Nuclear Energy: Scotland

Graham Leadbitter Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Susan Murray]

I agree. The important thing is that we identify suitable sites.

Nuclear power generation offers skilled, well-paid jobs and a long-lasting and predictable energy supply. For the first time in history, more than 100,000 people work in the industry across the UK—but, sadly, they are not in Scotland. Since 2014, England has gained more than 47,000 nuclear jobs, but Scotland has gained just 661. One in 10 workers at Hinkley Point C is a Scot forced to travel hundreds of miles each week to work in England.

Let us compare that with Wales, where the Wylfa small modular reactor will bring an initial investment of £2.5 billion to Anglesey and up to 3,000 jobs at peak construction, all at one site. The Welsh Government have signed an agreement with Sizewell C that could be worth up to £900 million to their supply chain. The SNP has signed no such agreement, despite the UK Government offering to sit down with its Members to put opportunities on the table. I welcome the Minister’s recent attempt to start talks with the Scottish Government on maintaining production at the Torness site beyond its current scheduled closure in 2030. Will she ensure that young people in Scotland can access apprenticeships at new sites such as Wylfa? I do not believe that young Scots deserve to have their career opportunities limited by the short-sighted political games of the SNP.

Communities that already host nuclear know its value. East Lothian council passed a motion asking the UK Government to investigate the possibility of a new power station on the Torness site. The community wants nuclear to remain, but regardless of the community’s wishes or of how many families could be supported by jobs, how much it could reduce energy bills and how much it could improve UK energy security, the SNP’s position will prevent that.

The SNP ignores the economic benefits that low-carbon nuclear power generation could bring to Scotland. That feels like the short-sighted approach of the Conservatives when they sold off the British National Oil Corporation, then Britoil, in 1982. Given that the SNP is willing to sacrifice our energy security and the jobs that support nearly 800 families at Torness, will the Minister say what plans there are to balance the grid when Torness goes offline? How much is it expected to impact electricity prices, and how many employees at Torness have been offered alternative employment?

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

Current cost estimates for Sizewell C are close to £40 billion, and the Government estimate that the necessary nuclear waste facility will cost up to £60 billion. It has been described by one Government Department as “unachievable”. Independent experts are suggesting that costs could be closer to £70 billion for the waste facility alone. Is it not unacceptable to pile those eye-watering costs on to bill payers? Should we not instead invest in cheaper, cleaner energy technology, such as deep geothermal and tidal stream energy, which could deliver the baseload?

[Susan Murray]

We should include other energy sources in the baseload. The strike price of wind has been lower than nuclear, but it is important that there is a geographically predictable source of energy for the grid. That helps to reduce transmission costs. Although the investment will be significant, it is likely to be less than the hon. Member mentioned and will produce a stable, reliable source of energy, which in time will bring down household bills.

This issue is about more than jobs within the nuclear industry. Nuclear can strengthen the UK’s energy security and give heavy industry—from steel and ceramics to new tech companies—the steady supply of power that they need to grow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Stuart. I thank my namesake, the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray), for securing this important debate about an issue of huge concern and importance to all our constituents. I am an MP for Edinburgh and for East Lothian; I am one of two MPs for the county, which is home to Torness nuclear power station, Scotland’s only remaining nuclear power station, with 40 years of local expertise.

Torness is scheduled to close in 2030, despite powering 2 million homes and employing 500 workers. The SNP’s arbitrary ban on nuclear in Scotland means that nothing will replace it. New nuclear at Torness is backed by the Labour-led East Lothian council, the GMB, workers, residents and me. As the local MP, I support it because it will bring jobs, protect the environment and lower bills. Everybody backs new nuclear at Torness, except the SNP.

[Graham Leadbitter]

The hon. Member suggests that new nuclear would cut bills, but the nuclear power stations that are being built are manifestly not cutting bills. Building new nuclear power stations will add to bills. A nuclear waste facility could cost as much as £70 billion; nobody has described how that is actually going to happen, even though it needs to happen, and how it will be paid for. It will probably go on to bill payers. How will that reduce bills for anybody within any kind of reasonable timescale?

[Chris Murray]

I profoundly reject everything the hon. Member just said. One need only look at France, where 15 years ago or so the French Government pursued a policy of nuclear. France’s domestic bills are a quarter lower than Scotland’s and its industrial bills are half what they are in Scotland. The minute we had the policy security that the SNP has blocked for the last 20 years in Scotland, we would be able to crowd in the private investment that nuclear would have. As it is, nuclear expertise and nuclear investment are going south into England and not coming to Scotland, thanks to the decisions of his party.

I cannot understand how the SNP can support drilling in the North sea for oil and gas, yet not support nuclear in East Lothian. The ban on nuclear is possibly the most baleful, pernicious and counterproductive of all the SNP’s policies. As someone who cares passionately about climate change, it boggles my mind that after the hottest summer on human record, in which oil and gas companies have posted record profits, SNP policy is to oppose nuclear power stations and support a tax cut for oil and gas companies.

Anybody who supports renewables and wants to see a just transition from fossil fuels to renewables must support nuclear. We need the energy resources for when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow. The right question we must ask is this: what is the alternative? It is either nuclear or oil and gas. I say nuclear; the SNP supports further fossil fuels. Nobody is arguing that nuclear is risk-free, but the risks of nuclear are far lower, first, than they ever were and, secondly, than those of fossil fuels, which are literally boiling our planet. The risk from fossil fuels has attenuated, but it is higher than it is with nuclear.

My final point is that we must look internationally. Germany, after shutting down its nuclear power stations, now burns more coal than any other European country. Arguably, the party that has done the most to increase carbon emissions in Europe is the German Green party, which pushed the country off nuclear. Compare that with France, where, as I said, 70% of the grid is nuclear. Industrial bills there are half those in Scotland, and domestic bills are a quarter lower. We know that if we want to gain support for the just transition, we need to get bills lower.

Every other party in the House of Commons now supports nuclear energy—even the Greens, even the Liberal Democrats; there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repenteth. Only the SNP is the blocker. My question for the Government is this: what can we possibly do to persuade the SNP to stop blocking nuclear and allow it to lower bills and create a just transition to protect the environment?

--- Later in debate ---

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

Good afternoon. It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Mr Stuart, as always. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall. From the outset, I notify Members of my membership of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament; I am most definitely ideologically opposed to nuclear, although it irritates me when the phrase is used as some sort of insult, such as indulging in student politics.

Let me explain some of the reasons why I am opposed. It is utterly ludicrous to suggest that nuclear is a green energy source. How can it be when it produces radioactive waste with long-term toxicity that is hazardous for thousands of years? Nuclear is certainly not a low-carbon source either. The powerful and wealthy pro-nuclear lobby, which we in this place are very familiar with, ignores the large carbon emissions arising from the uranium fuel cycle and, of course, from nuclear waste disposal. It is proven that nuclear power generation produces up to 20 times more CO₂ per megawatt-hour than renewable sources, while the actual construction of nuclear stations releases enormous quantities of CO₂. Compared with renewables, nuclear power is definitely not a low-carbon source.

What about the astronomical construction costs? Initially, those for Hinkley Point C were estimated at £18 billion, but that has increased several times over the years; now EDF says that the cost is £32 billion and rising because of inflation. Clearly, nuclear construction costs are massively higher than those for renewable energy. The bottom line is that nuclear is just not value for money. Why does anyone think that Scotland having more nuclear sites will be any different?

The ongoing Hinkley saga also proves that it takes ages to build nuclear sites. On average, to plan and build a nuclear reactor takes nearly two decades. New nuclear power is not coming anytime soon. Nuclear is no quick fix or solution for families struggling with energy bills in this cost of living crisis—not now, and not for many years to come.

[Graham Leadbitter]

To emphasise a point that I made earlier, there are alternatives. We could invest in things such as geothermal; deep geothermal can generate huge amounts of heat, and therefore steam, to power the turbine generation of electricity. It can be done for a fraction of the price, it can be built in a fraction of the time, it is clean and it leaves no waste legacy in the way that nuclear does. Does the hon. Member agree that that would be a useful way forward?

[Brian Leishman]

I agree that we need an energy mix and yes, of course, in the testing circumstances we face now, we should look at exploring a wide variety and assortment of different energies—but not nuclear.

No real technological advances or fundamentally new designs have been made to nuclear reactors or processes in this century. Large reactors have the same generation III+ designs of the past 25 years. Even the nuclear industry admits that reactor construction and design are cheaper for companies when done on a bigger, not a smaller scale, so the idea that lots of small reactors dotted around the country will be more affordable or safer, or the answer to lower energy costs, is pure fantasy.

Finally, politicians say that the UK will likely be at war with Russia by 2030. If the war hawks are correct, big nuclear power stations or hundreds of small reactor sites up and down the country would surely make communities a target. Other truly green, more affordable and definitely safer energy sources are out there. Renewable energy sources are largely an untapped market. That is an industry the Government could create, shape and control for the benefit of our people. To finish—ahead of time as well—I make no apologies for thinking that that is a far better ideology than having toxic radioactive waste.

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Lumsden]

The Prime Minister mentioned déjà vu at Prime Minister’s questions, and I must say I am suffering from a bit of the same. I fondly remember many debates in the Scottish Parliament in which I made the case for new nuclear in Scotland, but it was always blocked by the SNP. I have always maintained that we should have an energy mix, and nuclear is vital for our baseload when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow. Without nuclear, it will be a real struggle for the Scottish Government to get to net zero.

I will refer to some of the contributions today. The hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire was right to point out skills and opportunities. This could be a real path for oil and gas workers to make that transition. Another key thing mentioned was grid stability, which I had not thought of. The inertia from the large power stations that we have just now is vital to keeping the grid stable. It would be good to hear from the Minister what plans there are to replace that once Torness closes.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) described the renaissance of nuclear and all the benefits, but Scotland is being left behind just now in relation to jobs, skills and local economies. Instead, the SNP wants to carpet-bomb our countryside with monster pylons and battery storage.

[Graham Leadbitter]

I just want to know how the hon. Member thinks that energy from nuclear power stations the length and breadth of the country would be transported about the country.

[Douglas Lumsden]

That is a brilliant point, because we would probably be building new nuclear power stations where the grid already is. We already have the grid connection at Hunterston and at Torness. It is exactly why we should be backing new nuclear.

It is clear that the SNP’s effective ban on new nuclear power is holding Scotland back, in terms of both our energy transition and our economy. Right now, Scotland has the most expensive and vulnerable grid in the UK, and much of that is down to the fact that the SNP has turned its back on nuclear. When I was an MSP, I was fortunate enough to visit Hunterston B. What a wasted opportunity that is. It has the grid connection and the space—it is all there; it just needs the political will to make it happen so that we can have Hunterston C.

As we progress to sourcing more and more of our energy from renewables such as wind, the problem of intermittency will only get worse. The irony is that the SNP’s irrational opposition to new nuclear means that a future Scotland would be completely reliant on English nuclear power when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. Luckily, we have a UK grid, so we share the power with our neighbours, and Scotland will not face blackouts because of SNP failures. But while our shared grid means that Scotland will not miss out on imported nuclear energy, thanks to the SNP’s blind opposition we are missing out on thousands of jobs and billions of pounds of investment.

During my visit to Hunterston, I met the young graduates and apprentices there. It was heartbreaking to hear that, to have a future in nuclear, they were going to have to move away from Scotland—talented young people in highly paid jobs moving away because of the SNP’s dogma. It is interesting to hear that one in 10 people at Hinkley Point C are Scots.

What makes the SNP’s luddite approach totally senseless is that people in Scotland want new nuclear. We have heard it again this afternoon. Sixty per cent of the Scottish public are in favour of building new nuclear power stations to replace those being decommissioned. East Lothian, Dumfries and Galloway and Highland councils have all called for new nuclear development. Many of the jobs and much of the investment that could be generated by new nuclear would go to some of Scotland’s most deprived communities. We are in desperate need of thriving local industries, yet the SNP, which loves to talk about devolution, has overruled those local wishes.

For far too long, the SNP has weaponised devolved powers over planning to block new nuclear, which of course is a reserved issue. The SNP’s bizarre opposition to this clean and consistent energy goes against science, against all common sense and against the wishes of the Scottish public. The clear cross-party consensus from the Scottish MPs in the Chamber—apart from the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) and the SNP, of course—shows just how backward John Swinney’s position really is.

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to this important debate. I very much hope that nuclear energy will have a bright future in Scotland. If we are to transition beyond fossil fuels in the long term, nuclear will be a vital part of our energy mix. Scotland must not miss out as a result of the SNP luddites.

--- Later in debate ---

[Melanie Ward]

We have had a strong showing from Ayrshire colleagues in this debate because of the impact that the closure of Hunterston has had on their communities, as my hon. Friend points out. The SNP will need to answer to the people of Ayrshire about why it has taken away the possibility of thousands of new jobs in their communities. There is no logical reason for it.

Visiting the station at Torness brought home to me that what is at stake in this debate is families’ futures. Highly skilled workers at Torness told me that they will likely have no option but to leave their homes in Scotland when the station closes, taking those specialist skills elsewhere—to England and Wales, or even overseas. Some of those men and women are part of generations of the same family that have worked at that site, and their rightful pride in that heritage was clear to see. The hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire asked if Torness could theoretically go beyond 2030. The answer is that if EDF wishes to do that and makes a successful case to the regulator, indeed it is possible that that could happen.

In this debate, we need to focus on the facts about civil nuclear power. There is too much myth and fallacy around this topic. The British nuclear sector continues to operate safely and securely, and that is not simply the industry’s assertion; it is the evidence-based conclusion of the independent chief nuclear inspector in his recent annual report. The UN International Atomic Energy Agency calls nuclear

“one of the safest forms of energy generation there is”.

My hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) helpfully trailed his speech in the media at the weekend, so I asked the Unite shop steward at Torness what he thought of the suggestion that we should make decisions about what is best for the future of our country based on the potential likes and dislikes of Vladimir Putin. His answer was:

“This is clutching at straws.”

My hon. Friend also mentioned construction. I refer him to the 26,000 new jobs created by construction at Hinkley Point C.

The reality is that countries such as Denmark, Poland and Japan are actively stepping up their plans on nuclear energy, while others, such as Sweden, Belgium and Italy, are reversing their previous anti-nuclear stances. In France, 70% of electricity is supplied by nuclear power, as we have heard. To be anti-nuclear power in Europe today is increasingly to be an outlier. I say to the SNP that Scotland deserves better than that.

[Graham Leadbitter]

I welcome the Minister to her place, but to suggest that to be anti-nuclear is to be anti-baseload or anti other forms of useful energy that can provide baseload is absolute nonsense. Will she accept that looking only at nuclear, and not properly backing things such as geothermal or tidal energy, is a blinkered approach? We could be creating many jobs in Scotland from those forms of energy—God knows we know how to drill a hole and get stuff out of it.

[Melanie Ward]

I certainly did not say that we were anti-baseload, which would be a ridiculous argument. In fact, I am proud that this Government are making record investment in renewable energy; I mentioned at the start of my speech that I have seen some of it myself since I was appointed. The point I am making is that the SNP Scottish Government are leaving Scotland behind in jobs and opportunities.

Speaking of jobs and opportunities, we know that the UK and Scotland used to lead the world in nuclear power. On that note, it has been interesting to hear the comments made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden), and the Conservative party in recent days. They may need this Labour Government to remind them that, in 14 years of Tory rule, their record on investment in new nuclear energy was zero, so their new-found enthusiasm rings a little hollow. We also reject the proposals made by his party’s spokespeople to rip up the Scotland Act 1998 and override Holyrood’s planning powers to force nuclear projects through. This Government will not take that path; we believe in the decentralisation of power, and we respect devolution.