I do not understand where the figure has been plucked from; after all, it is not as if a £25,000 investment in the Royal Bank of Scotland, for example, would give you a controlling interest in it. As I have said, the figure seems arbitrary, and I would like some clarity on how it has been selected. Just rolling it forward from the previous code does not make it acceptable.

I am sorry, convener—I was gazing happily at the microphone to see whether it had been unmuted.

First, I absolutely believe that it is in the interests of all public bodies and elected individuals to comply with the highest standards of behaviour and to be open with the people who elected or appointed them, and I would never move from that position. However, I am concerned that paragraph 4.19 of the draft model code does not reflect the requirement in the MSP code; in fact, the declaration is more onerous. At the same time, the explanation for paragraph 4.20(b) was that it was put in because it complied exactly with the requirement on MSPs. There is therefore a slight mismatch in that respect.

I do not want to hold this up, convener, but I believe that it is important that members of public bodies do not have to—or are not made to think that they have to—declare their private residence as part of any declaration that they might wish to make. That should fall outwith the scope of any declaration, as is the case for MSPs. Moreover, the £25,000 figure in paragraph 4.20(b) seems to me to be extremely arbitrary, which is why I sought clarity on it.

I know that you have to consider the committee’s position, convener, given the limited time that we have before the matter has to be considered by the Parliament. As I have said, I do not wish to hold this up. However, should the matter come before Parliament before I have had sufficient answers to my questions, I reserve the opportunity to comment on the motion at that time. At the moment, I do not think that the proposal is equitable or fair to members of public bodies, and we have not had a suitable explanation of the £25,000 figure.

I have a question about paragraph 4.20(b), which refers to a registrable interest

“Where, at the relevant date, the market value of any shares and securities (in any one specific company or body) that I own or have an interest in is greater than £25,000.”

Will the minister please explain where the £25,000 figure came from?

My question relates to category 5, which is houses, land and buildings. Is paragraph 4.18 on registrable interests in houses, land and buildings compatible with or an equivalent standard to that for MSPs? Are the two the same? I am not convinced that they are. If they are not, could that lead to confusion?

The First Minister will be aware of the enormous strain on the provision of mental health treatment across the country, which has been exacerbated by Covid. The chief executive of NHS Highland has told me that personnel shortages are the problem, not funding, and that she is not happy with the offering in terms of responsiveness and support. Can the First Minister confirm what action is being taken to secure specialist support in the Highlands from outwith NHS Highland before more constituents lose their lives?

I thank my colleague Jamie Halcro Johnston for securing a debate on a subject that is so important, especially in the Highlands and Islands. We all know that every minute counts when it comes to attending a life-threatening situation. That is even more the case in the Highlands and Islands, where rural communities face long journey times to A and E—more than two hours, in some of the more remote areas. Ambulance crews’ ability to respond quickly is therefore, more often than not, what makes the difference between life and death.

During the pandemic, we relied heavily on our hard-working ambulance crews, as never before. As we faced the worst pandemic and health emergency in generations, they rose to the challenge, as did all the other front-line staff, and faced it with true grit and determination. However, the challenge that they faced has been made so much harder by the SNP Government, which has presided over an ambulance waiting time crisis.

It is always convenient for SNP members to blame all their failures on either Brexit or the pandemic, but it is simply not true. Those without selective amnesia will remember the shortage of ambulance provision in the Highlands and Islands region that I highlighted back in 2017. At that stage, there was insufficient ambulance cover for not only Skye, but Lochaber and Caithness. Shortages were addressed with sticking-plaster solutions such as the single crewing of ambulances, and it was not until 2018, when the GMB union threatened to take industrial action due to the lack of emergency ambulance cover in Caithness, that the Government almost woke up.

That shortage of emergency ambulances had a knock-on effect. During the same period, I had to assist care homes that had to organise their own patient transport due to the lack of ambulance cover to take patients to hospital. Our Ambulance Service has been overstretched for far too long and the situation has reached breaking point, with the average waiting time for ambulance crews now being up to six hours. That is shocking.

Let us put that into context and see what it means in an individual’s case. I quote a constituent who contacted me. They collapsed at home having a mini stroke, called for an ambulance and were told to wait for a call back. When that call eventually came, they were told to make their own way to accident and emergency because no ambulances were available. They wondered what they were expected to do: pop outside and wave down a taxi or perhaps even jump on a bus? Thankfully, that was not needed, because a friend was called, jumped to and took them to the hospital.

That is not where we should be. There are insufficient ambulances and not enough staff. There is nowhere for the Government to hide and no one is to blame but itself, because the crisis started well before the pandemic and Brexit.

The ambulance crisis is putting people’s lives at risk, especially in the Highlands, where there are much greater distances to travel. I am pleased that, following the Scottish Conservatives’ call, steps have been taken to bring in the Army and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to alleviate crew shortages. However, what we need in the Highlands, and what the Ambulance Service in the Highlands needs, is a long-term plan. That takes leadership and vision. Sadly, both seem to have evaded the SNP Government over the past 14 years.

My question relates to the Highlands specifically. We have heard that it was a great election because lots of people stood: 16 parties stood on the regional list. When it came to the count, we were all allowed four people to hover around the few counting stations. However, we could not go from one region to another, which effectively rendered watching the count impossible. I have absolute confidence in the staff having done an excellent job, but I have no way of proving it. Do you think that that is satisfactory? Where there are big regional lists, do you take a different view to that of Highland Council on how to count the votes and how the count can be watched?

My question is about campaigning. The election was extremely different from any other that I have taken part in. I will not go back to the one in 1979, which was my first. Do you think that the rules regarding campaign activity were clear enough for candidates and campaigners?

Having been on the doorsteps, I know that the issue was very much just about delivering leaflets. Candidates were not encouraged to engage with people on doorsteps until the very last part of the campaign, when a lot of the postal votes had already been sent. There were certainly no public meetings or hustings, which was difficult for candidates.

Taking it to the next level, I understand why candidates were restricted but, if that is to happen again, should we consider whether there should be an increased budget for candidates to get their message out? For example, the budget for a candidate in a constituency remained the same in 2021 as it was in 2016. It went up in 2011, but the constituency limit for party spending has remained the same since 2011 and the figure is very little. If candidates are to be restricted in how we can get our message out on the doorsteps, surely we should have an increased ability to use media and postal systems to get our message out. That was probably the safest way to do it.