Richard Leonard
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“And yet we still hear calls, even during this stage 3 debate, in this, the third decade of the 21st century, in this Parliament, for the entitled voice of the laird and the privileged status of the landlord to be afforded their due place, as if they were a silent—they were an underrepresented—class in our society. If only they were.”
“It feels right to make my final speech in a debate led for Labour by Rhoda Grant, whose unswerving, loyal support to me in Parliament I have valued above all others’, and in a debate which, at its very essence, is about power, is about wealth, is about control and its ugly, unequal distribution.”
“Before I finish, before I leave for the very last time, I want to thank the outstanding people who have worked with me over the last 10 years: Billy McCauley, Thomas Mulvey, Craig Miller, Lesley Brennan, Lauren Harper, Linda Shevlin, Rich Simcox, and the one person who has been there from the very first to the very last, Mike Holmes.”
“So let me finish where it all began: two years after the very first crofters holdings act was passed, in direct response to the land raids, the forced Highland clearances, the battles against eviction—resistance often led by the women of the crofts—it was the crofters, led by their MP, Dr G B Clark, and the miners, led by Keir Hardie, who…”
“Eight years in the making, the Government has come up with a largely technical bill, which we will vote for, but it is the same formula that the Government has been habitually serving up—on the broader question of land reform, on a national care service, on community wealth building.”
“This is my last speech to Parliament as a member, after 10 years. As a back bencher and a front bencher, as a party leader and a committee convener, I have always tried to speak out not only for the labour and trade union movement who sent me here, but for all of those oppressed, denied justice, exploited, voiceless—and so, for those seas…”
The complete record
Every one of 399 lines we hold for Richard Leonard, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 8.
“In the coming weeks, I will be leaving this Parliament for the very last time. When I was first elected 10 years ago, I vowed in coming here to leave the world better than when I found it. I am not sure that I have done that, but I believe that Monica Lennon, who was first elected in the same election as me, in the same region as me and from the same party as me, can say that, in that time, she has made a difference by taking on period poverty and stigma, and now with this bill, by taking on those guilty of causing severe environmental harm. The bill will make criminal accountability for intentional and reckless environmental destruction not a theoretical consideration but a legislative reality. That is precisely what the Parliament was founded to do—to legislate, to act and to leave the world better than when we found it.”
“To ask the Scottish Government when it last met the United States consul general in Edinburgh to discuss Scotland’s international strategy. (S6O- 05426)”
“To ask the Scottish Government what consultation it has entered into with the Scottish Information Commissioner regarding the publication of the controlling interests of recipients of payments made under the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024. (S6O-05389)”
“It is time that we saw action and that we saw new investment in our Fire and Rescue Service, in our firefighters, in our communities. That is what I will continue to campaign for, inside and outside this Parliament. 13:16”
“And just last week in Parliament, I revealed that, while the SNP Government’s budget for the removal of dangerous, highly flammable cladding in the wake of the Grenfell tower tragedy was £35 million last year, only £6 million of that was spent. It is another example of how little this Government regards community and fire safety, how little it understands the risks posed to firefighters and the public by these unsafe buildings, how lightly it takes its serious duty of care to these residents— especially those who are most at risk: children, those with a disability, the elderly and the frail— who are still waiting more than eight years after the Grenfell tragedy, simply for their homes to be made safe. It is high time that we ended this indifference, this callous disregard.”
“Well, as the Fire Brigade’s Union’s Scottish secretary, John McKenzie, has explained, “the capital budget increase of less than £1.5 million”— that is for the entire Scottish Fire and Rescue Service— “is utterly inadequate and sits against an £818 million capital backlog, leaving fire stations not fit for purpose, some held up by scaffolding and many without adequate toilets or running water.” Meanwhile, the Government continues to throw millions extra for a new information technology system for the Fire and Rescue Service at the US- owned multinational corporation Motorola, having already wasted millions on a botched IT system splashed out to the French-owned multinational corporation Systel.”
“We also spoke that Friday before Christmas about the new fire station that had been promised when reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete was discovered at the station, which was built back in the 1970s. We spoke about it, because that new replacement fire station has now been shelved, because of the same service delivery review. I have to say that it beggars belief that, as we marked in Parliament just last month, 70 years ago, an earlier generation could build an entire new town in Cumbernauld; now this Scottish National Party Government in this generation cannot even build a new fire station in Cumbernauld. And what of this week’s budget?”
“It is when the risk is greatest”; even though, as another younger firefighter told me: “The very first video you are shown when you start your training is about time critical: the difference that two to three minutes can make”; and even though, as Scott Fleming, the local Fire Brigades Union representative, told me: “There are fewer house fires: but the fatalities from house fires have not dropped.” So, even though these are the experiences, this is the evidence and these are the facts, the minister will tell us that these are purely operational matters for the service to decide, when, in truth, these are life-and-death matters, and so political and moral matters for this Government and for this Minister for Victims and Community Safety to decide. There are other considerations, too.”
“I thank Maggie Chapman for lodging the motion in Parliament, which I am delighted to support. A few weeks ago, one Friday afternoon, I sat down with firefighters at the Cumbernauld fire station. It is a station which is set to be downgraded under the so-called service delivery review, with proposals to cut firefighters’ hours, with proposals to cut the number of fire appliances and with proposals to cut emergency cover on the night shift—even though the population that the Cumbernauld station serves is rising; even though, as one long-serving firefighter told me: “Every bad incident I’ve experienced has been at night- time.”
“So, we will need to act, and the Government will need to act, with a much greater sense of urgency, with a much greater sense of transparency, with a much greater sense of social and moral purpose. The Government will need to act, and it must back that up with active investment to make building safety and lives—not a building safety levy—a matter of political priority. The money is there. Stop delaying it. Get on with the job. 16:06”
“In his evidence to Parliament on this levy, he said: “Only one thing will drive change, and that is regulatory pressure ... Regulation is what protects the public. There is not a building regulation in this country that is not written with the blood and tears of people who lived in substandard buildings.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 7 October 2025; c 28.] I reflect on what has happened in my lifetime—the blood and the tears of the victims and their relatives of Ronan Point in the 60s, of Summerland in the 70s, of Garnock Court in the 90s, of Grenfell tower in 2017 and of Le Constellation in Switzerland just last week. Those tragedies and those histories teach us that Peter Drummond is right.”
“And they are being met with silence and with inaction. They are missing, ignored, shut out, nowhere to be seen on these Scottish Government advisory bodies. If ever there was an emergency crying out for political leadership, this is it. And do not tell us, and do not tell those residents, that it is too complicated. A duty of care is not a legal complication—it is a moral obligation. Even the minister’s own expert advisory group on the levy, in sheer frustration, opines that we do not yet know how many units the levy will be charged on, how long the levy will run for, what the full cost of cladding remediation work will be or even who will be paying it. Let me finish with the words of Peter Drummond, from the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland.”
“Residents tell me of factors hiking up fees, of insurers hiking up premiums, of structural engineers and of single building assessments taking years. They tell me of work still to be put out to tender and of—and I quote— “utter frustration … while the government drags this out”. And then the minister comes along to the Finance and Public Administration Committee to announce that the levy we are being asked to begin to legislate for today—originally to be introduced from April 2027—will not now come into force until 2028. Meanwhile, we have people, including children, the elderly, the infirm, the frail, the disabled— those who were disproportionately among the fatalities at Grenfell tower—going to bed every night in tower blocks across Scotland that are demonstrably unsafe and are a fire risk.”
“On 17 December, at this Parliament’s Public Audit Committee, the Auditor General gave evidence on the Scottish Government’s consolidated accounts, in which it was revealed that one of the outstanding areas of this Government’s underspend was cladding remediation. Last year, £35 million was budgeted for cladding remediation, but, scandalously, only £6 million was spent. The Government has got expert advisory groups, ministerial working groups, cladding programme stakeholder groups—there is even a Scottish Government cladding remediation directorate. But, by quarter 2 of 2025—eight years after Grenfell—while in England nearly 2,500 cladding remediation projects had either started or been completed, in Scotland only three single building assessments had taken place.”
“Rather than house builders having to pay and, in turn, house buyers, for the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland warns that “house buyers will ultimately fund the levy upon purchasing a property”— and I might add renters, because the costs will be passed on to tenants, too—what about those involved in the supply chain? What about those who researched, developed and tested this cladding? What about those who manufactured it? Those who fitted it? Are they not liable? And what about the property speculators, the venture capitalists, the pension and insurance fund asset managers, who have made millions out of these buildings? Are they not liable? But there is something else for the Government to answer for.”
“What this debate is about is not simply taxation. It is not simply about the role of the state and of public finance. It is about how we value human life, public health and community safety. It is about taking action so that never again do we witness the iniquitous, the catastrophic, the tragic events of 14 June 2017, which claimed the lives of 72 people at Grenfell tower. It is also about learning the lessons and heeding the findings from the public inquiry that followed, which concluded that there was “systematic dishonesty”, with its roots in a culture of deregulation and profiteering. Which is why I have some sympathy with those who say that those directly responsible for unsafe cladding should meet the costs of cladding remediation, and that, under this proposal, the scrupulous are having to pay for the unscrupulous.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether regional news serves an important function in a democracy. (S6O-05324)”
“When will the First Minister act and use the powers that he has—before the current session of Parliament ends—to address this national stain and close this shameful loophole?”
“Presiding Officer, “Well, those conditions look unacceptable—completely unacceptable.” Those were the First Minister’s words last year when he was shown footage of the overcrowded, unfit and unsafe living conditions of seasonal migrant workers on farms in Scotland. Then, the First Minister promised to close the loopholes in legislation that leave these workers unprotected. Less than a month ago, the Cabinet Secretary for Housing told us: “We know that there is a gap in protection ... the Scottish Government will look to introduce a set of bespoke statutory accommodation standards”.—[Written Answers, 19 November 2025; S6W-41436.] However, yesterday, in response to a shocking new BBC Scotland report, the First Minister said that the laws already exist and are regulated by local councils.”
“I remind members of my voluntary registration of trade union interests. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to address the issue of assaults against transport workers. (S6O-05308)”
“Therefore, I strongly suggest to the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans that parliamentary time be made available for the cabinet secretary to come to the chamber and address the findings of the Auditor General’s report, which is of critical importance to our country. The Presiding Officer: I call the minister to respond on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau. 17:29”
“He appoints the board and oversees the sponsorship relationship. He is accountable to this Parliament for how that system of governance operates, and I think that Richard Leonard knows that. In that context, the Auditor General has identified a failure by the Scottish Government to appoint an accountable officer. That is a clear statutory duty, and Parliament must be able to examine, in the chamber and through the committee structure of the Parliament, how that duty was allowed to go unmet and what damage that failure has caused. That is a responsibility of the cabinet secretary that cannot be delegated away; it cannot be blurred by process or shifted on to civil servants. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Kerr. You must conclude. Stephen Kerr: It is the cabinet secretary’s responsibility, and he is answerable to Parliament.”
“I rise as the convener of the Public Audit Committee. Is Stephen Kerr aware that the Public Audit Committee will be taking evidence on this section 22 report, and is he aware that the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee is also taking evidence on this section 22 report? Stephen Kerr: I did not realise that there were limitations to the scrutiny of Parliament. I did not realise that it was somehow out of order for a cabinet secretary to be brought to the chamber to account for his failings in the discharge of his responsibilities, according to no less an authority than the Auditor General for Scotland. Historic Environment Scotland is a non-departmental public body and the Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture is the responsible minister.”
“We will be voting for this Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill this afternoon. Many of us will be doing so not only with moral purpose and passion forged on personal experience, but with political principle as well. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Jamie Halcro Johnston to close on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. 15:49”
“Where there has been good understanding and where good progress has been made is on the need to raise awareness of the new offence, because our purpose in voting for the legislation is for it to act as a deterrent. While Maurice Golden and I differ on his custodial approach, we can agree that we need to stop dog thefts happening in the first place. We can agree that, when they do happen, we need to raise the probability of the safe return of the dog to their home. Let me finish with the principles and the values that lie behind the legislation. Dogs are not property—they are living, sentient beings. They are not commodities—they are companions. They are not a lower form of life, but an equal form of life. Without them, for many of us, there would be a loneliness of the soul.”
“On the other hand, I do accept the argument that post-legislative scrutiny is the prerogative of this Parliament and not of the Government, but that, in turn, requires good data—good data collection and transparency—so that future members of Parliament are able to follow the evidence. As a matter of record, that is something that the Government and its agencies are not always very good at providing. We need action in this area, because people and Parliament deserve more than words of admonishment by the Auditor General for Scotland or criticism by the Public Audit Committee. People deserve action and a wholesale change in political culture.”
“Accountability is important for the functioning of our democracy, and the minister appears before Parliament as a prisoner of operational matters far too often, whether it relates to cuts to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service; the continued defiance of laws prohibiting fireworks and pyrotechnics use and the absence of a licensing system for that, which, in my personal experience, is also an animal welfare and animal cruelty issue; or this legislation today on dog theft—each one an important area of policy that the minister has direct responsibility for, and I would ask her to reflect on that.”
“I do not think that it does, but no doubt the minister will clarify. Richard Leonard: For me, it is about a principle—about whether the impact on the victim is a matter of record. I think that it should be and it should be taken into account. Let me turn to something else that has been dropped, and that is the annual reporting on the enforcement of the act. The Minister for Victims and Community Safety told Parliament at stage 1 that providing an annual report on the enforcement of the act “makes it operationally impossible”. I do not accept this, and neither should Parliament.”
“Christine Grahame: Will the member give way on that point? Richard Leonard: I happen to think that it is a useful component in any legal proceedings, because it helps to inform sentencing decisions and brings to our legal system some welcome democratic victim voice. Christine Grahame: Will the member give way? Richard Leonard: But I understand that Government support for the bill was conditional on this being dropped, and Maurice Golden is hemmed in by those dreaded words: “political feasibility”. Similarly, in my view, there could be, and there should be, annual reporting. The minister— Christine Grahame: Will the member give way? Richard Leonard: Yeah, ok. Christine Grahame: That was a bit graceless, Mr Leonard. I am happy to be corrected, but I do not think that a victim statement influences the penalty at the end of the day.”
“This small but important piece of legislation is about animal rights and animal welfare, but it is also about human rights. It is about our values, our principles—it is about our very moral philosophy. As representatives of the people, we must be advocates of the people—and they are clear. The people are clear: they unequivocally want us to pass this law today. So, today it is about us and it is about our responsibility to the people. Let me start on a positive note. It is welcome that the bill now provides for a broader definition of the kind of dog theft that qualifies for an aggravated offence to that of a “helper dog”, but I regret that some other elements of the original version of the bill have been dropped completely. There should be a victim statement, even though we are talking of summary, not solemn, cases.”
“Unite came to the Scottish Government and put forward the idea that there should be conditionality associated with any funding that was given to any of the successful applicants for project willow funding and just transition funding, which would involve those who had lost their jobs at the Grangemouth refinery being prioritised and guaranteed an interview. MiAlgae was at GFIB today as an observer, but it has been offered the opportunity to come on board as a member, and Unite the Union was speaking directly to MiAlgae about the issues that Mr Leonard has raised.”
“Are these documented either in planning agreements or in a memorandum of understanding with these businesses? The Deputy Presiding Officer: We will need briefer questions and responses. Gillian Martin: I will use the two companies that we announced funding for today as an example. Celtic Renewables is already on the Grangemouth future industry board, as is Unite the Union, and there were regular discussions about unionisation at those meetings. There is also the jobs prioritisation scheme, which came from Unite the Union itself.”
“I remind members of my voluntary register of interests. I welcome today’s announcement of new jobs in Grangemouth. I have a long-held view that the fate of too much of our economy is concentrated in the hands of too few boardrooms in too many far- away places and that we are too dependent on foreign direct investment. Look at what happened at the refinery itself—that should be a lesson to us all. I welcome the fact that both of these businesses are in local ownership and control. I think that that is a good start. What undertakings has the Government secured about investment, about jobs and workforce planning, about the timetable for those jobs, about research and development, and about freedom of association—in other words, trade unionisation?”
“I hope that the First Minister will join me in welcoming yesterday’s Supreme Court decision in the case of Crozier v Scottish Power and commend Elaine Veale, whose father, Robert Crozier, died from mesothelioma in 2018, for her unrelenting struggle in an eight-year battle with his former employer, Scottish Power UK plc, to win the case. Will the First Minister join me in condemning the actions of Scottish Power in resisting and obstructing the claim? Will he welcome the fact that, on this occasion at least, the Supreme Court has understood the clear intention of this Parliament in passing the Damages (Asbestos- related Conditions) (Scotland) Act 2009?”
“To ask the Scottish Government what communication the finance secretary has had with the United Kingdom Government and the Financial Conduct Authority regarding what support is available for policyholders impacted by the withdrawal of the family protection plan by CMutual and Maiden Life Försäkrings. (S6O- 05272)”
“On behalf of the Public Audit Committee, I move the motion in my name, That the Parliament notes the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Public Audit Committee’s 3rd Report, 2025 (Session 6), The 2023/24 audit of Ferguson Marine (Port Glasgow) Holdings Limited (SP Paper 846). The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Daniel Johnson to speak to and move amendment S6M- 20036.1. 15:20”
“So, the cross-party parliamentary Public Audit Committee is unanimously calling on this Government to act decisively, because, if it does, this yard, which has a distinctive and proud history, can have a distinctive, proud and positive future. Let me finish with something that Alex Logan, the GMB convener, candidly said to me when we visited the yard back in June. I hope that all parties will pay attention to this. He said: “We don’t want to be just another sub-contractor to BAE Systems. If that’s the case, we may as well just get taken over by BAE and become a defence sub-contractor. But that’s not who we are, or have been for a hundred years.” That is what we need to fight for and that is what this is about.”
“Let me end, Presiding Officer, where I started. The Public Audit Committee of this Parliament wants modernisation in the yard. All we want is for the workers to be given a fighting chance to compete for future work. We think that the workforce should be at the centre of decision making, not at the margins of it, and that, if they had been—instead of a reliance on retired naval commodores and rear admirals, international management consultants and highly paid turnaround directors—there would not have been some of these multiple and repeated failings, and our island communities would have been served by these two ferries quite some time ago. This is a state-owned yard and the Scottish Government is the sole shareholder. There is no shortage of shipbuilding orders out there and no shortage of potential work.”
“In my almost five years of chairing the Public Audit Committee, it has never been those toilers, those lowest-paid workers or those creators of the wealth who break the rules. It is always—always— the highest paid and the most powerful people in an organisation who break the rules. It is as though some people believe that there is one set of rules if you are at the top and another set of rules for the rest of us. Incredibly, we also discovered that, while the organisation operated with an audit and risk committee for three years post-nationalisation, it did not have a dedicated internal audit function until the financial year 2023-24. So, our report is clear—given the scale of historical weaknesses and the number of high-risk areas demanding close attention, the Scottish Government needs to closely monitor the internal audit plan.”
“We should remember that this is in an organisation that is 100 per cent owned by the Scottish Government and so 100 per cent owned by us, and which exists in the first place only because of all of us paying all our taxes. Then there were the exit packages. Three employees left with pay-outs above £95,000— which not only is a considerable amount of public money, but is above the threshold that requires advance Government approval—but this happened with only one out of the three exit payments, so where were the controls, internal and external? Where was the accountability? Where was the governance? Where was the Scottish Government’s sponsor division? Let me offer another personal insight.”
“Here we had an employee—seconded from another public sector organisation, Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd— who decided to form their own limited company in which they were the sole shareholder, in which they were the sole director and into the bank account of which their FMPG salary was paid. Between February 2023 and March 2024, that added up to over £144,000. Neither the board nor even the remuneration committee had approved this arrangement. A substantial sum of unpaid income tax and national insurance contributions had to be reimbursed to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. In the lexicon of the Auditor General, this represented a weakness in governance and transparency, and the committee agreed, but it is hard to conclude anything other than that this was, in my lexicon, a secretive, tax-avoidance con trick.”
“Mind you, this is the board chair who told us in June 2023 that he did not, in his words, “understand the narrative around the term ‘bonus’.”— [Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 1 June 2023; c 17.] Management bonuses were not bonuses; they were “retention payments”, he claimed. He also told us “We would definitely like to deliver some good news in the next six months.”—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 5 February 2025; c 46.] That was 10 months ago. We are still waiting. In carrying out our parliamentary scrutiny and taking evidence on activities like the extraordinary secondment arrangements or the eye-watering exit payments, the committee has had to make tough recommendations. We cannot ignore what went on. Take the secondment.”
“The director general for economy told the committee way back in February: “We need to align the nuts and bolts of what is required for the investment with the strategy and the business plan.” We are still waiting. But our concern is not solely with the Government. When we quizzed the then chair of the FMPG board, Andrew Miller, about the strategic plan for the yard, he answered in both a confused and a confusing way. He told us: “We have been trying to pull that narrative into the future, with substantiated data to articulate the dialogue of what the business needs to do”.—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 5 February 2025; c 45, 41] What chance have you got?”
“It is about the last commercial shipyard on the Clyde. That is why, when the Deputy First Minister told the committee just a few weeks ago, in early October, that, of the £14.2 million that has been set aside for capital investment in the yard, only £570,000 has been spent—that is less than 5 per cent—the committee was alarmed. In paragraphs 49 to 52 of this report, which we should remember was first published in early July, we make it plain—again unanimously—that the Scottish Government needs to act with urgency and that the Scottish Government and FMPG—the ministers and the board—must publish FMPG’s strategy and revised business plan as soon as possible. We are still waiting. The yard simply cannot modernise on the basis of a perpetually pending plan.”
“We did not just sit in Parliament—we went to Port Glasgow and spoke to the workers as well as to the managers. Let me make clear at the outset why we produced our own report, conducted our own investigation and called for this debate in Parliament today. It is because we do not want this yard to fail. It is precisely because, above all else, we want this yard to succeed. So, when the Auditor General warns in his report to this Parliament that he is concerned that Ferguson Marine (Port Glasgow) may not be “a going concern”, the committee has responded by concluding that, without “urgent investment”, and so without new orders, the yard may not survive. So, this report is about securing the yard’s future—we make no apology for that. It is about productivity and investment. It is about jobs and a strategic industry.”
“A forensic examination of the historical accounting records of Ferguson Marine is an audit that the committee strongly recommended be undertaken, because we believe that it is a matter of significant public interest that we properly understand—literally in forensic detail—how public money was spent when the yard was in private ownership between September 2014 and December 2019. The committee report that we are debating this afternoon has its roots in a section 22 report that was laid before Parliament almost a year ago to the day. As part of our inquiry, we took evidence from old and new accountable officers, from the strategic commercial assets division of the Scottish Government, and from the trade union shop stewards in the shipyard itself.”
“Whoever takes over after the elections in May, in the next session of Parliament, can look forward to continuing much of the work that has begun in this session of Parliament, not least the continuing scrutiny of Ferguson Marine (Port Glasgow); the final delivery of the Glen Rosa; a performance audit on completion of that order, which has already been promised to Parliament by the Auditor General; and the results of the forensic audit that is now being undertaken by Grant Thornton, which will be the subject of additional assurance by the Auditor General, ensuring that it will also come before this Parliament.”
“I remind members of my voluntary register of trade union interests. I present this unanimous report to Parliament on behalf of the Public Audit Committee, and I thank all those who have contributed to it, not least the committee clerks and other parliamentary staff for the work that they have put into it. It has been a great privilege to serve as the convener of the committee for the past four and a half years.”
“It is our job to give them hope in place of despair. It is our job to celebrate the past—maybe to mourn some of the past, but certainly to remember the past. But it is also our job to offer those people a better future— a future that they can believe in, like those generations who went before them 70 years ago. 13:09”
“Now, instead, the new station is on hold and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is threatening to remove an appliance and cut back the night shift. I cannot help but think that, 70 years ago, that generation— still in the shadow of war and still saddled with wartime debts—had the vision to build an entire new town, and now our generation cannot even build a new bloody fire station. The great designer, socialist and architect William Morris said: “Apart from the desire to produce beautiful things, the leading passion of my life has been and is hatred of modern civilization.” Well, I do not know what he would have made of Cumbernauld and its incarnation of modern civilisation over the past seven decades, but the people who live and work there are passionate and they deserve so much better.”