Chamber and committees

Our principal item of business this morning is to consider the Scottish Government’s approach to financial interventions, and in particular to inquire into the operations of the Government’s strategic commercial assets division. I am pleased that the following witnesses are joining us this morning to help to illuminate that question and to answer others that we might have.

I am very pleased to welcome Gregor Irwin, the director general of economy at the Scottish Government. Alongside Mr Irwin is Colin Cook, who is the Scottish Government’s director of economic development, and Dermot Rhatigan, who is the deputy director of the strategic commercial assets division.

As I have said, director general, we have some questions to put to you. Before we get to those, however, I invite you to make an opening statement.

I remind members of my voluntary register of trade union interests, particularly my membership of Unite the union, in the register of members’ interests.

The purpose of amendment 16 is to broaden the scope of those people in the industry who are covered by continuing professional development. It seems to me that having farmers, crofters and line managers in there is fine, but what about the workers?

For “farm workers”, the definition that I would use—I know that Alasdair Allan has lodged a similar amendment—would be people who are covered by the scope of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board. On that point, Unite the union, in its submission to the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board in 2024, argued—I will quote it directly—that:

“The challenges around the climate emergency and net zero targets will require a suitably reliable and qualified workforce and the development of new skillsets, targeted upskilling/reskilling and Continuing Professional development.

Opportunities should be taken now to develop existing and new skills and provide the workforce with opportunities to access support and time off to take up training.”

Unite went on to say:

“More funding must also be made available to develop Apprenticeships to raise awareness of the sector amongst young people and to make it a career of choice, and to build a cohort of new recruits with the skills to ensure there remains a future in the industry.”

The gist of my amendment is to say that continuing development is a matter for the whole industry, not just for managers and owners, and we should be encouraging the continuing professional development of all.

I move amendment 16.

I do not think that now is the time or place to have a rehearsal with Edward Mountain about whether a minimum rate of £11.44 an hour is a princely sum that prohibits people from being employed or put on an apprenticeship scheme.

With regard to the particular point that the cabinet secretary made to me, there is a distinction in law between an employee and a worker. If we simply accept Alasdair Allan’s amendment 192 as it stands, I fear that we might leave out some people whom we all intend the amendment to cover. I might not press my amendment 16, but I will ask the cabinet secretary to have a conversation with me about that important dimension. As I said, the definition that I used was those people who are covered by the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board.

I do not necessarily agree with the prescription of Rachel Hamilton’s amendment but, this afternoon, we should not lose sight of the fact that agriculture has the worst rate of fatal injuries of any industry in Scotland. Health and safety should be embedded into the continuous development of the workforce—farmers, crofters and land managers.

Yes—based on the nods and smiles of the cabinet secretary, I will seek to withdraw it.

Amendment 16, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 192 moved—[Alasdair Allan]—and agreed to.

The cabinet secretary should read a very good book by the undercover journalist Günter Wallraff, which is called “Lowest of the Low”. It is about how the West German economy treated migrant workers in the 1980s. The treatment that migrant workers in Scotland are undergoing is completely unacceptable, and the accommodation that is provided for them is way below the standard that any of us would accept. If the cabinet secretary is saying to me that imminent legislation will address that, I will, of course, withdraw my amendment. However, it would be helpful to understand from the cabinet secretary what the Government’s timetable is for that alternative legislative proposal that would address a very clear gap in current competence and legislation.

I will press it, convener.

Amendment 13 seeks to amend section 17, which is about the publication of information about support. The purpose of amendment 13 is to widen the scope of reporting, so that what is reported and published is not simply the name of the recipient of support and the amount and purpose of any support provided but

“the beneficial ownership of the recipient of any support provided”.

Beneficial ownership means people who ultimately own or control an asset. The standard definition is that the scope of that covers people with 25 per cent or more shares or direct or indirect voting rights in the property or company.

The purpose of amendment 13 is to promote openness and transparency and to allow us to track the redistribution that we have spoken about in earlier parts of the discussion this morning. It is regarding the application of public funds. Around half a billion pounds of public money is involved, so maximum transparency is required. That is a matter of public interest, so it should be open to public scrutiny. Amendment 13 would also prevent the misuse of corporate structures and improve the prevention of economic crimes such as fraud, money laundering and tax evasion. It is good audit practice.

I also reflect on the fact that, since 2016, people with significant control have had to be registered with Companies House. Since 2022, it has also been necessary to make a declaration regarding overseas entities in the register of overseas entities. Under the regulations on the register of persons holding a controlled interest in land, there is now a requirement for information on that to be lodged with the Registers of Scotland.

There would be only a very limited administrative burden on those who are required to make the disclosure, because the disclosures are already made. Therefore, amendment 13 is an entirely reasonable extension of transparency and openness.

The Scottish Agricultural Wages Board sets the minimum rates of pay and other conditions of service for agricultural workers in Scotland. That includes a daily accommodation offset for workers for accommodation other than a house. In 2024, that offset increased by 9 per cent to £9.99 per day, which is directly deducted from workers’ pay. The Scottish Government estimates that there are between 6,000 and 7,000 seasonal workers in Scotland. They invariably have such direct deductions.

All too often, however, we hear reports and see evidence of migrant seasonal workers having been brought over by labour providers on six-month visas under the seasonal worker visa scheme and existing—I use that word rather than “living”—in uninsulated portakabins that are damp and covered in mould and that have security issues. The workers experience safety issues, rodent infestations and a lack of laundry facilities. The unsanitary conditions include broken sanitary facilities such as toilets. Shared facilities are not uncommon; there have been occasions when 30 people have had to share a limited number of them.

All those findings have been reported by the Worker Support Centre Scotland, which says that poor-quality, unsafe and unhygienic accommodation is one of the main problems reported to it. On its other work, in dealing with complaints, grievances and wrongdoings, its 2023 annual report noted that, when it speaks to migrant workers,

“often their home, the caravan, is raised as an issue of acute distress to them.”

One worker reported being accommodated in a caravan without working lighting or hot water. Others reported being given fewer than 32 hours’ work per week, which the Home Office made mandatory for workers on seasonal worker visas. Despite having not been given the mandatory hours, those workers had still been charged in full for accommodation, on top of which they had to pay gas and electricity charges.

Amendment 91 stipulates that seasonal workers should have

“satisfactory facilities for the washing and cleaning of laundry”

and that

“water, heating and power should be included in”

the £9.99 charge and not charged as extra. Its basic premise is that, if the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board is responsible for setting the daily rate for temporary accommodation, it should also ensure that such accommodation

“is fit for human habitation”.

For that reason, my amendment proposes that officers should be appointed to inspect accommodation, review the agreement between tenant and landlord, and provide for a translator to accompany inspectors. The purpose of inspection should be to ensure that accommodation is above the tolerable standard. The tolerable standard currently set out in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 does not apply to accommodation for seasonal workers. The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, which makes provision for the oversight of caravans, including, for example, adequate sanitary facilities, and provides for local authorities to have a licence and inspection scheme, also exempts seasonal agricultural workers’ accommodation.

My argument for lodging amendment 91 is that the current legal protection is grossly insufficient. The evidence demands a new inspection regime. Under such a regime, following an inspection, a pass should be given when no action is required and a fail should be given

“where there is a serious and immediate threat to health and safety.”

Following a fail, a list of actions and timeframes should be set out.

My amendment is an attempt to remedy a very real problem that exists in the sector.

I move amendment 91.

I now invite Willie Coffey to see how much satisfaction he can get.

Good morning and welcome, everyone, to the 15th meeting of the Public Audit Committee in 2024. The first item on our agenda is to agree or not to take agenda items 3, 4 and 5 in private. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.