Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 27, 2024

Official Report 1027KB pdf

---

McClure Solicitors

The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-11980, in the name of Stuart McMillan, on McClure Solicitors. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes with concern the reported failure and subsequent administration of McClure Solicitors in 2021; understands that the firm is believed to have had over 100,000 clients, many of whom held wills or trusts managed by the firm, and that a significant number of those clients will have lived in the Greenock and Inverclyde constituency, where the firm was originally founded in 1853; further understands that, since entering administration, a substantial portion of the firm’s former clients remain unaware of its closure and the transfer of their files to another law firm, Jones Whyte in Glasgow, which, it believes, is obligated to provide such files to former clients at no cost if they do not wish to engage its services; acknowledges that, subsequently to the firm entering administration, a number of former clients have reported discrepancies and irregularities in the work carried out by McClure Solicitors, resulting in the need for substantial rework or correction, often incurring costs amounting to hundreds or even thousands of pounds for the former clients; understands that a number of former clients have lodged complaints with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission regarding the work carried out by McClure Solicitors, and that some of these complaints have led to compensation orders to recompense those affected; notes the Scottish Parliament’s passage of the Trusts and Successions (Scotland) Bill, which is aimed at modernising and improving the creation and management of trusts, and acknowledges the ongoing progress on the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill; notes the belief that there should be a formal inquiry in the future to thoroughly examine all aspects of the firm’s conduct, its collapse and subsequent events, and to suggest any changes necessary to prevent a recurrence of what it sees as the suffering experienced by many former clients; further notes the belief, however, that the current priority should be assisting those former clients who face substantial legal fees or challenges in selling family homes; notes the encouragement for all MSPs to actively support and assist any of their constituents in need, and further notes the calls for the Scottish Government to consider initiating an information campaign to raise awareness among the potentially thousands of former clients who, it believes, have yet to be informed about the situation and are unaware that their wills, trusts and other legal affairs may not be in order.

17:42  

I thank MSPs across the chamber for supporting the motion to allow the debate to take place. Before I get into the substantive points of the motion, I will give some background on how my office became so heavily involved in this particular matter.

As we know, McClure Solicitors, which was founded in Greenock in 1853, went into administration in 2021. The Glasgow-based firm Jones Whyte then took on the roughly 100,000 matters that McClure had on its books; some people had multiple matters. That meant that anyone who needed to gain access to their documents would need to contact Jones Whyte. They could choose to stay with Jones Whyte or go to any other solicitor of their choice.

When McClure ceased trading, there was not a vast amount of press coverage to read, in particular with regard to how the situation would impact former clients. That occurred during the Covid-19 pandemic. I believe that 84 jobs were secured when Jones Whyte took over the good will, work in progress and certain assets of McClure, including all wills, powers of attorney and trusts.

I was aware that McClure was no more, but the matter had not gained much news coverage or generated many emails to my inbox. However, as of last summer, that changed. An increasing number of people started to contact my office, likely spurred on by the growing knowledge that the firm had gone out of business, more national news coverage, specifically from Katie Hunter at BBC Scotland, and more and more people with trusts receiving letters from Jones Whyte.

I understand from discussions with Jones Whyte that, although there may, quite rightly, be an expectation that former McClure clients should have been notified by now, Jones Whyte is simply not able to do that en masse. The firm is making its way through the files as quickly as it can, and focusing on trusts in the first instance. However, Jones Whyte was clear that anyone who has business with McClure should contact it, and it will do all that it can to help.

Once again, for clarity, I note that there is no requirement for former McClure clients to use Jones Whyte’s services in the future. If those former clients want their legal documents to be reviewed, they can instruct Jones Whyte to do that, or they can ask for their documents to be returned to them or to another lawyer of their choice.

As I learned more about the issue, I arranged meetings with interested parties, including the Law Society of Scotland, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and the Minister for Victims and Community Safety, and I have spoken to several solicitors and many constituents. I put on record my thanks to the SLCC and its chief executive, Neil Stevenson, for engaging with my office as I have attempted to assist constituents who have been affected. Neil attended two public meetings that I held in my Greenock and Inverclyde constituency to explain to former McClure clients what the SLCC can and cannot do with regard to any support or redress.

The first event that I hosted sold out and, given the level of contact that I was receiving from constituents, it became clear that another one was required. Across two meetings, more than 270 constituents gained a seat to put questions directly to the SLCC and to me. After the last meeting, I have had requests to do a third meeting, with lawyers present to answer legal questions. I am working through the legal ramifications and risks of doing that.

Although both meetings were for former McClure clients, they were held not specifically to discuss McClure Solicitors, but to provide information about the main route that former clients have for recourse if they believe that they have a complaint to make about McClure, its staff or any other lawyer.

I know that some of my constituents have already had complaints upheld by the SLCC and have had compensation awarded. That is why I have been so keen to raise awareness of the issue. It is also why I was keen to bring to the chamber a members’ business debate. I am aware that it is not only my constituents who have been affected by the situation. I have no doubt that there will be former McClure clients who will find out about the firm closing down only from watching the debate or from any subsequent press coverage as a result of it.

It is clear that something went very wrong at McClure Solicitors, and that is why we are here today. Thousands of people across the United Kingdom spent significant sums of money with McClure, in the expectation that they would not have to pay for any legal work like that again. For many, however, that will not be the reality. Thousands of people are now having to spend additional sums of money to have McClure partners removed from their trusts. Although I understand that that may involve a cost to the trustee who is being removed, I would ask all those individuals whether they believe that, morally, they should be taking a fee.

I also understand that there is nothing wrong at all with solicitors being named as trustees on trusts. However, I believe that it is more commonplace for a law firm itself, as opposed to individual lawyers, to be named on trusts. If that had been the case with McClure—although I believe that it started to do that in later years—more people may have been in a different situation today.

I turn to what can be done as we go forward. At the second public meeting, a constituent suggested that the Scottish Government should create an organisation to review people’s documentation in order to help them to determine what action, if any, to take next. Most of the people are not legally trained and will have already spent many hundreds—if not thousands—of pounds on documentation that may or may not be fit for purpose. That idea is welcome, but I do not know where the solicitors would come from to staff such a body, as trust lawyers are specialists and most will already be in employment. Those who are currently in training may not possess the relevant expertise, and some who are retired may not want to get involved. Nevertheless, if the Scottish Government could consider that suggestion, I know that that would be appreciated.

I believe that an inquiry should be held in the future. I know that some MSPs have echoed that call. However, I make it clear that I do not think that an inquiry at this point would be beneficial, as the current focus must be on helping people. The fact that not every trust will have been reviewed indicates to me that any inquiry in the short term would be premature. It would also divert time on the part of solicitors who are dealing with many of the McClure cases that would otherwise be spent on helping people now. That said, we need an inquiry to be held in the future in order to drill down into what happened at McClure leading up to the administration—not a fishing expedition that looks at everything and anything, but a focused inquiry.

Constituents have made many claims about their documentation—I have a very short list of those claims here. Those include claims that powers of attorney were not lodged with the Office of the Public Guardian in Scotland, despite the work being paid for; that trusts were in the wrong name or other details were wrong; and that clients were not properly advised as to what a trust is, why they might want one, and what the future implications for them would be. Some have even suggested that trusts may have been set up for relatives who lacked capacity, and that trusts had not been registered appropriately with HM Revenue and Customs and the land register of Scotland. The reviewing of the documents will be vital in substantiating those claims—or not—ahead of any inquiry.

I accept that Parliament cannot pass legislation retrospectively to fix past issues, but we can learn from what has happened. The Government has already introduced bills before the Parliament, including the Trusts and Succession (Scotland) Bill, which was passed in December; the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill, which passed stage 1 last week; and the Judicial Factors (Scotland) Bill, which the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee will be scrutinising from late April. Those bills are important, as they will strengthen the regulatory regime within which law firms operate. However, as I indicated last week in the debate on the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill, I believe that an inquiry into what happened at McClure will ultimately lead to more lessons being learned and, potentially, further reform.

During my 17 years as an MSP, no other single issue has dominated my case load and my inbox as this one has. Thousands of my constituents are affected, as are many more people UK-wide. I will continue to do whatever I can for my constituents, and I encourage anyone who has been affected to contact their MSP, or their MP if they live elsewhere in the UK.

I remind those members who wish to speak in the debate to check that they have pressed their request-to-speak buttons.

17:50  

I thank Stuart McMillan for bringing this important debate to the chamber. I know that he has put a lot of work into organising information evenings and being a strong advocate for those who have been affected by the issue. As we have heard, he has been dealing with a huge number of cases.

I also thank my other colleague Bob Doris, who has engaged a great deal on the issue and hosted a well-attended event in Parliament last November. The information from his event and from Stuart McMillan’s event has been invaluable in helping me to understand the sheer scale of the issue at hand.

Constituents first came to my office regarding McClure in 2021. In many cases, they had not been informed that McClure had gone into administration, and they had found out only by chance that their trusts had been passed on to Jones Whyte. To add to their uncertainty, my constituents were advised that there were systemic issues with some of the trusts. In order to examine those trusts, fees upwards of £300 were quoted before any information could be disclosed.

Those costs, coupled with the uncertainty and lack of communication, have caused intense stress for my constituents and their families. In many cases, those who have been affected are now in their mid-70s or even older. Among those who are elderly, there are many who are now incapacitated, and it has fallen to their families to try to work through the confusion.

One such example concerns two of my constituents, who are happy to be named in the chamber today—my office phoned them to check. Pamela and Bob Adams visited my office recently to underline the level of stress that they have experienced in trying to navigate the legal labyrinth to get clarity on a family protection trust and power of attorney registration that had been established for Pamela’s mother. I am very grateful to them for sharing their story, which has allowed me to better understand the real impact of the situation on real people.

With approximately 100,000 clients affected, the problem goes far beyond Glasgow, Lanarkshire and central Scotland, and more and more people across the entire UK are now discovering that they may be affected. Some of the issues that my constituents have raised are quite alarming. Stuart McMillan mentioned the issues, but I will go through them again. They include assets that should have been put into family protection trusts but were not; powers of attorney that were paid for but not registered; McClure partners and staff refusing to sign documents to enable the change to land register records without being paid for doing so; McClure taking instructions and money from potential clients up until the day that it went into administration, knowing that the work would not be completed or the money would not be returned; and McClure putting itself on wills as executor, in many instances against the express wishes of the client.

Those are very serious matters. As an MSP, I cannot give legal advice, but I say to anyone who feels that they have been affected that, if they are not satisfied with anything that they have experienced with regard to any actions from McClure or Jones Whyte or, indeed, from any other solicitor with whom they have been in contact, it is their right to make a complaint to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. Those allegations are grave, and I welcome Police Scotland’s establishment of a dedicated team to investigate the numerous complaints thoroughly.

I turn to what we can do in the chamber. As Stuart McMillan mentioned, the Trusts and Succession (Scotland) Bill was passed unanimously late last year. At stage 2, amendments were lodged to allow trustees to remove a trustee without going to court in an extra set of circumstances. Those instances would occur when the trustee in question was no longer, or was no longer entitled to practise as, a member of a regulated profession. That amendment was deemed necessary after trustees from McClure who were appointed in a professional capacity agreed to resign only in exchange for payment of a sum of money.

Furthermore, the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill, which passed stage 1 last week, gives us another opportunity to ensure that such situations cannot arise again. The issues with McClure have come up in our committee’s evidence taking on the bill.

I encourage the holding of a full investigation of allegations that have been brought by people who have had dealings with McClure in the past. I hope that everyone who has been affected can find a swift resolution and that the Parliament will continue to legislate to ensure that such a situation can never happen again.

I again thank my constituents who have come to me with their difficulties. Like Stuart McMillan, I have every expectation that their number will continue to rise over the coming months and years, as people become more aware of the issue.

17:55  

I, too, congratulate Stuart McMillan on securing this important debate and for all the significant work that he has done on it, along with other members including Bob Doris.

It is right that Parliament is willing to get its teeth into such a monumental scandal as that involving McClure. That bust law firm has left a trail of damage that has harmed the interests of hundreds, if not thousands, of former clients across the UK. By no definition could those former clients be described as wealthy. They were ordinary folk who put their trust in a high-street law firm—decent, hard-working people who took responsibility for putting their affairs in order. Many are now in their twilight years—in their 70s, 80s or even 90s—and most are still unaware that there might be problems with their wills, trust deeds or other legal documents. Others have discovered discrepancies and irregularities in work carried out by McClure and have been forced to fork out good money to try to put things right. However, that is not always straightforward and can often trap families for years in an expensive state of limbo. When any type of business ceases trading, customers and creditors can suffer a detriment, but when a law firm goes under, the consequences can be much more far reaching.

Last week, I spoke in the stage 1 debate on the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill, which Fulton MacGregor and Stuart McMillan also mentioned. That bill is relevant to this debate: the system of legal regulation in Scotland is confusing, complex and costly and McClure victims might even suspect that it was designed with the purpose of deterring complainers and protecting lawyers. It is harder to negotiate than a hall of mirrors.

Seven long years ago, the Scottish Government ordered a review of legal regulation. It found that Scotland needed a single regulator that is independent of the profession and the Government. However, ministers chose to bin that recommendation. Astonishingly, the review report’s author says that what is now on the table is “much more complex” than what already exists.

I will explain a bit more about previous attempts to protect the public. In 2008, the Scottish Government created the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. The SLCC’s briefing document for members is refreshingly candid. It reveals that it can say very little about McClure, because it would be a criminal offence to disclose information about even the existence of complaints. The SLCC describes the system as a complex “maze” that fails to protect the public from harm.

It also says that, in recent years, the convoluted system has somehow been made even more complex and unworkable.

Will the member take an intervention?

If I have time.

I can give you a wee bit of time back.

Does Russell Findlay recognise that the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission urged all members to agree to the general principles of the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill at last week’s stage 1 debate in order to secure much-needed reform?

The SLCC’s position in respect of the regulatory framework is that it wants the system of which it is a part to be changed for the better. What is on the table—what is in the bill—does not protect the public. It is not often that a regulator admits that it has fewer teeth than a newborn baby. However, the situation is not the SLCC’s fault; it is by the Scottish Government’s design.

A few months ago, I heard from a number of McClure victims at a meeting hosted by Bob Doris. They told me that the value of business paid for by McClure clients is in the region of £120 million—we are talking huge sums of money—yet they say that it might cost up to £150 million to put things right. That seems to be a win-win situation for the lawyers, but it is not so good for the clients. I agree whole-heartedly with Stuart McMillan that, first and foremost, the McClure victims should receive swift redress, and then some form of inquiry may be required.

18:00  

I, too, thank Stuart McMillan for bringing the debate to the chamber. I also pay tribute to the victims of McClure Solicitors campaign group for pushing for justice. Bob Doris hosted the group in the Parliament last November, and I know that other colleagues have been active on the matter too, because many of us have constituents who have been affected. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee used lessons from the McClure situation to amend the Trusts and Succession (Scotland) Bill.

Sadly, however, action on the matter has been far too slow. Jones Whyte has not advised everyone who is involved, and I wonder whether the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission or the Law Society of Scotland should step in and take the lead on warning people to reassess their trusts and wills that were set up by McClure, because those people need to be told now that they could be impacted.

Jones Whyte told me that the reason why it has not contacted everyone so far is that it is focusing in the first instance on the trusts, which are a lot more complicated in comparison with wills and powers of attorney, before moving on to the latter.

I am grateful for that intervention, but I think that people still need to know, because the process is happening under the radar, and many more people will be impacted.

Although I understand that Jones Whyte has a lot of work to do, I have found the firm difficult to deal with, certainly when I am acting on behalf of my constituents. My constituents were not given access to documents until I intervened, and those documents were then provided in a way that was very difficult for elderly people to deal with. In addition, Police Scotland has stepped forward to act only now, but I am glad that it is stepping in, because previously it had told victims that the McClure situation was a civil matter.

People in this situation need help and advice.

Has Rhoda Grant, given her expertise and knowledge of these cases, seen anything that might suggest any criminality in respect of the McClure scandal?

While there are certainly a lot of things that do not seem right to me, and which need an explanation and an investigation, with regard to the question whether there has been criminality or just very poor practice, who knows? We will not know until we get someone to investigate, because the documents are complex and one would need to try to follow the processes that were carried out. We need to ensure that there are people in place to provide such help and advice to the victims. We should also be asking whether any solicitor who is involved in drawing up a trust deed should be involved in the trust itself.

We have to remember that elderly people are involved: the people who drew up the trust deeds are elderly themselves and may not remember doing that, and some of the people who are trying to manage the affairs of clients after they are gone are also elderly. That causes great difficulties. We hear of people suffering bereavement and having to deal with those barriers and hurdles, and we have also heard about houses that have been caught up in these matters lying empty for years and becoming a drain on the finances of family that are left behind and are expected to maintain properties while they have no access to them.

I disagree with Stuart McMillan on one point: I think that an investigation has to happen now. People are not getting the support that they need right now, but they will never be compensated unless there is an investigation. They are currently being turned away by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which will not deal with the matter. We need to find somebody who is independent of all this who will go through the cases, and whom the victims can speak to and have their cases reviewed by. There are many thousands of other people who are affected and yet are totally unaware of the situation.

In conclusion, we need to ensure that people are warned, and we need an investigation to help those who are affected. We need to ensure that that investigation also leads to the closing of loopholes. We need to ensure that every victim is compensated and that nobody is turned away.

18:05  

I was already aware of the issues surrounding the collapse of McClure Solicitors, of the emerging evidence, following its collapse, of its incompetent or unscrupulous practices, and of the impact on many thousands of clients. That was mainly due to the diligent work of my colleague Stuart McMillan, who has been a champion for the victims of McClure.

For other MSPs, the scandal has been a bit of a slow burner. It has only been in recent months that my constituents have started to step forward and voice the impact on them of the incompetence of McClure. To be honest, some are unsure about what was incompetence, what was negligence and what was misconduct. When does systematic misconduct become potential criminality? It is all a bit unclear. I am not saying that that was the case but, if it was, from what I can gather, it would have been on an industrial scale.

When a loved one—perhaps someone’s mum or dad—passes, sorting out their financial affairs should be the least of a grieving relative’s worries. One of the reasons why families ensure that wills and family protection trusts are set up is to provide certainty in such circumstances. McClure provided anything but that. My constituents point to family protection trusts not being set up properly—indeed, as we have heard, they were sometimes not set up at all. Such issues often come to light only when a loved one dies.

There are also concerns about how Jones Whyte solicitors, which took possession of McClure’s client cases, is handling its responsibilities, given the delays in informing families and the fact that it is charging what have been described to me as exorbitant fees. I absolutely accept that Jones Whyte has a huge and complex workload, but I am aware that a variety of insurance schemes exist. When something such as the situation with McClure’s happens, money should be drawn down through insurance companies in order to get additional resource to resolve such matters promptly. It is not acceptable for Jones Whyte to say that it simply does not have the resources to resolve the matters swiftly and speedily.

There have been concerns about solicitors that are named as professional trustees in family protection trusts charging inappropriate fees when families seek to have their names removed. For the avoidance of doubt, I am talking about solicitors that were responsible for setting up the flawed or inappropriate trust in the first place, charging families to remedy their own incompetence. One family described that to me as simply brazen.

Does Bob Doris agree that, although such practices are legal, morally they leave a sour taste in the mouth, and that those individuals should not be charged?

I agree with every word of what Mr McMillan said, so I thank him for putting that on the record. I associate myself with those comments.

I mentioned that the McClure debacle has been a slow burner. I think that the cases in Glasgow are the tip of the iceberg. We all have a responsibility to publicise the situation. Perhaps the Glasgow Times should run a campaign saying, “Have you been a victim of McClure’s? Step forward. We need to know.” We have to get to the bottom of this, but it will take years to understand the true extent of what happened.

We should always advise our constituents and anyone else who is listening to go to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission in the first instance. From an event that I held in the Scottish Parliament, I found out that people do not always go to the right body to seek assistance. I am not saying that it will resolve everything, but people should always go to the SLCC.

I asked the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission whether a pattern of incompetence or misconduct has been identified. To be fair, they want more powers to be able to talk publicly about the patterns that emerge from their casework, but I am unclear about whether there could be a bit of a stand-off between Police Scotland and the Law Society about whose responsibility it would be to be clear about whether criminality might be at play.

I suspect that this is the start of a long campaign that Mr McMillan will champion. A lot of MSPs stand in solidarity with him in pushing for justice for the victims of McClure.

18:09  

I, too, thank Stuart McMillan for securing today’s debate on McClure Solicitors and the fall-out since it ceased trading in 2021. I also thank his constituency team, who my office staff have been in touch with to seek advice on some issues, and I thank Bob Doris and members of the victims of McClure Solicitors campaign group for a briefing on this subject that was hosted in Parliament in November.

From the testimonies of the members of the campaign group at that briefing—and from messages from the growing number of constituents who have raised the issue with me—it is clear just how wide ranging and serious are the issues that the former clients of McClure’s are now experiencing. The company’s actions have impacted an estimated 100,000 people across the UK, with a potentially significant number of people being unaware that their wills, trusts and other legal affairs may not be in order. I have heard reports of former clients of McClure’s who have struggled to sell their homes, of others who had allegedly paid McClure’s to put their properties in trust or to set up a power of attorney but who subsequently learned that that never happened, and of people having to pay thousands of pounds in further legal fees to try to resolve some of the issues that they have experienced since McClure’s went bust. According to the action group, many of those are people who are in their 70s or older. Some have sadly passed away, and it is their families who are trying to sort out the mess now.

In the past couple of months, I have been in frequent contact with the Law Society of Scotland and Jones Whyte, which took over the good will, work in progress and certain assets of McClure’s when it ceased practice. The Law Society of Scotland has been clear that it expects Jones Whyte to write to each client, giving priority to the most urgent cases with on-going work, but not everyone has been contacted—I understand that, at the briefing in November, the campaign group said that it estimated that around 90,000 people still were not aware that McClure’s had ceased trading. I therefore continue to urge Jones Whyte to notify all clients in a timely manner, and will remain in contact with the Law Society to ensure that its expectation that all clients are written to is realised. In the meantime, however, I hope that today’s debate will help to increase public awareness of the demise of McClure’s, and I will be doing what I can to spread the word in my Rutherglen constituency.

I hope that any constituent who is impacted will contact Jones Whyte regarding their documents and consider making a complaint to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, if they deem that to be appropriate. The SLCC is the gateway for all complaints about solicitors in Scotland and can award compensation if it upholds a complaint. I know, from the briefing, that concerns had been raised about the SLCC’s capacity to handle a significant number of complaints, particularly as the awareness of this issue grows. Although the SLCC is funded by a levy that is paid by legal professionals, not by the public purse, I hope that its capacity and ability to handle an increased number of complaints can be monitored.

There are three key issues that need attention: everyone who is impacted must be made aware of the situation, individuals should be signposted to where they can make complaints, if they deem that to be necessary, and there should be a formal inquiry to thoroughly examine all aspects of the conduct of McClure’s, its collapse and subsequent events. That last point has been raised with me by my constituents, and I am aware that the police have recently confirmed that they are looking into it.

Everyone who is caught up in this issue deserves our full support. I know that Stuart McMillan will continue his campaign seeking answers and remedies, and I would like to reassure my constituents that I will be doing what I can to assist them, too.

18:13  

I, too, thank my colleague Stuart McMillan for bringing this motion to the chamber. The level of interest in the impact of the failure and administration of McClure Solicitors speaks for itself. Stuart McMillan and his constituency team have worked tirelessly to respond to those impacted who have contacted his office seeking help, as well as others. My heart goes out to those affected, who are likely to find that the Police Scotland investigation and legal complaints process arising from the company’s failure will be lengthy and not straightforward.

I will highlight one case that was reported to me by constituents who, like many others, were completely unaware of the demise of McClure’s, and found out completely by accident. My constituents approached McClure’s to put in place arrangements for a simple family protection trust. It was quite by chance that they discovered that McClure’s had gone into administration. Despite the range of support offered by the Law Society of Scotland, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and others, my constituents have found that the most reliable source of advice for them has been, remarkably, a Facebook page.

They have now placed their affairs in the hands of a local solicitor. However, while doing so, they have discovered discrepancies in the handling of their trust by McClure’s, which has caused them considerable stress and uncertainty, and they are now out of pocket. Although I hope that those charged with addressing the failings by McClure’s will seek to assist clients back to a position where there is no loss or disadvantage, that is by no means guaranteed. I am reassured to hear that other members’ engagement with bodies such as the Law Society has been positive.

The timing of this debate coincides with last week’s debate on the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill, which other members have highlighted. Regulation has been a controversial subject with two distinct strands: those who consider that the current system favours solicitors and does not benefit consumers, and those who take the view that the current system provides high-quality legal services and that the independence of the judiciary from Government must be preserved.

During that debate, several members spoke powerfully in articulating the appalling way in which the legal profession had treated people who had sought help from it. As one member put it:

“There is little that is more corrosive than suffering an injustice and it is even worse when that injustice is caused by the justice system.”—[Official Report, 22 February 2024; c 90.]

Another member highlighted that, 18 years on from the unsuccessful Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill, significant concerns remain about the conduct of some elements of the legal profession, and there is a lack of confidence in the current arrangements to adequately protect the consumer interest.

I thank the member for quoting me. As a former police officer, has she seen anything so far that might constitute criminality in respect of McClure’s?

I have not scrutinised this particular case closely enough to be remotely able to pass an opinion on that.

In the meantime, as we await the continued passage of the bill through the parliamentary process—which I hope will underpin good law that will protect the public and prevent such a situation from arising again—our constituents wait patiently.

I will finish by highlighting two areas of practice that, in my mind, must be in place, if they are not already. First, client base details must be accessible to those overseeing the transfer of business, with clients contacted at an early stage to advise them that their chosen legal advisers have ceased trading and their business will be transferred to another nominated company or, if they wish, to one of their choosing. Such contact must progress at pace following the collapse of any solicitors business.

Secondly, it is crucial that when clients are advised of the circumstances of a change, resources are directed to ensure that all work instructed was completed correctly and that no issues remain outstanding.

I fully support this debate and Stuart McMillan’s work, and I urge constituents in my constituency of Aberdeen South and North Kincardine to get in touch with me at any time if they feel that they might have been affected.

18:18  

I thank my colleague Stuart McMillan for securing this highly important debate. I know that he has done a lot of work in this regard to support his constituents and raise awareness, and I thank him for that.

I am speaking on behalf of several constituents who have been affected by McClure. As has been mentioned, it is estimated that around 100,000 people across the UK have been impacted by the scandal. The clients are predominantly elderly and, in some cases, vulnerable, too. Many who were impacted were advised that a new will was beneficial, and they were later sold family protection trusts and powers of attorney on the back of that. The cost of that was in the thousands—money that the clients had worked hard for over their lives and could not afford to lose. Since the takeover by Jones Whyte, it is believed that files have been passed over without the express permission of clients, which is a cause for concern among some constituents.

With McClure Solicitors now in administration, thousands of people are left with significant difficulties in accessing assets, because of numerous inaccuracies or failings by McClure. That has caused undue stress, anxiety and financial difficulty for clients and their surviving families, who are often now having to pay extra to remedy those failings. It is a disgrace.

One of my constituents, who gave me permission to share their story, told me:

“I paid McClure to prepare a will and power of attorney for me in 2020. The power of attorney was never registered with the Office of Public Guardian. Jones Whyte Solicitors have taken over from McClure and said that I need to pay again. As a 75-year-old pensioner, frightened to turn my heating up, I am distressed to have to start further payments to yet another law firm.”

Another said:

“My mother was a victim of McClure Solicitors and was encouraged to put her home into a trust and buy a will and a power of attorney for £3,500. It was mis-sold to her, and two of the McClure staff put themselves on the trust as trustees and also changed the title deeds of my mother’s home to name themselves on the deeds without her knowledge. We are now trying to unravel the mess that they have made with the new solicitor, costing further expense to my retired mother.”

Those are just two examples of the several cases that I have received in my office. What links each one is that the victims are elderly, and that some also have serious health conditions. It is utterly unacceptable that they have been put into such stressful financial difficulties at a point in their lives when they should be able to relax and put their feet up.

I back Stuart McMillan’s calls for an inquiry into the firm’s conduct and subsequent collapse to prevent a recurrence of the situation. Unfortunately, it is expected that thousands might be unaware of what has happened and that, as a result, their legal affairs will not be in order. It is therefore vital that, as MSPs, we do what we can to spread awareness, in tandem with the excellent work of the victims of McClure Solicitors campaign. If that awareness raising can be extended to a Scottish Government information campaign, as suggested by Stuart McMillan, that would also have my backing.

How we treat elderly residents says a lot about who we are as people, and it says a lot about our country, too. They deserve to be treated with compassion, honesty and respect, and they should not have been misled. It is vital that we do everything in our power to support those victims as best we can. I am firmly on their side, alongside Stuart McMillan.

18:22  

I thank Mr McMillan for raising this important matter, and all members who have spoken and raised a number of important points. I will respond as far as I can in the time allowed.

I sympathise with all those who have been adversely affected by the collapse of McClure Solicitors. It is important that, when that happens in a regulated market, measures are in place to protect consumers. I encourage those affected to seek advice from the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which can provide information and clarity on how to seek redress through raising a complaint, making a claim under the client protection fund or making a claim through the professional indemnity insurance scheme. Such measures and schemes provide consumer protection and redress where appropriate, and they remain a route to redress when a legal firm has gone into administration.

The Government has also taken proactive steps to strengthen the legislation in respect of both legal regulation and trust, which will help militate against such a situation happening in future. Cases such as that of McClure Solicitors show the need for legal regulation that centres on the public interest and the protection of the consumer.

What is the minister’s response to Esther Roberton’s take that the proposals in the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill make the regulatory framework even more complex?

We went through the history of the independent regulator in last week’s stage 1 debate. I watched Esther Roberton give evidence at committee, and she acknowledged that there was a divide and that views were so polarised that it would be very difficult to get everybody on board. That is why a compromise was reached at stage 1 in order to move things forward.

As I have said, cases such as the McClure Solicitors one show the need for legal regulation that centres on the public interest and protection of the consumer. That is what the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill, which was agreed to at stage 1 last week, seeks to achieve. The current legal framework places the emphasis on regulating the individual solicitor, rather than the law firm by which they are employed. In a significant shift for legal services regulation, the bill introduces a requirement for all legal businesses to be regulated as entities.

That new system of entity regulation will bring greater oversight and monitoring of legal businesses. It will introduce a requirement for all legal businesses to be authorised to provide legal services, with public and consumer interests at their heart. That will allow the Law Society to review a business’s performance to ensure that it is complying with its duties to clients and that it is financially sustainable. The regulator will be able to direct changes and impose sanctions where there is non-compliance.

Entity regulation will also introduce greater consistency in the regulation of legal firms, with all entities having to meet the same high standards. A greater ability to collate data will help the Law Society identify and address deficiencies early and take the necessary preventative action. The intention behind the bill’s extension of regulatory complaints to cover such legal entities is to allow for a mechanism for addressing systemic issues in legal firms.

The bill also sets out the regulatory objectives that must be complied with as legal regulators exercise their functions, including consideration of the consumer principles, the better regulation principles and the human rights principles. The bill will streamline the legal complaints system, as many stakeholders have called for, making the process faster and simpler for the consumers and legal practitioners who find themselves involved with it, such as all those who have been affected by the McClure situation. Where there is any concern that a legal regulator is failing in its duties, the bill will introduce an ability for the regulator’s performance to be reviewed and for measures to be taken to ensure that improvements are made, where necessary.

During the parliamentary passage of the Trusts and Succession (Scotland) Bill last year, we learned about the fallout of the failure of McClure Solicitors and the impact on existing trusts. I thank Stuart McMillan, who, as convener of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, led scrutiny of that bill and ensured that the matter of McClure in the context of trusts was fully considered.

The Trusts and Succession (Scotland) Act 2024 has made important changes to how trusts are administered and how trustees are appointed and removed. Parliament made amendments to the bill at stages 2 and 3 to respond to the significant practical difficulties that co-trustees might face in removing a trustee who was appointed in their professional capacity and who is no longer a member of the profession.

I will now highlight a few of the issues that have been raised. First, I appreciate the need to raise public awareness about McClure in the public domain. When McClure ceased trading, the Law Society published notifications on its website to flag up the situation. As we know, the good will, the work in progress and certain assets have been taken over by Jones Whyte Solicitors, but it is now the responsibility of the acquiring firm to contact McClure’s former clients. That process is on-going and, due to the large number of people affected, Jones Whyte has indicated that it is prioritising the cases that need immediate attention and is continuing to inform all clients.

I wonder how that is being resourced by the acquiring firm. The minister talked about an insurance scheme that can pay out in relation to various matters; if the issue is one of resource, surely such insurance schemes should be drawn upon for that. It should be a matter of course that all clients are advised on the collapse of the firm and their cases reviewed without its costing them a single penny.

I appreciate that point. There is no specific legal duty on Jones Whyte to contact the clients, and there is a risk of making legislative changes for individual situations that would not be appropriate and which could, in future, act as a deterrent to a legal firm stepping in to take over a case and the files of another legal firm that has gone into administration in such a situation. That could be detrimental to the clients involved. However, I acknowledge the member’s point.

I also want to delicately raise one issue about police involvement. I am aware that the matter has been reported to Police Scotland, which has met with those affected. Given that, as I understand it, Police Scotland has commented that an assessment of the information is on-going, it would be inappropriate for me, as minister, to comment further, and I caution elected members against stating that any criminality has happened.

Clare Haughey raised concerns about the SLCC’s workload—and rightly so. As she has said, it is funded by a levy on the legal professions in Scotland. I meet regularly with the SLCC, and any proposed levy that takes into consideration increases in complaints, such as the complaints relating to this matter—

I understand that the member does not have the answers to everything and that the police and the SLCC are looking into the matter, but does she have any advice for my constituent who is getting nowhere with the SLCC? As someone who does not have a legal background, I am not in a position to advise her, but it is clear that there are unanswered questions and things that do not look right to me. What assistance can my constituent receive to get to the bottom of this, so that she is satisfied that her relatives’ wishes have been put into action and that they have not lost out?

I would advise the member’s constituent to get in touch with the SLCC, but if she is not getting anywhere, the member can write to me—I do not know the personal circumstances—and I can look into it on her behalf.

As for the calls for an inquiry, the priority at the moment is to find a solution for the people who have been adversely affected by the situation. Because this is an on-going regulatory matter and because an inquiry would not provide practical help to any of those who have been adversely affected, I do not support establishing an inquiry at this stage.

The Scottish Government will continue to monitor the situation alongside the regulatory authorities. I am aware of the calls from Stuart McMillan and Marie McNair for the Scottish Government to consider initiating an information campaign to raise awareness among the former clients, not all of whom might have been informed of the situation as yet. That is a matter for the Law Society of Scotland as a regulatory body, and I understand that the legal firm Jones Whyte took on the McClure files and is engaging with those affected.

The priority in respect of McClure is to find a solution for those who might have been adversely affected, and I encourage those with concerns to seek advice from the Law Society or the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. This is an on-going regulatory matter, and the overall responsibility for the regulation of the solicitor profession rests with our primary regulators—the Law Society of Scotland and the Lord President.

The Law Society has written to me today to advise that an independent regulatory committee is taking proactive action and intends to bring in new practice rules and additional guidance, principally in relation to obligations and expectations, including on the issue of communications, when a solicitor or practice makes arrangements to pass client assets to another. That letter has come in only today, and more information will be coming to MSPs in that regard.

The Scottish Government will, of course, continue to monitor the situation alongside the regulatory authorities.

Meeting closed at 18:33.