Seòmar agus comataidhean

Before I bring Oliver Mundell back in, I note that you gave the example of HMRC. Are there any other departments with which there have been challenges and delays in getting information?

In response to the committee’s call for views, the Faculty of Procurators of Caithness said:

“There should be a specific provision for an interested party to raise concerns about the Judicial Factors administration of the estate.”

It proposed that

“in the first instance this should be with the Accountant of Court”

and that if the interested person or organisation were unsatisfied with the outcome, there would then be a role for the court. When the Scottish Law Commission appeared before the committee last week, it was decidedly unsure about the policy merits of that idea. What do witnesses think of that proposal? Can you identify any benefits of or drawbacks to that suggestion?

Before we move on, is it common for judicial factories to be cross-border, both within the UK and further afield? Have you come across that?

Thank you very much for that.

I did not think that you would, but I thought that I would give you the opportunity.

We could raise that point with the lead committee.

Is the committee content with the instruments?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. Bill Kidd has the next question.

Thank you for that. I appreciate the challenge that you have in dealing with the firm, but what you have said is now on the record.

I have been approached by many solicitors from across the country who have expressed their concern and anger at what has happened, because they feel that it has had an adverse effect on the wider sector. Clearly, fees will go up in order to pay for what has happened, but there is also a feeling that the Law Society has not fully explained the process as to why a judicial factor was not appointed at that particular point. However, what you have said is on the record and might or might not appease some of the folk who have expressed their concerns and thoughts to me.

Going back to the 1980 act, the Law Society of Scotland said in its response to both the 2019 Scottish Government consultation and the committee’s call for views that it would like additional powers to deal with “incorporated practices”, and that those powers could be achieved by way of an amendment to the bill. For the benefit of the record, what is the issue arising here, and what powers would the Law Society of Scotland like in order to address it?

The bill is very technical, as is much of the legislation that this committee looks at, and the vast majority of the population might not engage with what happens here. However, now and again, there will be an incident that makes the legislation quite real for many people. One such incident was the collapse of the law firm, McClure Solicitors, and the various issues that have arisen from that. I have taken a great deal of interest in that because the company was based in my constituency. To help the committee to connect the bill to real-life examples, can the Law Society explain why a judicial factor was not appointed to deal with the issues arising from the collapse of McClure’s?

Back to you, Oliver.