Chamber and committees

Academics from the University of Aberdeen and Abertay University, as well as R3, all said that the fiduciary nature of the judicial factor’s duties needed to be spelled out explicitly in legislation. Professor Grier also thought that a clear statement was needed as to the legal remedies if there were a breach of those duties. Does the commission have a view on that?

So you would not think it appropriate in this case.

Thank you.

Thank you. In response to the committee’s call for views, the Law Society made the opposite challenge and thought that the bill’s requirements in section 15, on the duty to make a management plan, and section 16, on the duty to submit accounts to the Accountant of Court—I hope that my notes are right on this—were more prescriptive than those of the commission’s draft bill. Is the bill more prescriptive than the commission had in mind?

My question follows on from what you said before. You said that although it does not happen all the time, the Law Society has to step in, or put a judicial factor in place, regrettably often. In the light of the McClure case and others, is there a conflict between the Law Society regulating the work of solicitors and it putting a factor in place to take over when something goes wrong? Was that considered in how the bill was drafted?

The bill seeks to consolidate the law, but there are still other pieces of legislation on the statute book that provide the power to appoint a judicial factor in specific circumstances. Was any thought given to bringing all that into this bill? Why did you not do that? As a result of that, are there still situations in which the responsibility for appointing a judicial factor is not as clear as it could be?

You could have modified them.

That is helpful. You felt that changing those provisions in other legislation was out of scope for this bill, as it would have widened it beyond your interest.

I think that the Faculty of Advocates was saying in its submission that, after someone is appointed, there could be a dispute about how they are carrying out their functions and that, in those circumstances, it might be helpful for that individual to be able to go back to the court and seek clarification that what they are doing is in order and consistent with the powers that they were appointed to use.

Mr Carlaw makes an interesting point. [Laughter.]

Shares were available to the community, but I declined to take them up, primarily because I felt that it would limit my ability to lobby the Home Office for a licence, and the Scottish Government for the financial support that is needed, to build what is an incredible facility that will bring jobs and opportunities to the community.

I turn to the past, and to some of the customs and traditions that make Langholm special. The most notable of those is undoubtedly its historic Borders common riding, which is truly Langholm’s greatest day and a spectacle to behold. It is best experienced on horseback, and it remains one of my own personal achievements to have successfully ridden the common riding, including the gallop up the Kirk Wynd, as a member of the Scottish Parliament. I have committed to doing so again, but only on the condition that Emma Harper takes part too. This seems an appropriate point to thank her for supporting my motion; I know that she had wanted to speak tonight, but she is away on British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly business. I am sure that if Emma had been here, she would have been willing to confirm her willingness to take part. I will make sure to catch her later in the week.

Langholm has another major claim to fame, as the ancestral home of Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon. The town remains very proud of that, and it was honoured to make Neil Armstrong a free man of Langholm during his very special visit to the town in 1972. The relationship has continued through Neil’s sons and their families, who were back in Langholm recently.

That was followed by a proclamation of kinship from Armstrong’s birthplace of Wapakoneta in Ohio, which was unveiled a couple of weeks ago. Perhaps ironically in the context of this debate, Armstrong’s famous 1972 visit even resulted in the Chicago Tribune publishing a front-page story featuring a map of the United Kingdom that showed only London and Langholm.

That fact takes me neatly on to the key ask of the debate. For all its many attractions and accolades, Langholm appears to have been forgotten when it comes to road signage. Anyone on the near one hour’s drive between Longtown and Hawick, or, equally, on the whole of the M74 motorway, would be forgiven for thinking that Langholm does not exist: it is absent from major directional signage and there is very little to tell people about the visitor attractions and facilities that are clustered around what is a major population centre for those who live and work in the Eskdale valleys or in Langholm itself. To someone sitting behind a desk in Scotland’s urban central belt, Langholm might be small in terms of population numbers, but it matters to the people who live there, and it has so much to offer.

The Langholm Alliance, which I mentioned earlier, and many individuals and other organisations have worked tirelessly to promote the town. They are represented in the public gallery by Anthony Lane, who has worked hard alongside Sharon Tolson to drive forward the road signage project. Although there has been some progress south of the border in delivering some new signs between the M6 and Langholm—and there is a solitary new sign near Annan—efforts on the A7 in Scotland and on the M74 at junction 21 have hit a roadblock.

We have been told that Langholm is not a primary destination so it does not get to go on the signs. That characterisation is insulting and, even if it conforms to technical guidance, seems overly officious when there is plenty of room on the signs in question. It is not as though we are awash with other primary destinations between Longtown and Hawick; nor are there other communities between Kirkpatrick-Fleming and Langholm that are championing the case to be put on motorway road signs.

When we consider the disruption that is associated with having a trunk road roar through the high street of a small town, it does not seem that big an ask for the responsible authorities to be willing to acknowledge that the route goes through that community. What is more, I believe that there is an obligation on Transport Scotland and operators to get more involved in promoting such communities as somewhere to stop, visit and return to. It is not good enough to punt that on to the communities themselves and expect them to navigate the bureaucracy that VisitScotland has created around brown signage on the trunk road network.

As I close, I ask the minister to reflect on what more can be done to get behind Langholm to remove those roadblocks. Our smaller, more rural and remote communities have every bit as much to offer as other destinations—they are primary destinations for those who live there and the many visitors that they attract.

I thank the minister for what he said at the start of his speech, but what he is saying now is more of the same. It is very hard to believe that, although Cumberland Council and National Highways are able to put Langholm on road signs just south of the border, technical requirements prevent the same from happening in Scotland. As I said in my speech, that seems to be odd because there are no other primary destinations. Such signs can have up to six destinations on them, but there are not six destinations on the signs in this case, so there is space. It seems to be a shame to hide behind technical requirements.