Chamber and committees

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 invite Colin Beattie to put some questions.

But that is a bit different from a conventional regional policy that might identify Edinburgh as overheating and other parts of the Scottish economy as lagging badly behind, with higher rates of unemployment and worklessness and lower levels of economic activity. Does the Scottish Government take a position on that, or does it not really have that in its sights?

Okay. I will move things along, because we are against the clock a little. I invite Graham Simpson to put some questions to you.

Just taking up your last point about the work of Audit Scotland really mattering, do you accept the conclusions and recommendations in the Auditor General’s briefing?

Can I then ask a question about progress on plans to update NSET? Where are we with that? We have spoken a few times this morning about the reset and refreshing. I completely understand the fact that the turbulent political times and changes might have inhibited the extent to which you can answer some of the questions firmly. However, could you tell us what your expectation is about the timescales, and what the scope of the update is likely to be?

If you do not mind me saying so, director general, that is a rather ambiguous answer. Do you accept the recommendations and do you accept the conclusions of the Auditor General on NSET?

Do not put words in my mouth. [Laughter.]

When you say “new ministerial team”, do you mean the First Minister? The cabinet secretary responsible for the economy remains the same, doesn’t she?