Chamber and committees

My question is on a separate matter.

I have two brief points. I want to go back to Ms Horwitz’s comment on shopping around effectively. We have all had experiences of finding it difficult to find a tariff for certain things, but there are also situations where monopolies exist because of specialism. From a consumer point of view, what does that monopoly situation do to folks who seek advice in specialist areas?

I think that that was a missed opportunity. It is grand to ask about the complaints process, but there is often a feeling of distrust in certain organisations as well. It would be interesting to see whether we could access any data on that particular subject. Thank you very much.

I have no relevant interests, convener.

I will give an example that goes back a number of years so that we do not identify anyone. False disposition of land does not happen regularly but, when it does, folks are pushed to certain specialists who, basically, can charge what they like, because they are the specialists. Could those monopoly situations be ironed out to a degree with the proposed legislation?

I would like to follow up on some of the comments that Dr Scott has just made, in particular the statement that people on the ground are following up 40 or 50 solicitors. Obviously there will be some advantage to charities to be able to directly employ legal professionals. Dr Scott, do you think that there may be difficulties from certain quarters if charities are using the same solicitors again and again? How do we get over that in order to build trust between the solicitors who are employed by charities and the women you represent?

I have a brief final question. What you are describing is an approach that has to be person-centred in order to meet the needs of particular individuals. Is that what we should aim for no matter what, whether someone lives in a city, a village or a remote rural or island setting?

I do not want to put words in your mouth, but you talked earlier about the flexibility of using regulation rather than primary legislation. In the sort of cases that I mentioned, would that flexibility in using regulation be helpful in allowing necessary adjustments to try to drive out such situations?

My next question again goes back to a point that Ms Horwitz made but is for Ms Crichton. Ms Horwitz quoted Scottish Legal Complaints Commission data on certain aspects. When gathering that data, did you ask a question about trust in the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission? If so, what were the findings from that?

I want to go back to a point that Dr Scott made about the lack of voices of lived experience in some of the work that has been carried out thus far. Would you like to comment on what we should do and what the Government should do to gather up the views of those voices of lived experience when it comes to setting regulations or when we are looking at flexibility and revisiting regulations at a later point? How do we best access those voices of lived experience, including the voices of many of the women for whom you have advocated over many years?