(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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.
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 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.
Several hon. Members rose—
Graham Stuart (in the Chair)
We will begin with speeches of four minutes. If everyone is disciplined, everyone will get four minutes.
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?
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I commend the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for securing this debate, and I very much welcome the Minister to her place.
The Magnox reactor at Chapelcross, near Annan, provided highly skilled employment for five decades, supported families, sustained communities and helped to power the country. Like many people living locally, I am deeply frustrated that the possibility of a new nuclear plant on that site has been all but ruled out by dogmatic SNP policy—dogma that runs counter to the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the International Energy Agency, the EU’s Joint Research Centre and the OECD, among others.
Mr Stuart, you will recall that when we first entered Parliament in 2005, nuclear was perceived as a declining industry, but as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on nuclear energy, I have seen at first hand the renaissance that the industry is going through. Sadly, that is happening only in England and Wales, where billions of pounds are being invested, new technologies are being developed, supply chains are growing and thousands of skilled jobs are being created. Scotland, once at the forefront of nuclear generation, is being left behind. That is the only conclusion that any reasonable person can reach when they look at the facts.
The hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire set out the numbers, but I think they are worth repeating. Since 2014, England has added more than 47,000 civil nuclear jobs; Scotland has added just 661. Scotland has missed out on almost 5,000 jobs, while many highly skilled Scots have little choice but to travel south to work on projects that could just as easily be taking place at home. Many people from the Annan area, for example, travel daily to west Cumbria when they would much rather be working closer to home.
While Scotland misses out on jobs, investment and opportunities, what do communities such as mine hear from the Scottish Government? The answer always seems to be more of the same: more pylons, more wind turbines, more solar panels, more substations, more battery storage and more expensive energy, none of which brings substantive employment to the communities actually impacted. When it comes to the skilled jobs, apprenticeships and long-term investment that nuclear can bring, though, the answer from the SNP is an unequivocal no. Dumfries and Galloway council, like East Lothian council and others, has called on the Scottish Government to take a fresh look at nuclear, because they recognise the opportunities that nuclear could bring to their communities.
The irony is that Scotland has some of the best potential nuclear sites anywhere in the United Kingdom. A recent technical assessment by Great British Energy—Nuclear concluded that sites including Torness, Hunterston and Dounreay all have high potential for future nuclear development, if the Scottish Government were willing to reconsider their position. Chapelcross would be ideal for a small modular reactor, and I very much continue to campaign for that to happen in my constituency.
What is the alternative? A grid that is becoming increasingly expensive and volatile—Scotland now spends £1.5 billion a year balancing the electricity system, five times what it spent before Hunterston B was retired. The communities I represent know that the country needs reliable power. They also want good, stable jobs. They understand and have seen for more than five decades that that all comes with a nuclear power station.
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.
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for securing and introducing this important debate.
Over the years in my constituency, the nuclear power stations at Hunterston provided well-paid, skilled jobs and contributed greatly to the local economy. Hunterston A operated from 1964 to 1990, and Hunterston B from 1976 to 2022. Both contributed greatly to the UK grid. This year, Hunterston B became the first advanced gas-cooled reactor to be relicensed for decommissioning. Even now, during the decommissioning process, there are skilled and unionised jobs. They are not in the same numbers as before, but they are still highly skilled jobs that make a huge difference to the constituency and the local economy.
Sadly for us, as we have heard today, in Scotland a “no nuclear” policy stands. We could have so much more with a change in policy. For example, Denmark is currently reviewing its 1985 ban on nuclear power and considering making small modular reactors part of its clean energy grid. Why will the Scottish Government not do the same? Scotland has the most expensive grid in the whole UK and spends £1.5 billion on balancing every year. That is five times more than it spent before Hunterston B was retired.
Small modular reactors are advanced nuclear reactors that produce up to 300 MW per unit, which is about one third of the generating capacity of traditional nuclear reactors. SMRs have many advantages linked to their design. They are physically smaller than conventional stations, have a smaller footprint and can be prefabricated and installed on site. Yet the SNP Government still refuse to move towards nuclear power, despite being the only party in the House of Commons with a blanket stance against nuclear. I was interested to read that 90% of the world’s economy supports expanding nuclear capacity as part of the clean energy strategy. The SNP are lagging behind the future of energy security both in the UK and worldwide.
Scotland has lost out on nearly 5,000 jobs in the nuclear industry, and many Scottish nuclear industry workers are forced to leave Scotland to work in England or Wales at other nuclear sites. It is quite depressing to think how much talent and skill Scotland is choosing to lose to other parts of the UK. In my constituency, an investment in new nuclear would make a great difference, bringing new, highly skilled jobs to the constituency and beyond, and offering badly needed apprenticeships for local young people. The Hunterston site has so much potential. Scotland is missing out on a great opportunity for good jobs thanks to backward SNP decisions.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart.
Graham Stuart (in the Chair)
Sorry to interrupt, but I will call the Front Benchers at 5.23 pm, so if you wish to share your time with your colleague, that would be helpful.
Lillian Jones
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) on securing this important debate.
Scotland has a proud heritage, skilled workers, vast renewable resources and the North sea, but to make the most of those strengths we need an energy policy that is ambitious, practical and focused on the future. Can we really believe that Hunterston B has now ended generation, with no plan to build the next generation of new nuclear? For almost 46 years, that nuclear power station provided reliable, low-carbon electricity to Scotland. At its peak, Hunterston B generated enough electricity to power almost 2 million homes a year. Over its lifetime, it produced just under 300 terawatt-hours of electricity—enough to power every home in Scotland for more than 30 years—while avoiding more than 100 million tonnes of carbon emissions. It supported around 500 jobs and 250 contractors and made a major contribution to Ayrshire’s economy. That is a remarkable legacy, as is that of Torness, which is now the most productive clean power asset in Scotland’s history. Since coming online in 1988, it has generated more than 300 terawatt-hours of clean electricity—enough power for every home in Scotland for around 36 years. It also helped to avoid more than 100 million tonnes of CO2 emissions.
Those are not just statistics; they demonstrate what nuclear power has delivered, and can continue to deliver, for Scotland. Yet Scotland has no new nuclear power station under construction and no future plan. That matters, because nuclear and renewables should not be presented as alternatives—Scotland needs both. Wind power is one of our greatest strengths, but wind does not blow every hour of every day. Nuclear provides dependable, low-carbon electricity alongside renewables. For families and businesses in my constituency and right across Scotland, energy security matters. We have all seen how global events can send our energy prices soaring. More secure domestic generation can reduce our exposure to those shocks and give families and businesses greater certainty.
It is about jobs, too. Hunterston and Torness demonstrated that nuclear investment can deliver highly skilled, unionised jobs, apprenticeships, engineering expertise and opportunities for local supply chains. We should build on that, not turn our backs on it. We should back offshore wind and invest in new technologies, and look seriously at a new generation of nuclear power.
That is the balanced approach that Scotland needs, but the Scottish Government’s energy strategy is nearly three years late. Families and businesses across Ayrshire need certainty now. They want to see new investment in new nuclear energy. Plainly speaking, they want to see the creation of Hunterston C. Hunterston showed us what is possible. Torness is showing us that it is still possible. Scotland needs the ambition to build the next generation of new nuclear. The Scottish Labour party and the UK Labour Government are ready to work with the SNP Government to deliver energy certainty, investment and ambition for our communities and young people. Will the SNP Government drop their ideology on nuclear to help Scotland’s energy future? That is the question.
Graham Stuart (in the Chair)
I call the final Back-Bench speaker, Elaine Stewart, with a two-minute time limit, I am afraid.
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Stuart. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for securing this important debate.
Generations of Scots working in the Ayrshire coalfields once powered this country. As we look to the next generation of clean, reliable energy, Scotland needs to grasp the opportunity of nuclear power to help power our nation once again. Investing in nuclear is not an argument against wind power or renewables. Scotland has extraordinary renewable potential, and wind and solar remain central to our energy future, but when the wind does not blow—although that is not too often in my area—we need reliable power to back it up. Nuclear does not replace renewables; it complements them.
While the UK Government move ahead with major new nuclear investment, the Scottish Government are refusing to act. That inaction has cost us, and we are exposed to volatile gas markets, more dependent on imported fuels and more vulnerable to foreign conflicts thousands of miles away that drive up our bills at home.
This is not just about energy security; it is about jobs and fairness. When coalmining declined, it took jobs and investment with it, and too many communities like mine still feel that loss today. Scotland has missed out on nearly 5,000 jobs, with skilled Scots workers travelling south instead of working at home. Those are not just jobs; they are apprenticeships for our young people, opportunities for the supply chain and decades of stable, well-paid employment.
That also matters for our clean energy goals. We are committed to ambitious decarbonising targets, and nuclear is a proven low-carbon technology that can help us get there without relying on gas. Countries have achieved the fastest, most reliable—
Graham Stuart (in the Chair)
Order. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Jamie Stone.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) on securing this debate. As regards the good-natured jibe from the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), I received it in the manner in which it was intended, but I ken his mother quite well, so I will be having a wee word in another place.
My party’s policy is to support small modular reactors, and we make no bones about it. Their roll-out can provide a hugely cost-effective and safe decarbonisation mix. We also believe that planning should involve taking people with us. That takes me straight to what the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) mentioned: Dounreay. Dounreay was an example, prior to 1954-55, of the tragedy of highland depopulation. Mr Stuart, if you drive up the A9 from Latheron to Thurso, you see cottages—crofts—without roofs; they are open to the skies. People had gone, and it was the curse. That is why there are so many people from highland families living in all corners of the world. In 1954-55, the planning application to build the reactor at Dounreay went through—can you believe this?—in three days flat; these are changed days indeed. Dounreay was a godsend for the area. It not only halted highland depopulation, but reversed it. People were moving in, and the school rolls were going up. I think it would be fair to say that in not just Caithness but the wider area of Sutherland, many a person would work at Dounreay—and still does today. Some would have a croft; they would work at Dounreay in the day and go back and run the croft in their other time. The advent of Dounreay literally kept the lights on in the straths and glens of the highlands. None of us should ever forget that.
Highland council, the local authority, is just the same as the other councils we have heard about. It is keen to get a new reactor, an SMR, at Dounreay. Great British Energy, as my colleagues have mentioned, specifically mentions Dounreay as absolutely suitable for an SMR. Here is the nub of the matter, and it is really my conclusion. At Dounreay, one of the first nuclear sites ever in the UK, we have a licensed site. That is pretty dashed important. We have a highly skilled workforce and a local population that would warmly welcome an SMR. All the bits of the jigsaw are in place—and yet we have heard repeatedly what the roadblock is.
To show the nicer side of my nature—if there is one—could I just gently point out to the Scottish Government that Plaid Cymru has embraced the concept of new nuclear in Wales? I do hope that Plaid and the SNP will talk to each other, because at the end of the day people cannot just go on punting out old policies that have no practical application whatever in Scotland. I hope they take my advice. I long for the day when the jobs come back to Dounreay through an SMR.
Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart, and I welcome the Minister to her place. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for bringing forward this debate. I also welcome the Scottish Liberal Democrats getting off the fence and finally backing new nuclear.
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.
Graham Stuart (in the Chair)
If the Minister wishes to finish at 5.43 pm, she will be able to give the proposer of the debate two minutes to wind up.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Melanie Ward)
Thank you, Mr Stuart. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. Let me begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) on securing this important debate on the future of nuclear energy in Scotland, and thanking her for her kind words. I agree with many of the points that she made.
This debate comes at an opportune time. I am pleased to be responding to it, and to have heard from so many who share this Government’s desire to see Scotland harness the opportunities that civil nuclear power offers to Scotland: the opportunity to create high-quality jobs in communities across our country, and the opportunity to deliver clean, secure and more affordable energy for our people as part of the energy mix of the future, but also the opportunity to deliver on our Prime Minister’s mission to reindustrialise our country and to ensure that conversations about Scotland’s industrial prowess are not just about looking backwards at our heritage, but about building our future, with prosperous, secure and proud communities sustained by skilled jobs.
Scotland is indeed an energy powerhouse. Since taking up my position at the Scotland Office, I have had the privilege of witnessing at first hand a vast array of Scottish energy generation—wind, wave, tidal and nuclear—and, above all, of meeting the skilled and dedicated workforces that keep our nation powered. Just last month, the Secretary of State was in Aberdeen meeting representatives from the oil and gas sector and visiting Great British Energy’s newly opened headquarters.
This week, I went to the power station at Torness, which is one of the great Scottish nuclear power success stories. It provides hundreds of quality jobs in East Lothian and beyond, and it will generate enough electricity over its lifetime to power every home in Scotland for 36 years. Torness is due to stop generating power by 2030. The reason that the site’s days are numbered is the SNP’s outdated ideological planning ban on civil nuclear energy. As we have heard, it is time that that changed.
Alan Gemmell
It is great to see the Minister in her place, and I thank her for a brilliant visit to Prestwick this week. Let me say how proud I am to join my Labour Ayrshire colleagues in calling for nuclear back in Ayrshire at Hunterston, and how frustrated I am at the lack of skills, jobs and investment in our communities. Can the Minister say anything about why the SNP’s anti-scientific, irrational stance is continuing?
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.
David Mundell
How will the Minister persuade the SNP to change its position? If it does not do so, there will not be any nuclear in Scotland, because there will be no investment. Even if there were a Labour Administration in Scotland, people would know that it could change, and we only got nuclear investment in the UK when people understood that both Labour and the Conservatives backed it.
Melanie Ward
I would have more time for that argument if the Conservative Government had themselves invested in nuclear anywhere in the UK during their 14 years in power.
The fact is that the arguments made against the Scottish Government’s position are strong. The UK Government are committed to supporting this industry. We have heard throughout the debate about the 5,000 jobs that Scotland has already missed out on because of the de facto ban. We have heard about the investment taking place in England and Wales; Scotland could have that, too. We in Scotland know the story of deindustrialisation of our communities. The Clyde, Lanarkshire and Ayrshire know that story, as we heard from colleagues today, and my area of Fife also knows it. These are lessons that the Scottish Government should learn.
We have heard so much about the disparity that exists with the rest of the UK. I simply point out again that many Scots say they will be forced to take their skills elsewhere—indeed, many of them already are. For example, 184 Scottish businesses have supported Hinkley Point C during its construction, and 10% of the 12,000 workers on that construction site are Scottish and being forced to travel elsewhere to do those jobs.
I need to wrap up, so let me simply say the following. Companies across Scotland have expressed great interest in supporting the development of our nuclear industry. We heard about the potential at Dounreay, and we know that there is further potential across Scotland, including at Torness. It is also worth noting that 57% of SNP voters support new nuclear energy in Scotland. Trade unions, such as the GMB, Prospect and Unite, tell us that they want to grasp these opportunities, and the SNP should back them.
Scotland stands at a critical juncture. The Scottish Government can stand by and watch jobs, opportunities and Scottish workers go elsewhere, or they can change course and work together with the UK Government, embrace civil nuclear power as part of our energy mix and ensure that Scotland remains an energy leader for generations to come.
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.