Nuclear Energy: Scotland

Susan Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of nuclear energy in Scotland.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I am grateful to see that so many Members wish to speak about this issue. I welcome the Minister to her first debate.

I grew up in Aberdeen, the home of North sea oil and gas. I was there when Aberdeen became a cosmopolitan city. At first, workers from the US and Australia arrived to work on the rigs; then came people from all over the UK. Local Scots developed the skills to join the offshore workforce. Our economy boomed, local businesses grew, businesses relocated and new businesses emerged. New housing was built, and the price of existing homes skyrocketed as incomes rose. The oil extraction bandwagon arrived and communities thrived. Scotland benefited from the economic boost and became known as an energy producer. Now, those oilfields are in decline, the reserves are depleted and the oil and gas bandwagon is leaving town. We must ensure that we do not lose the skilled workforce, and offer it an alternative future in Scotland.

Although the climate emergency means that we need to move away from fossil fuels to low-carbon energy sources, no country has achieved that with renewable electricity alone. Scotland already produces the electricity that it needs from renewables, including hydro and onshore and offshore wind, with the balance of demand coming from Torness nuclear power station—although that is due to end in 2030. With a much greater demand for energy across the UK, Scotland could again be known for energy production and the good-quality, high-paid jobs that it brings.

Our green transition has been successful—I welcome that, and the continued economic growth that it brings—but the wind does not always blow, and we import much of the equipment. We still rely on gas power stations to meet demand and keep the grid stable. Nuclear offers something different. Rolls-Royce is designing small modular reactors that could be built by British workers and give us steady, low-carbon power, whatever the weather. Nuclear offers a future for the people who work in oil and gas, ensuring that they are offered real opportunities outside oil and gas and that we do not lose them to work abroad.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady, with whom I spoke before the debate. The high potential for new nuclear development, which could generate over 1,000 jobs and has the backing of workers and trade unions, is good. Although Northern Ireland has no nuclear modular reactors at all, does she agree that, with energy security becoming increasingly important, there is a significant opportunity for Scotland and Northern Ireland together to attract more jobs and investment? This is an unmissable opportunity to create thousands of skilled jobs and to secure a reliable energy supply not only for Scotland but for Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

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

Given that the hon. Lady has criticised other parties—I agree with her criticism—does she look with any regret at her own party’s position? In 2010, it opposed new nuclear on the basis that it would not come onstream until 2022? Does she think that if they had taken a different position then, we might be paying lower bills now?

[Susan Murray]

I thank the hon. Member for your intervention.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Order. His intervention.

[Susan Murray]

I apologise, Mr Stuart. I was not around in 2010. I always take situations as they are and look to the future. We have to take steps to work on where we are now and not regret what happened in the past.

A stable, reliable power supply will bring down transmission costs and household bills. Siting new small modular reactors at Hunterston and Dounreay could also breathe life back into the highlands and islands, just as oil and gas once did for the north-east. Where remote rural communities are losing their young people, a nuclear site brings the jobs and investment that gives them a reason to stay.

We have seen what happens when a country turns its back on nuclear. Germany took an approach—much like the SNP’s—of decommissioning and deindustrialising, and has gone from exporting 26 terawatt-hours of electricity a year to importing 22 terawatt-hours and relying on coal-powered plants. Now, more than ever, we have a responsibility to protect our environment. Personally, I would rather follow the lead of France than shy away from nuclear. France chose to invest in a low-carbon energy supply, and that has paid off. French households pay around a quarter less for their electricity than households in the UK, and the communities that host nuclear plants have seen the direct benefits in childcare, transport, hospital upgrades and affordable housing.

Scotland could see the same—well-paid jobs, new house building, increased tax revenue and real community benefit, giving people a future and good, well-paid and secure jobs—but the SNP says no. At a time when Scotland faces chronic housing shortages, bus services have been cut by a sixth in just five years, Scots pay some of the highest electricity prices in Europe and remote and rural areas pay exorbitant energy charges, the SNP refuses to even consider such a clear solution.

[Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for listing the many failures of the SNP Government over their time in Holyrood. I wonder whether she might think about why, once they decided not to invest in new nuclear, they did not take steps to make additional or other energy solutions available. We have not had a new pumped hydro storage solution in Scotland since 1965. Does she think about the SNP’s other failures in trying to have a sensible energy policy?

[Susan Murray]

I know that there is new pumped hydro storage coming online from Loch Sloy, and other projects are in the pipeline, but we are considering the situation for nuclear. The SNP refuses even to consider the nuclear solution, even when it is funded by Westminster.

When I speak to my Mid Dunbartonshire constituents about energy, their position is clear: they want to tackle climate change, they want the Government to look after the environment and deliver net zero, and they want cheaper bills. I want the same, as I believe do most people living in Scotland and across the UK. There is a clear solution: small modular reactors producing a predictable cheap, low-carbon energy system. The waste product of nuclear fission is a concern, but nuclear is the only form of energy that prices in decommissioning and waste disposal at the start of the project.

Scotland deserves better than the student politics and political games of the SNP, but I support the stance of the Minister for Energy not to impose unwanted nuclear infrastructure on Scottish communities. The Scottish Parliament should decide, and I am pleased that we now have 10 Liberal Democrat MSPs in Holyrood to influence the debate going forward.

[Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

The hon. Lady made the point that the Scottish Parliament should decide. Does she not agree that it should be the local planning authorities that decide? They should be given proper devolution, which would allow the local communities to decide whether they want nuclear or not.

[Susan Murray]

I agree that on most issues it is for local authorities and planning authorities to make the decisions, but for national infrastructure in Scotland, there is a place for Holyrood to be involved. The plans announced by the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), to override devolved planning laws, should be roundly rejected.

Nuclear offers Scotland thousands of jobs, millions in tax revenue, billions in investment and an opportunity to revive the communities of remote and rural Scotland, which have far too often been left behind. I am proud to be Scottish, with our own education system, health system and legal system. To protect our Scottish identity, Scotland could once again be a leading energy exporter in a way that protects our environment, grows remote and rural communities by providing housing and jobs, and helps to pay for improved connectivity and for saving the Gaelic language.

Scotland has always worked closely with the rest of the UK, with connected and mobile people and products. Nuclear power can continue that tradition by providing low-carbon energy to contribute to our evolving sustainable energy system, to reduce household bills and to supply industry. With that in mind, I have one final ask of the Minister: to build on their assessment of Scotland’s potential nuclear power plant sites by setting out, before the end of this parliamentary term, the jobs and economic benefit that new nuclear could bring to Scotland. That way, we can see in real terms the cost of the SNP’s approach to nuclear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Susan Murray]

I am really pleased to have heard so many excellent contributions to the debate this afternoon, and I thank the Minister, the Opposition spokesperson—the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden)—and my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for their comments. It is clear that there is majority agreement in the room, it is clear that there is an opportunity for Scotland to be an energy source and powerhouse for the UK, and it is clear that the SNP is refusing to grasp this opportunity for families and companies, despite the good examples of success in other countries. I urge the Government to keep pressing the Scottish Government to reconsider their position.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the future of nuclear energy in Scotland.