Nuclear Energy: Scotland

Debate between Susan Murray and Graham Leadbitter

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.

Energy Security and Net Zero: Scotland

Debate between Susan Murray and Graham Leadbitter

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Susan Murray]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, which I absolutely agree with. As I have just said, this is something that needs to be looked at, and there is an opportunity to make sure that communities all across the UK benefit from the power generation that they have to live with locally every day. Will Ministers commit to introducing a consistent community benefit and community energy framework for major low-carbon infrastructure, so that host communities—especially in rural and off-gas-grid areas—share in any long-term benefits?

Beyond the initial generation of power, we forget about the grid. None of our ambitions on net zero or energy security will be met if we cannot move the power that we generate around the UK. We must fix the grid; we must stop paying to waste clean energy. We have built the infrastructure to generate power faster than we have built the network to connect and transport it. The result is that bill payers are burdened with the cost of electricity that they cannot use and that cannot be brought to them.

The National Energy System Operator’s annual balancing costs report sets out the scale of the problem. It reports that grid constraint costs increased by 64% in 2024-25, totalling £1.7 billion. The total energy lost to that failure was 13.5 TWh, which is nearly as much as Scotland sent to England. This is not a theoretical cost; it is money that households and businesses pay because the network cannot always carry the clean power that is available. Will Ministers pledge to accelerate grid development and to drive connections reform at pace and with clear milestones, so that we stop paying for unused electricity and improve resilience, particularly for rural and remote communities?

The grid is not just an infrastructure issue; it is an opportunity to redevelop our industrial heartlands. If Scotland is powering the transition, Scotland should also help to build it. Scotland has a proven history in heavy engineering and industrial delivery, with ports, fabrication, and a supply chain shaped by decades of offshore work. The transition should not become a story of “import the kit, export the jobs”.

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

The hon. Member has already covered the EPL, but it is important to recognise that Scottish Renewables and Offshore Energies UK wrote jointly to the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressing their deep concerns about its impact on the transition. It will not be possible to deliver the renewables transition we all want if the North sea is allowed—or even forced—to decline at the rate it is doing, and not enough effort is put into the renewables side and supporting that transition. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government need to address that rapidly? We need pace of decision making and certainty for investors and developers if we are to ensure that we make that transition effectively, which will provide the jobs for the skilled workforce she rightly referred to.

[Susan Murray]

I absolutely agree: the vision is there, but we take too long to make decisions. When that happens, our workforce make their own decisions, and businesses do not come that might have considered coming. We have to support the opportunity that is available to us.

We must look seriously at how we encourage companies to build the components of the green revolution here. We have the skills and a history of great steelworks and dockyards. Those can be revitalised, and our communities alongside them.

However, building at home extends further than just good practice: it reduces risk to supply and security. The National Cyber Security Centre publishes dedicated supply chain security principles to help organisations manage supply chain risk. That is the mindset we need for critical national infrastructure, and we have seen why it matters. UK authorities have been looking into reported cyber-security concerns linked to remote-access features in some electric buses imported from China—the same place that much of our green technology comes from. This is not about sensationalising or point scoring: if supplier risks matter for buses, they certainly matter for the systems that keep the lights on and our countries running. Will the Minister use the industrial strategy to set out clear UK content and supply chain commitments, to ensure that demand for grid and energy production components is not only met in a timely manner but protected from foreign interference?

I finish by returning to the household reality, because net zero will not be delivered by megawatts alone; it will be delivered in homes and communities, and it must be made simple, safe and scalable. The Climate Change Committee’s progress report found a 56% increase in heat pump installations in 2024, driven by increased support from Government schemes, but it is clear that scaling remains the challenge. Households respond to a simple proposition: reliable installers, clear standards, stable support and aftercare. That too should be treated as part of the mission to build a UK production base. A national retrofit and heat pump supply chain would create skilled work in every community. Will Ministers treat heat pumps and retrofits as part of the same mission, supporting an installer pipeline, quality assurance, consumer protection and an end-to-end journey from advice, to finance, to installation, to aftercare?

Scotland is delivering Britain’s energy security and clean power. Now the Government must deliver for Scotland, with fairness, jobs and infrastructure that turn Scotland’s contribution into lower bills and better energy security for everyone.

Russian Influence on UK Politics and Democracy

Debate between Susan Murray and Graham Leadbitter

Monday 9th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for his well-informed opening speech, and congratulate the petitioners on bringing this important issue to the House.

Russian interference is happening today. It is a deliberate strategy to weaken our society, undermine trust and turn democratic politics into a marketplace. Russia does not need to win an election to damage a country. It needs only to convince people that nothing is true, that everyone is bought and that participation is pointless. We know the tools and tactics: disinformation, cyber-attacks, intimidation and crucially—as we have been hearing—money.

We have seen the use of money, in the clearest possible terms, used to buy the influence of British politicians. As we have heard, Reform’s former leader in Wales has been jailed for taking bribes to make statements that advanced pro-Russian narratives while he was an MEP—a violation not only of his position, but of the trust of those who elected him. In that context, and with the victims in mind, the latest revelations about Jeffrey Epstein must be taken seriously. Poland has opened an inquiry into possible links between Epstein and Russian intelligence, and newly released files set out the extent of his ties to Kremlin-linked figures. Those links being proven would underline a brutal reality: hostile states do not just target institutions; they exploit compromised individuals and networks that reach right to the top.

I am therefore calling for three clear steps. First, the public deserve a public inquiry into the Mandelson affair—the vetting failures, the access and any national security implications—so that they can have confidence that the full facts are established and accountability is delivered. The Prime Minister has himself said he was misled. If the lies of Mandelson lead back to the Kremlin through Epstein, the public deserve to know.

Secondly, we must rebuild tighter co-operation with our European allies on intelligence, sanctions enforcement and counter-disinformation.

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

Just last week, the Government said that Russia remains the biggest single threat to UK national security, but they also said that they were not going to join the security action for Europe project. The main reason given was the increase in costs since Brexit. If Russia interfered in Brexit, is that perhaps not exactly the result it was looking for?

[Susan Murray]

I agree with the hon. Member. We need to investigate the circumstances fully and, if it proves necessary, reconsider any decisions that have been taken.

Russian interference is a shared threat, and we are weaker when we act alone. We must shut the loopholes in election law that let Russian money buy access in British politics. Nathan Gill took bribes to push pro-Russian lines—proof that cash for influence is real. On top of that, the Conservatives have taken millions from donors with ties to Russia. Lubov Chernukhin alone donated more than £2 million.

We need transparent donations in British politics. If the money cannot be traced or appears to be buying influence, it has no place in our political system. Given the seriousness of the situation, I strongly urge the Government to consider these proposals and to make every effort to cut out the cancer that is Russian interference in our politics.