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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Leadbitter Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

Before we get to the Conservatives’ plan, perhaps we could start with their apology. What about the £22 billion black hole that was left in the public finances by the Conservatives? We are still waiting for the apology.

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

In a Westminster Hall debate on heating oil support this morning, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) suggested that the Scottish Government should be supporting businesses with energy costs. I agree that powers over energy should be totally devolved to the Scottish Government—does the Secretary of State agree with that?

[Mr Alexander]

If SNP Members want guidance on how to deal with energy costs, they could look at the £100 million emergency package that was announced by Scottish Labour only a few days ago. I must express concern, however, because if they are serious about energy, perhaps they could tell the House what happened to the publicly owned energy company that was promised so long ago by Nicola Sturgeon, because the Scottish public are still waiting.

Devolution in Scotland

Graham Leadbitter Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Back in the early ’90s, I was just out of school and getting involved in politics. It was an exciting time, with a constitutional convention, excitement about a new Parliament, and decision making coming closer to home. People in Scotland had the right to decide on whether to have devolution with a Scottish Parliament or keep power at Westminster—and they chose well!

The Scottish Parliament’s early years featured some of the most well-known names in Scottish politics: Donald Dewar, Winnie Ewing, Alex Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon, Jack McConnell, Annabel Goldie, Jim Wallace and, of course, our current First Minister and SNP leader John Swinney, whose public service and commitment to Scotland remains second to none. I add to those names George Reid, who sadly passed away recently. He was respected right across this House and the Scottish Parliament.

The formation of the Scottish Parliament marked my first employment in politics, for former MP and MSP Alasdair Morgan, who retired in 2011 after a distinguished period as Deputy Presiding Officer in the Scottish Parliament. My introduction to politics—working for an MP and MSP, as many in the Scottish Parliament were in its first couple of years—fired up my own desire to go further in politics and become an elected councillor, then a council leader and now a parliamentarian in this place. I did that because of my desire to improve the lives of the people I represent and the people right across Scotland, which is the same reason that colleagues right across the House got into politics.

The Scottish Parliament has led the way in many areas of policy. On tackling child poverty, it is the only part of the UK in which child poverty has fallen. The Scottish child payment of £27.15 a week, introduced by the SNP, has been praised by numerous highly respected charities and organisations in tackling child poverty. On social security, the formation of social security—

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but the Scottish child payment is not just praised by charities; it was their idea. The Child Poverty Action Group campaigned for it for a long time and the Scottish Government opposed it. It was parties in Opposition and charities who made it happen, so they do not just praise it. We should congratulate them on their long campaign that made it happen, and I hope he will join me in that.

[Graham Leadbitter]

The point made is entirely reasonable and I commend the work done by charities and third sector organisations over many years in highlighting that and a wide range of issues. I am grateful that the hon. Member acknowledges that the Scottish Government responded to those concerns and took action, demonstrating exactly the power the Scottish Parliament can have and the difference it can make.

On social security, we introduced the carer’s allowance supplement. We mitigated the bedroom tax and increased the employment rate for disabled people, without resorting to cutting vital welfare support.

[Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)]

I am very much enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s speech reflecting on the many experiences of devolution that have inspired us, but on the point around employment and disabled people, will join me in saying that it is regrettable that the Scottish Government decided to cut employability funding for disability schemes in 2024-25?

[Graham Leadbitter]

I take the hon. Member’s point, but the fact remains that the personal independence payment is currently under threat from the UK Government. That will have a devastating impact on disabled people, and many Labour Members on the Government Benches would agree with that.

On the economy and taxation, we have a more progressive income tax system. More than 50% of people working in Scotland pay less tax than they do elsewhere in the UK. I fully support that as a higher rate taxpayer.

[Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Does he accept the fact that PIP is devolved in Scotland?

[Graham Leadbitter]

It is the adult disability payment in Scotland, rather than PIP. Fundamentally—I am sure the hon. Lady knows this—if the UK Government decide to cut a vast amount out of the social security system, that will have a really significant impact on the Scottish budget. Week after week, Labour Members call for more money to be spent on certain things in Scotland, but at the same time they seem to be suggesting a substantial cut to the Scottish budget with the change to the social security budget.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Graham Leadbitter]

Can I respond to the first intervention first?

If a substantial budget cut comes through on the back of that, that will have a serious impact on what the Scottish Government can do, whatever colour that Scottish Government may be following the next elections.

[Johanna Baxter]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. He talks about a budget cut to the Scottish Government, but does he not recognise that this Westminster Government have actually given the Scottish Government the largest funding settlement in the history of devolution? What has happened to the money?

[Graham Leadbitter]

I gently remind Labour Members that every single year should be the largest devolution budget, because inflation goes up every year. There has not been a negative inflationary year in my lifetime, so it should be going up every year. There should be a record settlement every single year. That is just inflation. That is basic economics. I know those on the Government Benches struggle with that sometimes.

On council tax and water charges, we have the lowest in the UK. We are, for over a decade, the top destination outside London for foreign investment. Since the SNP came to power in 2007, GDP per capita has grown in Scotland by 10.3% and by 6.1% for the rest of the UK.

There are things that have been done, both by the Labour and Liberal Executive in the first few years of the Parliament and by the SNP Government since 2007, that have delivered substantial benefits for the people of Scotland. On health, briefly, we have had more GPs per head than any other part of the UK for the past five years; they are also the best paid, recognising the challenge and importance of that role. Scotland’s core A&Es have been the best performing in the UK for nine years, with lower average waiting times. We have abolished prescription charges and, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) referred to, we have free eye examinations as well. In addition, more than 1,000 school building projects have been completed since 2007, and 96% of our school leavers go into further training, further education or workplaces.

In his submission to the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross described this place as the parent of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, but I would describe the Scottish people as the parent of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government through the Scottish Constitutional Convention. I very much commend the hon. Member for his work in that role. Fundamentally, I would say that the parent of the Scottish Parliament is the Scottish people who voted for it and who continue to back it and elect it and the Government.

That brings me to my final point. The Scottish Parliament is on a journey. It was formed in 1999 and has continued on a journey.

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard other people make the point about that journey and the need for it to go from the Scottish Parliament down to communities. One of the most clamant cases for that journey to continue relates to the administration of the Crown Estate. We now see Crown Estate Scotland behaving in exactly the same way that the Crown Estate did when it was answerable to the Treasury here in London. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his colleagues in the Scottish Government should be devolving control of the Crown Estate—especially the marine estate—to communities like mine in Shetland?

[Graham Leadbitter]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I think the point he is making is reasonable up to a point. We need to be very careful when talking about energy being a matter of national security—

[Mr Carmichael]

No, this is about the seabed.

[Graham Leadbitter]

Well, the seabed is very important for our energy infrastructure, so we need to be really careful about how we deal with that and how we handle that. I would not be averse to having a fuller debate and discussion about the devolution of Crown Estate assets to local communities, but we do need to be careful around the energy links to that and how that could play out to ensure that we maintain the national security of our energy and grid infrastructure.

[Mr Carmichael]

What the hon. Gentleman seems to be saying is that Shetland could not control our own seabed. Does he maybe think we are too wee and too poor for that?

[Graham Leadbitter]

I think the right hon. Gentleman is twisting what I am saying a bit. We are in the realms of getting into a debate about an entirely different subject. I agree with him to an extent—having been a council leader, I have always argued very strongly for more devolution to local government. I made that point very strongly when I attended the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities leaders meeting, and I will continue to do so. I am sure there are many other internal debates within other parties over where powers should rest on particular issues, too. I will continue to make those arguments with colleagues.

I started off by saying that the people of Scotland made the decision—what I believe to be the right decision —to form the Scottish Parliament, and we are now on a journey. My colleagues in the SNP and I believe that that journey will reach independence, and that will then be a new journey with where we go from there. Fundamentally, it is for the people of Scotland to decide. Ministers and others across the House have recognised that the people of Scotland are sovereign and that it is their right to choose and decide; what they have not set out is how they can choose and decide. That is the responsibility of the current UK Government.

Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill

Graham Leadbitter Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 25th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Quigley]

Indeed I do. For example, will there be immigration checks at the border? What happens when someone granted immigration status in Scotland seeks work in Newcastle, Manchester or London? Will employers in those cities suddenly be tasked with verifying whether an individual is subject to Scottish immigration rules? These are not just theoretical concerns; they are real logistical and administrative challenges. Without clarity and co-ordination, businesses across the UK could be forced to navigate a confusing patchwork of immigration rules that add unnecessary complexity and cost to the workforce.

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

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. He talks about the challenges of operating a system across the Scotland-England border effectively. That is not difficult in an age of digital technology. Does he agree that it could be easily achieved? If we can achieve the arrangements that we have with Ireland and a common travel area, why could it not work to have a regional immigration system?

[Mr Quigley]

The hon. Gentleman is asking us to take a leap of faith. The Bill is one line. If he had the answers to those questions already, the referendum result might well have been different. [Interruption.] Sorry, the Bill is two lines.

The Bill could create uncertainty for employers, particularly in sectors that rely on a flexible and diverse labour market, such as construction, healthcare and agriculture. I have outlined the similarities of my constituency to those of my Scottish colleagues, but were I to suggest that the Isle of Wight had its own immigration laws to help correct our demographics and workforce, they would beg me to talk more about ferries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

Which part of the Scottish Labour proposals do I find attractive? Well, this is your Bill, mate. I do not have any comment to make there.

I am the chair of the APPG on beer, which I mentioned, so I have many thoughts on hospitality. The hospitality sector has struggled across the board, particularly in recovering post covid. Growing the sector cannot simply be resolved by changing immigration rules: this is a multifaceted issue. In fact, so many of the areas of change that could help the sector to grow, such as business rates, apprenticeships, tourism and tax, are already devolved to the Scottish Government.

[Graham Leadbitter]

I welcome the fact that the hon. Lady enjoys coming to Scotland for rugby games. I have a Welsh great-uncle who once had a try out for the Welsh national team, so it is a great passion within my family.

On hospitality, however, will the hon. Lady concede that although immigration might not be the only part of the problem, it is a significant part of the problem and we need to deal with it? That is what the Bill is for. There are other things that can be done and that are being explored and worked on by the Scottish Government and other Departments in the UK Government, but we are talking about immigration today. Will she concede that it is a significant issue and that this Bill could help to deal with it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. All the Scottish National party debates that I have seen in this Chamber since I was lucky enough to be elected in 2010 have been predicated on independence. There have been no positive debates about what we can do to make things better for people in Scotland, increase economic growth, create skills and opportunities for the future, tackle inequalities in health or close the attainment gap. Those are all failures of the Scottish National party, but SNP Members do not want to talk about them. I am sure you do not want me to continue to talk about them either, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Graham Leadbitter]

The point that the Secretary of State makes about the oil and gas sector is very pertinent. At Ardersier, the First Minister of Scotland and a representative of the UK Government met with Haventus relatively recently to support the investment there with joint efforts from both Governments. That was very welcome, but to support that we need a thriving service and hospitality sector, which is a real problem in my constituency. In parts of the highlands in Moray, in places such as Nairn and Aviemore, there is a growing population. Despite that, there are hospitality businesses that are open only five days a week out of seven, because they cannot staff them—they cannot get the staff. How does the Secretary of State suggest that we deal with that?

[Ian Murray]

As I have said throughout this debate, this is a really complex area. We cannot deal with it by just pulling on one lever and with a separate immigration system. We can deal with it by providing proper pay in the workplace, which is what we have done through our new deal for working people. We can provide housing, so that people can live there and afford to live there. We can provide connectivity, so that people can move around. A very practical thing that the Scottish Government could have done was to pass on the full rates relief that English hospitality businesses had, which was not passed on to Scottish hospitality businesses. Indeed, despite this Government legislating for a 40% reduction in perpetuity, the Scottish Government still refuse to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I plan to do so later in my speech, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Modifications under section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 —that is, Orders in Council—require Scottish, as well as UK, parliamentary approval. However, modifications via primary legislation only require approval from both Houses of the UK Parliament. By taking this approach, the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry is saying that this is a matter entirely for this Parliament—this House and the other place—cutting out his colleagues in Holyrood. That is an interesting take on events, given that we already have a good relationship between Holyrood and Whitehall on many of the issues we are discussing today.

The most significant and long-term changes to the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament have been made by Acts of Parliament, rather than Orders in Council. That is also interesting; we could have a long discussion about that, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I suspect that I would be trying your patience if I started discussing the constitutional settlement for Scotland, so I will resist that temptation. However, the Scotland Acts 2012 and 2016 implemented recommendations made by the Calman commission and the Smith commission respectively, so there has been change along the way. Devolution was never intended to be a static thing; it was intended to reward the competencies, skills and needs of our devolved bodies, but those bodies need to play properly and professionally, not engage in cheap political gimmicks. I enormously respect the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry, but the flimsiness of this Bill suggests that it has not been properly thought through.

If the Bill were to omit some or all of paragraph B6 of part II of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, it would transfer responsibilities for those matters to the Scottish Parliament. There is a really big issue here, which is why I believe we should not adopt the Bill. We have seen how the different tax rates in Scotland can create challenges, for example with how the armed forces are paid. The Ministry of Defence has a formula for different branches of the armed forces, so someone on a tour in Scotland is paid more to take account of the tax rate. We cannot have two members of our armed forces personnel doing the same job with the same title but earning differently. They are UK armed forces.

[Graham Leadbitter]

Will the hon. Member concede that the current situation in that regard is unacceptable? There are many thousands of personnel working in my constituency who now pay less tax in Scotland; if they get transferred to a base in England they pay more tax, but there is no mechanism in the other direction. It is completely discriminatory against the people of Scotland.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Dare I say it, on the hon. Gentleman’s head be it. It was the Scottish Government who introduced the variation in taxation, which has left a challenge for anybody working in a UK-wide public body or UK-wide company. I repeat that personnel who are doing the same job on the same headline salary are ending up paying different taxes because they are working in different jurisdictions. That has caused a big headache for the Ministry of Defence and has been quite complicated to deliver. That is just one example—we could go into others, but we are here to discuss immigration—of what happens if we heedlessly and recklessly dive into changing something without proper preparation, thoughtful discussion and agreement.

Draft Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 (Scottish Adult Disability Living Allowance) (Consequential Modifications) Order 2025

Graham Leadbitter Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Hobhouse. We fully support this order to support the ongoing work of Social Security Scotland and the Scottish Government.

I was not planning to speak for long, but the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, has opened a few doors for me so I might as well take them. Although Scotland may be the highest taxed part of the UK overall, 51% of its workforce pay less tax than they would in the rest of the UK. It is simply a more progressive system than the rest of the UK.

The Scottish social security system is based on dignity and respect. Many Government Members, and some Opposition Members, will probably welcome that. The UK social security system is incredibly complex—benefit advisers and experts within the system struggle to navigate their way around, never mind the claimants. With this order, there is an opportunity to simplify how people apply for benefits from Social Security Scotland, especially if they have conditions that are not going to improve. People who move on to this benefit in Scotland have the opportunity potentially to apply for the Scottish adult disability payment rather than Scottish adult disability living allowance. That is a choice for the individual, but people have that opportunity and there is dignity and respect at the heart of the process—something that needs to progress much further in the social security system.

My final point is that there is one way to resolve the complexity that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, mentioned: to devolve all the powers of the UK Government to Scotland. I reserve the right to continue to campaign for that circumstance.

Scotland: Transport Links

Graham Leadbitter Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I congratulate the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) on securing this important debate.

As the SNP’s transport spokesperson in Westminster, cross-border connectivity issues are high on my agenda. A lot has been said about the strategic trunk roads—the A74(M), the A1, the various border routes, the A68, the A7 and suchlike—and about the vital investment that our road network requires. Colleagues in the Scottish Government are very much aware of the pressures on the core roads network, and of the work required to maintain and upgrade it.

The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk referred to the Scottish Government’s alleged failure to invest in trunk roads. It is a statement of fact that the capital provided to the Scottish Government was among the worst settlements ever made under the previous Government, which was of course a Government of his party.

[Dr Arthur]

The hon. Gentleman speaks with some knowledge on this subject, but he will know that the Scottish Government have wasted hundreds of millions of pounds on ferries, about which there are major questions. Would he rather that money had been spent on the trunk roads he referred to?

[Graham Leadbitter]

I accept the point about ferries, and I would rather they had arrived on time and that the overspend did not exist, but we can compare that with High Speed 2, which is billions of pounds overspent, and the benefit to Scotland has diminished to near zero. There are other examples, including the Scottish Parliament building in Edinburgh, which was signed off by a Labour Government and was massively overspent. It was not the MSPs who supervised or had oversight of that, so there are examples from across all parties of issues with infrastructure projects. The important thing is obviously to learn from them and stop them happening again, which I fully support.

Looking to the south-west of Scotland, I stayed in Galloway for a couple of years and I know very well what the A75 is like. It is a vital link to Northern Ireland, through the port of Cairnryan, and there is ongoing work there. I welcome the cross-party work on that and hope it can continue, with design improvements to the road. I very much support that, and I know that colleagues in the Scottish Government do as well.

There has been a lot of work and discussion between the Scottish Government and the UK Government on rail issues. I very much welcome the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024, which we fully support. Rail was already in public ownership in Scotland but, in fairness, that legislation has enabled us to ensure that that will continue—public ownership was the operator of last resort, so there was no surety about that, but now there is. There is a lot of mutual interest in getting this right, so will the Minister give an assurance that there will be strong engagement with the Scottish Government as the legislation develops? I hope that much of that can be addressed prior to publication.

Finally, it is vital that we retain the protected slots at the key hub airports, which are critical to our onward connections to the rest of the world. Also, to pre-empt a question of mine that has been selected for tomorrow, and to use this opportunity to give a bit more context, EGNOS, the European geostationary navigation overlay system, is very technical—

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (in the Chair)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

Of course, ferries are increasingly important. I did not want to embarrass the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) by dwelling too much on ferries, because that is something on which the Scottish Government have such an embarrassing record. The ferry links between our islands and the mainland—be they the links with Orkney and Shetland, the Western Isles or across to Northern Ireland—are vital to the economic success of our country, linking communities and providing essential routes for health, leisure and tourism and to export the goods that are produced in those communities.

The way that those communities, especially in the Western Isles, have been let down by SNP ineptitude to deliver new ferries on those routes has been embarrassing. The sight of windows being painted on the side of a ferry just so that it can be launched in a PR stunt by the former First Minister will go down in history as one of the most embarrassing moments for the Scottish Government in recent times. Frankly, they owe an apology to those communities who have been so let down by their failure to invest properly in the future. It is not only the Western Isles; other communities rely on ferry connectivity, and it is essential that they get the funding they deserve.

We do not only have questions to ask of the Scottish Government, whose record on transport is dismal. We also have questions for the UK Labour Government about their own record, the decisions that have been taken and their future plans.

[Graham Leadbitter]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Bowie]

I would be delighted to give way to my SNP friend.

[Graham Leadbitter]

I just wanted to ask the hon. Gentleman to put on the record that he was part of the Government for a significant period of the past 14 years of austerity, during which there were significant reductions in overall capital expenditure. Does he think that helped or hindered investment in strategic capital transport projects?

[Andrew Bowie]

I think what most hindered investment in strategic transport projects was the ineptitude of the Scottish Government. Colleagues and I have already gone through the SNP’s litany of broken promises to communities across Scotland, be that on the A96, the A9, the A90, the work on the A75, the new ferries to the Western Isles or the protection of air routes across Scotland. It is quite rich for a Scottish National party Member to talk about under-investment in transport when his party’s own record is so woeful in that regard; it might be one of the reasons that he and his colleagues number only nine Members of Parliament, compared with the large number that the SNP had in the previous Parliament.

Let me move on from talking about the SNP and focus on the UK Labour Government, because we also have plans for them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Leadbitter Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

A decade on, I am sure the thoughts of the whole House remain with Hollie’s family and friends. I join my hon. Friend in commending the vital work of the Hollie Gazzard Trust. In relation to the steps we are taking, we have a mission to halve the levels of violence against women and girls within a decade. That is really tough to do—nobody has ever committed to that before. I invite everybody across the House in join us in that. That will include, among the steps we are taking, placing domestic abuse experts in 999 control rooms, to ensure that abuse is picked up early; launching a pilot of new domestic abuse protection orders; developing a national framework to track and target high-harm offenders; and strengthening stalking prevention orders. We will take other measures to make good on that commitment.

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

Q12. A WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—woman dies every 13 minutes. That is two women since the Prime Minister took to the Dispatch Box today, and it is 111 women every day, and nearly 17,000 since he took office. How many more WASPI women have to die before the Government take action to give them the financial redress and justice that they are due?

[The Prime Minister]

We are moving at pace on all relevant issues. We passed the Budget to provide the baseline for what we need, and we will continue to do so.