 I ask those who are leaving the chamber to please do so quickly and quietly, as we are now going to turn to our final item of business. The final item of business is a member's business debate on motion 11980, in the name of Stuart McMillan, on McLeer solicitors. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put. I would invite those members who would wish to speak in the debate to please press the request to speak buttons and I call on Stuart McMillan to open the debate around seven minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. First, I want to thank MSPs across the chamber for supporting the motion to allow it to be debated today. Before getting into the substantive points of the motion, I want to give some background as to how my office became so heavily involved in this particular matter. As we know, McLeer solicitors were founded in Greenock in 1853, went into administration in 2021. Glasgow-based firm Jones & White then took on roughly 100,000 matters McLeer's had on their books. Some people had multiple matters. That meant that anyone needing to gain access to their documents would need to contact Jones & White. They could choose to stay with Jones & White or to go to any solicitor of their choice. When McLeer's ceased trading, there was not really a vast amount of press coverage to read, particularly how that would impact former clients. That occurred during the Covid-19 pandemic. I believe that 84 jobs were secured when Jones & White took over the Good Will, Work & Progress and certain assets of McLeer's, including all-wills, the power of attorneys and trusts. While being aware that McLeer's was no more, it was not something that gained much by way of news coverage or generated a lot of emails into my inbox. That changed as of last summer. I started to see a growing number of people contacting the office, likely spurred on by the growing knowledge of the firm going out of business. More national news coverage, specifically from Katie Hunter at BBC Scotland, and more people with trusts receiving letters from Jones & White. I understand from discussions with Jones & White that, although there may rightly be an expectation that former McLeer's clients should have been notified by now, they simply are not able to do this en masse and are making their way through the files as quickly as they can, focusing on trusts in the first instance. However, it was clear that anyone who has business with McLeer's should contact them and they will do all they can to help. Once again, for clarity, there is no requirement for former McLeer's clients to use Jones & White services going forward. If they do wish for their documents to be reviewed, they can construct Jones & White to do so, or they can ask for their documents to be returned to them for another lawyer of their choice. As I learned more about the issue, I arranged meetings with the interested parties, including the Law Society of Scotland, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and the Minister, and I spoke to several solicitors and many constituents. I would like to put in record my thanks to the SLCC and its chief executive, Neil Stevenson, for engaging with my office as I attempted to assist affected constituents. Neil attended two public meetings. I held them at McLeer's constituency to explain to former McLeer's clients what the SLCC can and cannot do regarding any support or redress. The first event I hosted sold out and due to the level of contact there was a saving from constituents, it became clear that another one was required. Across two meetings, more than 270 constituents gained a seat to put to questions directly to the SLCC and myself. 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 the risks of doing that. While both meetings were for former McLeer's clients, they were not specifically to discuss McLeer's solicitors, but to provide information about the main route that they have for the course if they believe they have a complaint to make about either McLeer, its staff or any other lawyer. I know that some of my constituents have already had complaints upheld by the SLCC and conversation awarded, which is why I have been so keen to raise awareness of the issue. It is also why I was keen to secure a member's debate, as I am aware that it is not only my constituents who are affected by this. I have no doubt that there will be former McLeer's clients who will only be finding out about the firm closing down whilst watching either this debate or from any subsequent press that happens from it. It is also clear that something went very wrong at McLeer solicitors and that is why we are here today. Thousands of people across the UK spent significant sums of money with McLeer, with the expectation being that they would not have to pay for any legal work like this again. For many, this will not be the reality. Thousands of people are now having to spend additional sums of money having McLeer partners removed from their trusts. While I understand that this may involve a cost to the trustee who is being removed, I would ask them all if morally they should be taking a fee. I also understand that there is nothing wrong at all with solicitors being named on trusts as trustees. However, I believe that it is more commonplace for a law firm to be named on the trust as opposed to individual lawyers. If that were the case with McLeer and I believe that they did start to do this in later years, more people may be in a different situation today. I want to turn now to what can be done going forward. I suggestion by a constituent that the second public meeting was for the Scottish Government to create an organisation to review people's documentation to help them to determine what action to take next. Most people are not legally trained and have already spent many hundreds if not thousands of pounds on documentation that may or may not be fit for purpose. I think that this is a welcome idea but I do not know where the solicitors would come from to staff such a body as trust lawyers. They are specialised and most will already be in employment. Those in training may not possess the relevant expertise and some who are retired may not want to get involved. However, if the Scottish Government could give it some consideration I know that it certainly would be appreciated. Secondly, I believe that an inquiry should be held in the future. I also am MSPs have echoed this call. I want to be clear however that I do not think that an inquiry at this point would be beneficial because 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 deviate time from solicitors who are dealing with many of the Macleure cases that otherwise would be spent on helping people now. That said, we do need an inquiry to be held in the future to drill down what happened at Macleure's leading up to the administration. Not a fishing expedition, at least everything and anything but a focused inquiry. I have had constituents making many many claims about their documentation including a very short list here Powers of Attorney were not lodged with the Office of Public Guardian despite the work that they paid for, trusts were in the wrong name or other details were wrong or they weren't properly advised as to what a trust is, why they might want one and what the implications for them were going forward and some have even suggested trusts may have been set up for relatives who lack capacity and trusts have not been registered appropriately with HMRC and the land register of Scotland. The review of the documents is therefore vital in terms of substantiating or not these claims ahead of any inquiry. I accept that we can't pass legislation retrospectively to fix past issues but we can however learn from it and the Government has already introduced bills before the Parliament including the trust succession Scotland bill which is passed in December, the regulation legal services Scotland bill which passed stage 1 last week and the judicial factor Scotland bill which the Delegate of Pills and Law Reform Committee will be scrutinising from late April. Now these bills are important as they will strengthen the regulatory regime that law firms operate within. However, as I indicated last week in the legal regulation debate, I believe that an inquiry into what happened in Macleos will ultimately lead to more lessons being learned and potentially further reform. In concluding, officer, during my 17 years as an MSP no other single issue has dominated my caseload and my inbox like this particular issue. Thousands of my constituents are affected and also many many more UK wide and I will certainly continue to do whatever I can from my constituents and I would encourage anyone who has been affected to contact their MSP or MP if they live elsewhere in the UK. Thank you. Thank you Mr McMillan. I remind those members who would wish to speak in the debate to please check that they have pressed their request to speak buttons and I call, moved to the open debate, I call Fulton MacGregor to be followed by Russell Finlay up to four minutes please Mr MacGregor. Thank you Mr McMillan for bringing this important debate into the chamber. I know he's put a lot of work into organising information evenings and being a strong advocate for those who have been affected by this issue and I think we all heard tonight the huge number of cases that he has been dealing with. I'd also like to thank my other colleague Bob Doris who's also engaged a lot in this issue and hosted a well-attended event here in Parliament last November and both the information from his and Stuart McMillan's events have been invaluable in helping my understanding of the sheer scale of the issue at hand. Constituents first came to my office regarding the clues in 2021. In many cases they'd not been informed that my clues had actually gone into administration and I'd only found out by chance that their trusts had been passed on to Jones and White. To add to their uncertainty my constituents were advised that there were systemic issues with some of the trusts and 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 on my constituents and their families. In many cases those affected are now in their mid 70s or even older. For those who are indeed elderly there are many who are now incapacitated and it has fallen to their families who are trying to work through this confusion. One such example of this is with two of my constituents who were happy to be named in the chamber today, my office, he did phone and check with him. Pamela and Bob Adams visited my office recently to underline the level of stress that they have experienced trying to navigate the legal labour in trying to get clarity on a family protection trust and power of attorney registration established for Pamela's mother and I'm very grateful to them for sharing their story and allowing me to better understand their real impact on real people. With approximately 100,000 affected clients this is indeed a problem that goes far beyond Glasgow, Lanarkshire and Central Scotland because more and more people across the entirety of the UK are now discovering that they may be affected. Just some of the issues that my constituents have raised are quite alarming. Stuart McMillan has mentioned them but I'll go through them again. Assets that should have been put into family protection trusts which weren't. Power of attorneys that have been paid for but not registered. McLeur partners and staff refusing to sign documents to enable the change to land registry records without being paid for doing so. McLeur taking instructions and money from potential clients up until the day it went into administration knowing that the work would not be completed or the money returned. Wills that McLeur put themselves on as executors in many instances against the express wishes of the client. These are very serious matters and I cannot give legal advice to an MSP. I can say to anyone who feels that they have been affected that if you are not satisfied with anything you have experienced with any actions from McLeur's, Jones and White or any other solicitor that you have been in contact with, it is your 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 those new minister's complaints thoroughly. As for what we can do in this chamber against Stuart McMillan, I have mentioned it, but the Trust's succession 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 is no longer entitled to practice as a member of a regulated profession. That amendment was deemed necessary after trustees from McLeur's appointed in a professional capacity only agreed to resign in exchange for payment of a sum of money. Furthermore, the current regulation of legal services bill, which passed stage 1 in here last week, gives us another opportunity to ensure that situations such as this cannot arise again, and that is an issue around McLeur's that has come up in our committee evidence on that bill. In conclusion, I encourage a full investigation of the allegations that have been brought by those who have had dealings with McLeur's in the past. I hope that all who have been affected can find a swift resolution and that this Parliament continues to legislate in order to make sure that something like this can never happen again. I want to finish by again thanking my constituents who have come to me with the issue and, like Stuart McMillan, I have every expectation that that number will continue to rise over the coming months and years as people become more aware of the issue. I also begin by congratulating Stuart McMillan on securing this important debate and for all the significant work that he has been doing on this, along with some other members, including Bob Doris. It is right that Parliament is willing to get its teeth into such a monumental scandal as McLeur's. The trail of damage left by this bust law firm has harmed the interests of hundreds, if not thousands, of former clients across the UK. By no definition could these former clients be described as the wealthy? They were ordinary folk who put their trust in a high street law firm, decent, hardworking people who took responsibility to put their affairs in order. Many are in their twilight years, in their 70s, 80s and even 90s. Most are still unaware that there might be problems with their wills, their trust deeds or other legal documents. Others have discovered discrepancies and irregularities in work carried out by McLeur's, and they have been forced to fork out good money to try to put things right. However, that is not always straightforward. Trapping families in a state of expensive limbo often for years. When any type of business ceases trading, customers and creditors can suffer a detriment. However, 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 legal regulation of legal services bill, as mentioned by Fulton MacGregor and Stuart McMillan already. I think that that is relevant to what we are talking about today. The system of legal regulation in Scotland is confusing, complex and costly. McLeur victims might even suspect that the system was designed with the purpose of deterring complainers and protecting lawyers. It is harder to negotiate in a hall of mirrors. Seven long years ago, the Scottish Government ordered a review of legal regulation. The review found that Scotland needs a single regulator, independent of the profession and of government. However, ministers chose to bin this recommendation. Astonishingly, the report author says that what is now on the table is, quote, much more complex than what already exists. I want to 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 to MSPs about McLeurs is refreshingly candid. They reveal that they can say very little about McLeurs because it would be a criminal offence to disclose information even about the existence of complaints. The SLCC describes the system as, again, quoting, a complex maze that fails to protect the public from harm. They say that, in recent years, the convoluted system has somehow been made even more complex and unworkable if I have got time. Does the member recognise that, at stage 1 last week, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission urged all members to support the regulation of legal services at stage 1 for the 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, but it is not the SLC's fault. That is by Scottish Government design. I heard from a number of McLeurs victims a few months ago in a meeting hosted by Bob Doris. He told me that the value of business paid for by McLeurs 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. It seems to be a win-win for the lawyers, just not so good for the clients. As for McLeurs, I agree wholeheartedly with Stuart McMillan and think that the first and foremost victims should receive a swift address and then some form of inquiry may be required. Can I thank Stuart McMillan for securing this debate? Can I also pay tribute to the victims of McLeurs action group for pushing for justice? Bob Doris hosted them in the Parliament last November. I know that other colleagues have been active on this, because many of us have had constituents that have been affected. Indeed, the Delegate Powers and Law Reform Committee also used some of the lessons from this to amend the trust and successions bill. Sadly, action has been far too slow. James White has not advised everyone involved, and I wonder should the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission or indeed the Scottish Law Society step in and take the lead in warning people to reassess their trusts and wills that were set up by McLeurs, because those people need to be told now that they could be impacted. Stuart McMillan, I thank Rhoda Grant for taking the intervention. Jones and White told me that the reason why they have not contacted everyone so far is particularly because of the trusts, which are a lot more complicated as compared to wills and powers of attorney, that they are focusing on them in the first instance before then going to the powers of attorney and wills. I am grateful for that intervention, but I think that people still need to know that that is happening under the radar, and many more people will be impacted. Although I understand that James White has a lot of work to do, I find them difficult to deal with. I am sure that, on behalf of my constituents, my constituents were not given access to documents until I intervened, and then they were provided in a way that was very difficult for elderly people to deal with. Police Scotland has also only stepped forward now to act, but I am glad that they are stepping in because previously they had told victims that this was a civil matter. People in this situation need to have help and advice. Has seen anything that might suggest any criminality in respect of the McLeurs scandal? There are certainly a lot of things that do not seem right to me. I need an explanation, I need an investigation, whether there is criminality or just very poor practice. Who knows, but we will not know until we get someone to investigate, because those documents are complex and you need to try to follow what was being carried out. We need to make sure that there are people there to provide that help and advice to the victims. We should also be asking the question, should, indeed, any solicitor involved in drawing up a trust deed be involved in the trust themselves? We have to remember that it is elderly people involved, so the people that drew up the trust deeds are elderly themselves, and probably do not remember doing that, but some of the people that are looking and trying to manage their affairs once they are gone are also elderly. That causes great difficulties. We hear of people's suffering bereavement having to deal with those barriers and hurdles, and we have also heard about houses getting caught up, lying empty for years and becoming a drain on the finances of families left behind or expected to maintain properties while they have no access to them. I disagree with Stuart McMillan on that one point. I think that the investigation has to happen now, because I believe that people are not getting the support that they need right now and will never be compensated unless there is an investigation, because they are being turned away by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, who will not deal with that. I think that we need to find somebody who is independent of all of this that will go through those, so that the victims can actually speak to and have their cases reviewed, because there are many thousands of other people who are affected and are totally unaware of that as well. In conclusion, we need to make sure that people are warned. We need an investigation to help those who are affected and to make sure that that investigation also leads to the closing of loopholes. We need to ensure that every victim is compensated and nobody is turned away. I was already aware of the issues surrounding the collapse of Macleure solicitors. I was aware of the emergence of incompetent or unscrupulous practices from Macleure's solicitors following their collapse and the impact on many thousands of clients. That was mainly due to the diligent work of my colleague Stuart McMillan, MSP. He has championed the victims of Macleure's. For other MSPs, the scandals went a bit of a slow burner. It has only been in recent months that my constituents have started to step forward and give voice to the impact on them over the incompetence of Macleure's. To be honest, some are unsure as to what is incompetence, what is negligence and what is misconduct. When the systematic misconduct transfers over to potential criminality, it is all a bit unclear. I am not saying that that is the case, but if that was the case, that would be on an industrial scale for what I can gather. When a loved one passes sorting at the financial affairs of a deceased, perhaps her mum or dad should be the least that a grieving relative has to worry about. One of the reasons families make sure that there is well-set-up and there is family protection trust set-up is to provide certainty in such circumstances. Macleure has provided anything but that. My constituents point to family trust not being set up properly. Indeed, as we have heard here this evening, sometimes not at all. Concerns that often only come to light when a loved one dies. Concerns over how Jones-White solicitors who took possession of Macleure's client cases are handling their responsibilities regarding delays in informing families and in charging is what is put to me exorbitant fees. They absolutely accept the huge, complex workload that there is for Jones-White. I am also aware that there is a whole variety of insurance schemes that exist. When something like Macleure's happens, the money should be drawn down through these insurance companies to get that additional resource that matters resolve promptly. It is not enough to say that we simply do not have the resource to do this swiftly and speedily. That is really not acceptable. There have been concerns over solicitors named as professional trustees and family trust charging inappropriate fees when families seek to have their names removed. For the avoidance of doubt, that would be a solicitor who is potentially responsible for setting up the flawed or inappropriate family trust in the first place, who may now be charging families to remedy their own incompetence. One family described that to me as simply brazen. Thank you, Bob Dorris, for the intervention that Bob gave with me. Although it is legal, morally, it is something that leaves a silver taste in the mouth. I agree that those individuals should actually not charge going forward. I agree with every word of that. Thank you for putting that on the record. I associate myself with those comments. I mentioned that Macleure's debacle is a slow burner. I think that the cases in Glasgow are the tip of an iceberg. We have all got a responsibility to publicise that. Maybe Glasgow evening times run a campaign and say, step forward, have you been a victim of Macleure's? We need to know. We have to get to the bottom of this. It will take years to understand the true extent. I just say briefly, always advise our constituents, whatever they are listening at their, always go to the SLCC in the first instance. One of the things that I found out about the event that I held in the Scottish Parliament is that people do not always go to the right body to seek assistance. I am not saying that it will resolve everything, but always go to the SLCC. I was saying about whether a pattern of incompetence or misconduct has or has not been identified. I asked the Lost Society of Scotland about that and the SLCC. To be fair, it wants more power to be able to say publicly the patterns that they are seeing emerge from their case work. I am unclear about whether there could be a bit of a stand-off between Police Scotland and the Lost Society of Scotland about who's responsibility is to be clear about where criminality may be at play. I suspect Mr Macmillan is the start of a long campaign that you will champion. Today, this afternoon, I thank you. A lot of MSPs are in solidarity with you to push forward for justice for the victims of Macleure's. I would like to add my thanks to Mr Macmillan on securing today's debate on Macleure's solicitors and the fallout since he's trading in 2021. I also want to thank his constituency team, who I know my office staff have been in touch with seeking advice on some issues. I want to thank Bob Doris, as well as members of the Victims of Macleure's campaign group, for a meeting that was hosted in Parliament on this subject in November last year. It was clear from the testimonies of the campaign group and the growing number of my constituents who have raised this with me just how wide-ranging and serious the issues Macleure's former clients are now experiencing. This one company's actions have impacted an estimated 100,000 people right across the whole of the UK. A potentially significant number is unaware that their wills, trusts and other legal affairs may not be in order. I have heard of former clients of Macleure's who have been reportedly struggling to sell their homes, former clients who had allegedly paid Macleure's to put their properties and trust, or to set up a power of attorney before subsequently learning that this never happened. As well as people having to pay thousands of pounds on further legal fees to try and resolve some of the issues that they are experiencing since Macleure's went bust. According to the action group, many of those are people in their 70s and older, some have sadly passed away, and it is their families that are trying to sort out this mess now. Presiding officer, over the past couple of months I have been in frequent contact with the Law Society of Scotland and Jones White. Jones White took over the goodwill, work in progress and certain assets of Macleure's when it sees trading practice. The Law Society of Scotland has been very clear in that it expects Jones White to write to each client, giving priority to the most urgent cases with on-going work. However, not everyone has been contacted, and at the briefing in November I understand that the campaign group estimated around 90,000 people still weren't aware that Macleure's had ceased trading. I therefore continue to urge Jones White to notify all clients in a timely manner and will remain in contact with the Law Society to ensure the 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 Macleure's, and I will be doing what I can to spread the word within my own rather than constituency. Presiding officer, I hope that any of the constituents who are impacted with Jones White regarding their documents and consider making a complaint to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission if they deem that that is appropriate. SLCC is the gateway for all complaints about solicitors in Scotland, and they can award compensation if they uphold a complaint. I know from the briefing that concerns have been raised about SLCC's capacity to handle a significant number of complaints, particularly as the awareness of that issue grows. Although SLCC is funded by a levy paid by legal professionals, not by the public purse, I hope that their capacity and ability to handle increased numbers of complaints can be monitored. For me, there are three key areas that need attention. Everyone who is impacted must be made aware that individuals should be signposted into making complaints if they deem that necessary, and that there should be a formal inquiry to thoroughly examine all aspects of the Macleure's conduct, its collapse and subsequent events. On that last point, that is certainly something that has been raised with me by my own constituents, and I am aware that police have recently confirmed that they are looking into this. In closing, everyone caught up and this deserves their 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 to. I thank my colleague Stuart McMillan for bringing forward this motion for debate. The level of interest in the impact of the failure and administration of Macleure solicitors speaks for itself. I know that Stuart McMillan and his constituency team have worked tirelessly to respond to those impacted who have contacted his office and others seeking help. My heart really goes out to those affected who are likely to find that the investigation and legal complaints process arising from this failure will be lengthy and not straightforward. I want to highlight one case reported to me by constituents who, like many others, were completely unaware of the demise of Macleure's and found out completely by accident. My constituents approached Macleure's to put arrangements in place for a simple family protection trust. It was quite by chance that they discovered that Macleure's had gone into administration, and despite the range of support offered by the Law Society, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and others, my constituents have remarkably found that the most reliable source of advice for them has been 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 Macleure's that have caused them considerable stress and uncertainty, and they are now out of pocket. While I hope that those charged with addressing the failings by Macleure'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. Of course, the timing of the debate coincides with last week's debate on the Regulation of Legal Services Bill, which other members have highlighted. Regulation has been a controversial subject with two distinct strands, those who consider the current system favours solicitors and does not benefit consumers, and those who take the view that the current system does provide high-quality legal services and that the independence of the judiciary from government must be preserved. Several members, during that debate, spoke powerfully and articulated the frankly appalling way that the legal profession had treated persons who had sought help from them. As one member put it, there is little that is more corrosive than suffering and injustice, and it is even worse when that injustice is caused by the justice system. Another member highlighted the 18 years on the unsuccessful legal profession and legal aid Scotland bill. Significant concerns remain about the conduct of some elements of the legal profession and that there is a lack of confidence in current arrangements to adequately protect the consumer interests. First of all, I thank the member for the quotation, but I would like to ask, as a former police officer, whether the member has seen anything so far that might constitute criminality in respect of McClews. I have not scrutinised the particular case closely enough to be able to remotely pass an opinion on that. In the meantime, as we await the continued passage of the bill through the parliamentary process that I hope will underpin good law that will protect the public and prevent this type of situation arising again, our constituents wait patiently. However, I want to finish by highlighting two areas of practice that, in my mind, must be in place if they are not already. Firstly, client-based details must be accessible to those overseeing the transfer of business. With clients contacted at an early stage to advise them, their chosen legal advisers have ceased trading and their business will be transferred to another nominated company, or, if they wish, one of their choosing. Such contact must progress at pace following the collapse of any solicitor's business. Secondly, it is crucial that, when clients are advised of the circumstances of a change, resources are directed to ensure that all work that is constructed is completed correctly and that no issues remain outstanding. To conclude, I fully support the work of Stuart McMillan and his debate, and I would urge constituents in my constituency of Aberdeen South and North Concardin to get in touch with me at any time, should they feel that they may have been affected. 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 speak in this debate on behalf of several constituents who have been affected by McLures. As mentioned, it is estimated that around 100,000 people have been impacted by the scandal across the UK. The clients are predominantly elderly and, in some cases, also vulnerable. Many who were impacted were advised that a new will was beneficial and later sold to family protection trusts and power of turnies 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 which they could not afford to lose. Since we have been taken over by Jones White, it is believed that files have been passed over without the express permission of the clients themselves. That is a cause for concern among some constituents. With McLures now in administration, thousands of people are left with significant difficulties in accessing assets because of the numerous inaccuracies or failings by McLures, and 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. That is a disgrace. One of my constituents who gave permission for me to share their story told me this. I paid McLures 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 White's listeners has taken over from McLures 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 of my constituents said that my mother was a victim of McLures solicitors and was encouraged to put her home into a trust. By a will and a power of attorney for £3,500, it was mis-sold to her and two of the McLures staff put themselves on the trust as trustees and also changed the title deeds of my mother's home to name herself 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 several cases that I have received into my office. In what links each one is that the victims are elderly and some have serious health conditions as well. It is utterly unacceptable that they have been put into such a stressful financial difficulties. I point to their life where they really should be able to relax and put their feet up. I am back in Stuart McMillan's calls for an inquiry into the firm's conduct and subsequent collapse to prevent a reoccurrence of this situation. Unfortunately, it is expected that thousands may be unaware that this has happened and that, as a result, their legal affairs will not be in order. It is vital, as MSPs, that we do what we can to spread awareness of this in tandem with the excellent work done by the victims of McLures solicitors campaign. If this awareness can be extended to a Scottish Government information campaign, as suggested by Stuart McMillan, that would have my backing. How we treat elderly residents says a lot about who we are as people. 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 powers to support those victims as best we can. I am firmly on their side and alongside Stuart McMillan. I thank Mr McMillan for raising this important matter. I thank all those members who have spoken and raised a number of really important points. I would like to respond as far as I can in the time allowed. I would like to begin by sympathising with all those who have been adversely affected by the collapse of McLures solicitors. It is important that, when this happens in a regulated market, there are measures put in place to protect consumers. I would encourage those affected to seek advice from the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, who 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. Those measures are put in place to provide consumer protection and redress where appropriate, and those schemes 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 to mitigate against such a situation happening in the future. Cases such as McLures solicitors show the need for legal regulation that centres on the public interest and the protection of the consumer. I wonder what the minister's response is to Esther Robertson's take, that what is being proposed in the bill makes the regulatory framework even more complex? I think that we went through the history of the independent regulator in the stage one last week, and I think that when I watched Esther Robertson in the committee, she did acknowledge that there was a divide and a very polarized view, which would be very difficult to try and get everybody on board, and that is why the compromise in stage one is moving forward. Cases such as McLures solicitors 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 passed at stage one last week, seeks to achieve. The current legal framework places the emphasis on regulating the individual solicitor rather than the law firm that they are employed by. In a significant shift for legal services regulation, the bill introduces a requirement for all legal businesses to be regulated as entities. This 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 authorized to provide legal services and place public and consumer interests at its heart. This will allow for the Law Society to review a business 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 when there is non-compliance. Entity regulation will also introduce greater consistency in how legal firms are regulated, with all entities having to meet the same high standards. A greater ability to collate data will help the Law Society to identify and address deficiencies early and take the necessary preventative action. The bill extends regulatory complaints to cover those legal entities intended to allow a mechanism to address a systematic issue in the legal firm. The bill sets out the regulatory objectives, which must be compiled with its legal regulators exercise their function, including consideration of the consumer principles, the better regulation principles and the human rights principles. It will streamline the legal complaint system, which many stakeholders have called for, making the process faster, simpler for the consumers and legal practitioners who find themselves involved in it, such as those who have all been affected by McLaws. If there is any concern that a legal regulator is failing in its duties, the bill will introduce an ability for the regulator's performers to be reviewed and measures taken to ensure improvements are made where necessary. During the parliamentary passage of the trust and succession Scotland bill last year, we learned about the fallout of the failure of McLaws solicitors and the impact it had on existing trusts. I thank Jeremy Millan, who, as convener of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, led scrutiny of the bill and ensured that the matter of McLaws in the context of trusts was fully considered. The act made a number of important changes to how trusts are administered and how trustees are appointed and removed, and Parliament was able to make amendments at stages 2 and 3 to respond to the significant practical difficulties that co-trustees may have in removing a trustee who was appointed as a trustee in the professional capacity, and is no longer a member of the profession. If I may highlight a few of the issues that have been raised, Presiding Officer, I appreciate the need to raise public awareness into the public domain about McLaws. When McLaws ceased training, the law society published notifications on their website to flag the situation and the goodwill and the work in progress and certain assets has been taken over, as we know from Jones White, but it is now the responsibility of the acquiring firm to contact the former clients of McLaws. This process is on-going, and due to the large number of people affected, Jones White has indicated that it is prioritising cases that need immediate attention and continues to inform all clients. I am just wondering how that is resourced by the acquiring firm. The minister was talking about various insurance schemes that can pay out in relation to various matters. If that is an issue of resource, surely they should be drawn up on and it should be a resource that should be a matter of course that all clients are advised on the collapse of the firm and their cases are reviewed without a single penny being cost to that client? I appreciate that there is no specific legal duty for Jones White to contact the clients and there is a risk of legislative changes that would not be appropriate for individual situations and could act as a deterrent in the future to prevent any future legal firm stepping in to take over a case and files of another legal firm that has gone into administration in such a situation, which could be detrimental to the clients involved by acknowledging the point made by the member. If I could just delicately raise one thing about police involvement, I am aware that it has been reported to Police Scotland and has met those affected. I understand that Police Scotland has commented that an assessment of the information is on-going. Therefore, as minister, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further and I would just caution the elected members to state that there is any criminality happened. Claire Hockey brought up the concerns regarding the workload of SLCC and she is quite right to do that. As she said that it is funded by a levy paid by legal professions in Scotland, I meet regularly with the SLCC and any proposed levy taking into consideration any increases in complaints such as complaints relating to the matter. I understand that she does not have the answers to everything that the police are looking at, but does she have any advice for my constituent who is getting nowhere with the SLCC? It is very clear to me who does not have a legal background and I am not in a position to advise her that there are unanswered questions and indeed things that do not look right to me. What assistance can my constituent get to get to the bottom of this so that she is satisfied that our relatives' wishes have been put into action and that they have not lost out? Of course. I would advise for you to touch with the SLCC, but if your constituent is not getting anywhere, I do not know the personal circumstances that the member would like to write to me and I could look into it on her behalf. The priority at the moment is to find a solution for those who have been adversely affected by this and it is an on-growing regulatory matter and inquiry would not provide practical help to any of those who have been adversely affected at this stage. Accordingly, I would not support establishing an inquiry at this stage. The Scottish Government will continue to monitor the situation alongside the regulatory authorities and the calls from Stuart McMillan and Marie McNair regarding information campaign by the Scottish Government. I am aware of the asks for the Scottish Government to consider initiating an information campaign to raise awareness amongst the former Cliants who may not yet be informed about the situation. This is a matter for the Law Society of Scotland as a regulatory body and I understand that legal firm Jones-White took on Mclew's files and is engaging with those affected. The priority in respect of Mclew's is to find a solution for those who may have been adversely affected and I would encourage those who have any concerns to seek advice from the Law Society or the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. As an on-growing regulatory matter, the overall responsibility for the regulation of the solicitor profession rests with our primary regulators, which are 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 the obligations and the expectations, including communications, when a solicitor or practice makes arrangements to pass client assets to another. That has just happened today and there will be more information coming to MSPs in that regard. The Scottish Government will of course continue to monitor the situation alongside the regulatory authorities. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you minister. That concludes the debate and I close this meeting.