Chamber and committees

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.

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.

The Forties pipeline system is a main artery that transports North Sea oil to the Grangemouth oil refinery. Although the transition away from oil and gas is essential for Scotland’s energy future, the potential closure of the refinery has implications for the north-east’s energy sector. Given the lack of levers available to the Scottish Government that would allow it to invest, can the cabinet secretary outline what engagement has taken place with the UK Government regarding the broader impact that a decision about Grangemouth would have on the wider Scottish economy, including in the north-east?

Good morning, and welcome to the eighth meeting of the Criminal Justice Committee in 2024. We have received no apologies this morning. We are joined by Christine Grahame MSP and Bob Doris MSP. I welcome them to the meeting.

Our first item of business is consideration of whether to take in private item 5, which is consideration of our approach to stage 1 scrutiny of the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill. Do we agree to take that item in private?

Members indicated agreement.

I need to move on.

That completes our evidence taking on the SSI.

Our next item of business is consideration of a motion to annul the Dangerous Dogs (Designated Types) (Scotland) Order 2024, which has been lodged in the name of Christine Grahame. Now that the committee has had the opportunity to question the minister on the SSI, I invite members to dispose of the motion to annul.

I ask Christine Grahame to move motion S6M-12106, in her name, and to make any brief additional comments that she wishes to make.

I will come in at this point. I will probably reflect many of the comments that members have made.

I think that we would rather not be having to go through this process today. As other members have done, I commend Christine Grahame for her tenacity and her absolute commitment to animal welfare, and for the articulate and detailed way in which she has set out her position. Like other members, I think that the Scottish Government has been put in an extremely difficult situation. Given the level of engagement that the Scottish Government has undertaken, if there had been a different option, we would probably have been dealing with that today.

I thank Mr Wilson. Both he and the minister have set out in detail the issues that we are all facing and grappling with. Importantly, they have set out the issues around monitoring and continued engagement going forward, which are vital on this issue. Therefore, like other members, reluctantly, I will not support the motion to annul.

Bob, do you want to comment or are you content?

I invite the minister to respond to any of the points that have been made.

I invite Christine Grahame to make any further brief final remarks and indicate whether she intends to press or withdraw her motion.

The result of the division is: For 0, Against 8, Abstentions 0.

Motion disagreed to.