Chamber and committees

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?

Ms Dowey, there is a lot of interest in putting questions to the minister. I will come back to you later if we have time.

I open up the session to others. I invite Christine Grahame to come in with any questions that she has.

I am aware of the time, and we have a very full agenda. However, I am also aware that this is a very important issue and that there is significant public interest in it. If members would like to ask any final small supplementary questions, I will bring them in. Katy Clark will be first, followed by Russell Findlay.

Are you pressing the motion?

Thank you. I invite members who would like to make any further remarks to do so. At this point, given that we are moving to a debate, I remind Mr Wilson that he is unable to contribute.

There will be a division.

Against

Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)

I thank everyone very much. We will have a short suspension.

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.