Graham Leadbitter MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 17 Dec 2025 · INEOS Chemicals: Grangemouth · Hansard source

  More

  I know that Government Members forget which Parliament they are actually in—who knows, maybe they would feel better in the Scottish Parliament. This is a welcome announcement. For months now, the Scottish Government have been calling on the UK Government to intervene to protect jobs at Grangemouth and Mossmorran at a scale seen in other parts of the UK. The news will give some much needed Christmas cheer, at least to the Grangemouth community and the workers at Ineos Olefins & Polymers. Last week the Scottish Government, jointly with the UK Government and Celtic Renewables, announced an £8.5 million investment at the Grangemouth industrial cluster, including in MiAlgae. That will create up to 460 jobs, demonstrating that a long-term industrial future at the site is achievable. We will continue to do all we can within the limited powers that the Scottish Parliament has. However, the announcement today does not help those at the neighbouring refinery whose jobs have already been lost. Although there may be some crossover support for nearby Mossmorran workers, there is still a substantial gap in support. Will the Minister finally accept that one of the most fundamental causes of the need for support is the fiscal regime being inflicted on oil and gas and the use of the energy profits levy, which make a just transition a near impossibility?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Artificial Intelligence Skills · Hansard source

  More

  Science and technology skills are vital if we are to fully realise the economic and social opportunities available to us, and I am sure the Secretary of State would agree that science centres are a vital part of that ecosystem in engaging and enthusing young people in science, technology, engineering and maths—STEM—learning. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government’s funding of science centres has to date, as described by the sector, been piecemeal? Will she take action in support of the Science Centres for Our Future campaign and get science centres into sustainable and predictable funding arrangements?

• 17 Dec 2025 · National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  While businesses are still reeling from last year’s national insurance increase, with this Bill the Labour Government are set to increase tax again by making salary sacrifice pension contribution schemes worse for workers. What has the Labour party said previously? In its 2024 manifesto, on page 79, it stated: “Our system of state, private, and workplace pensions provide the basis for security in retirement…We will also adopt reforms to workplace pensions to deliver better outcomes for UK savers and pensioners.” It gets even more ridiculous when we see that the same manifesto also stated on page 21: “Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why we will not increase National Insurance”. That is exactly what the Bill does. Recent survey data from the Confederation of British Industry showed that three in four employers will have to decrease pension contributions as a result of the measures in the Bill. As the CBI has said, it is “‘a tax on doing the right thing’”. It goes on to state: “Ultimately, this unwise move will only damage growth, investment and pension saving rates.” It is not just the CBI that has voiced alarm at the Bill. The Association of British Insurers stated: “Capping salary sacrifice for pension saving is a short-sighted tax grab which will lower pension saving and undermine people’s retirement security.” The Minister said in his introduction that “everyone who has thought about this” will come to the same conclusion. He might not wish to refer to the CBI and ABI coming to different conclusions, but they have clearly thought about it. It is not even clear that the measure will raise the money that the Chancellor expects. A former pensions Minister from the coalition era has said that he expects it to raise “a fraction” of the intended amount, as firms will restructure payments to evade it. In addition to the likelihood of payments being restructured, even the OBR has made it clear to the Chancellor that it expects employers simply to pass the cost on to employees through lower wages and less generous schemes. It will be working people who ultimately pay for this short-term thinking, with a lower standard of living and less spending power in their retirement. As we have seen with the maladministration of pension changes for 1950s-born women, politicians cannot and must not change the goalposts on retirement planning without giving significant advance notice. Any approach otherwise, such as in the Bill, is deeply unfair to savers. This move will land businesses with yet more administrative costs, disproportionately hitting small to medium-sized employers who are still absorbing the increased NIC costs from last year’s Budget. Is this muddled policy really from a Government who stood on a pledge of growing the economy? This is yet again another Budget with another rise in national insurance by Labour. There are numerous unanswered questions, but the following are top of the list. What assessment has the Minister made of likely behavioural changes to pension savings as a result of this policy? What is the estimated increased cost to businesses as a result of this policy? Does the Minister anticipate lower pensions for workers as a result of this policy, and if so, how much would the decrease be? Can the Labour Government seriously make a commitment in this Chamber not to increase national insurance in next year’s Budget, given the rises in both their Budgets since coming into power? This Bill is deeply flawed and the SNP will not support it today.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister said this morning that politics is about choices. The Chancellor chose not to disclose the improved tax outlook from the OBR when she addressed the country on 4 November; the Chancellor chose to overstate the challenges with the public finances; the Chancellor chose to withhold the more positive forecasts from her Cabinet colleagues; and the Chancellor chose not to be here today to answer questions on her conduct in office. Does the Minister agree that the Chancellor’s position is untenable and that she should now choose to resign?

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  On both those points, I absolutely do. The previous Government introduced the climate change targets, and they have now withdrawn from those. That is the last thing that the energy sector needs; we need investment in renewables. On the jobs and skills side of things, there is investment from both the UK Government and the Scottish Government. I welcome their partnership on that, but compared with the impact of the energy profits levy, it is frankly small beer. It will not have an impact unless there is an underpinning fiscal regime that actually supports those jobs until we have a renewables sector ready to take those jobs on. That is simply not there at the moment, and unless the fiscal regime changes substantially, those jobs will not be there and people will simply be on the scrapheap. The worst cost of living crisis for any family is when a family member loses their job. Some 1,000 jobs are going every single month in the energy sector, and the transition plan—if the Government actually have one—is doing little to nothing to support those workers, their families, or the communities they live in. The Government must take urgent action on the EPL, or we will have another industrial jobs disaster, such as Ravenscraig, that will reverberate in communities for generations. Let me turn to the plight of WASPI women, who continue tirelessly to campaign against the wrong done to them. A year ago, almost to the day, I asked the Prime Minister when they would be compensated—he flannelled his answer and refused to commit. In the space of that year, around 3,500 WASPI women have died without compensation. The Chancellor made no mention of WASPI women in the Budget statement, despite the Government having to rethink things following recent court proceedings. Action must be taken urgently to give compensation to WASPI women, who have been left without the pensions they deserve because successive Governments communicated with them so badly.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I will focus on particular measures in the Budget that will have a massive impact on my constituents in Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey, and more widely across the north and north-east of Scotland. First, one of the bigger contributors to the cost of living crisis is the cost of energy. To recap where we are at present, the Labour party promised a £300 reduction in energy bills in their manifesto, but since the 2024 election, consumer and business energy bills have risen substantially. It is estimated that by April, energy bills will be up to £560 higher than the Labour party promised. Taking into account the measures in the Budget, they will still be more than £400 higher than promised. The Resolution Foundation estimates that by 2029-30, energy bills will be £60 lower than current prices, making them about £430 higher than at the time when the Labour party made their manifesto commitment. The Labour party’s latest swindle on energy bills is already falling apart. To compound matters, my constituents and businesses in the north of Scotland already pay the second highest level of electricity prices in the UK, second only to north Wales and Merseyside, despite vast amounts of energy being produced on their doorstep. That basically means that those consumers are paying for a regulatory system that was created when Battersea power station sold energy rather than Rolexes—a system that successive Governments have manifestly failed to deal with. It is shocking energy price discrimination, with price increase misery heaped on top.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I would be happy to debate that when it is brought before the House by the Chancellor, if that ever happens. To accelerate the demise of an industry without ensuring that the right and appropriate time is available for the transition is frankly criminal. I have heard many times Labour Members railing against the impact of Thatcherism in the 1980s—and they are right to do so—yet now they are defending their record of doing the same thing to our oil and gas sector. It is utterly shameful.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I agree that we need a publicly owned energy company, and I would fully support that. The problem is that we do not have the full powers of an independent country, which are just the normal powers that we would need to do that. I am glad that the hon. Lady recognises that problem. We are nearly 18 months into this Government and their energy price promises have fallen apart, alongside the collapse in trust in the Chancellor. Secondly, let me come to the Chancellor’s treatment of the North sea. Today, Harbour Energy announced a further 100 job losses, on top of the 350 it announced earlier in the year. Mossmorran, Grangemouth, Aberdeen port and many other sites and companies associated with the North sea energy sector are closing, reducing the workforce or focusing elsewhere in the world, as the sector grapples with a fiscal regime that not only acts as a barrier to investment but is accelerating decline. The latest announcement of job losses is pinned squarely on the Government’s failure to reform the energy profits levy. The decision by the Government to do nothing is akin to Thatcher’s treatment of miners and their communities and the steelworkers at Ravenscraig.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  We have made the point repeatedly that there can be additional funding from banks, which I know hon. Members from the Liberal Democrats agree with, and funding could certainly be made available through a wealth tax, which we have supported for a long time. The one thing I can welcome from the UK Government in this Budget is the removal of the two-child benefit cap, but I have questions for Labour Members. A principled few Members voted in support of the SNP’s amendment to the King’s Speech nearly 18 months ago, including the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon)—I agreed with pretty much everything he said earlier. That could have happened then, but Labour Members chose not to support it. I am glad and grateful that they do now.

• 25 Nov 2025 · COP30 · Hansard source

  More

  Right across the world, people’s day-to-day lives are being destroyed by the impacts of climate change and associated industrial activity, from the indigenous tribes of the Amazon seeing their rainforest home destroyed around them, to island peoples in the Pacific, whose nations will literally cease to exist as water levels rise. To many people looking at COP30, it feels like developed nations are taking a somewhat protectionist view at the expense of millions of people. In years to come, when the Secretary of State looks back at this COP, will he be able to say that he did absolutely everything he could for those people? From here, it does not look good for so many people who are on the brink.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Pride in Place Funding: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  13. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of Pride in Place funding eligibility criteria in Scotland.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Pride in Place Funding: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  The Government are encouraging towns across the UK to apply for Pride in Place funding, but with the specific exclusion that any town applying should not be located in a UK parliamentary constituency with a phase 1 neighbourhood. Does the Minister appreciate that in my constituency of Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey, this would exclude Nairn from applying because Elgin is already in receipt of funding, despite Nairn being in a different unitary authority and not even being in the same constituency prior to boundary changes? As a further example, it would also exclude Shetland from applying because Orkney already has funding. Does the Minister agree that this exclusion is nonsensical and discriminatory against large geographies, and needs to be changed?

• 20 Nov 2025 · Russian Ship Yantar · Hansard source

  More

  I associate myself with comments about the bravery and professionalism of the military personnel involved in the response to the Yantar’s presence, many of whom are based at Lossiemouth in my constituency. Yesterday, the Defence Committee published a report recommending that the UK Government accelerate and deepen defence relationships with the EU in the face of Russian threats. However, unsurprisingly, the EU is now charging the UK to enter agreements to which we had EU member access prior to Brexit. That leaves these isles more isolated. In the face of the very real Russian threat, what is the risk to RAF pilots and crews at Lossiemouth? Will the Minister tell me the specifics of any plans to work closely with European allies to ensure safety and security of the North sea and the protection of Scotland’s coast from Russian vessels?

• 20 Nov 2025 · Transport System: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  Aviation is vital to economic development and transport in the highlands and islands. The European geostationary navigation overlay system would have the massive benefit of improving the security and reliability of those flights, and they would be able to land in conditions than they cannot currently land in. What progress is being made towards that?

• 18 Nov 2025 · ExxonMobil: Mossmorran · Hansard source

  More

  We are talking about 400 direct jobs at Mossmorran, more in the supply chain, hundreds more at Grangemouth and a thousand a month out of Aberdeen. Those are independently assessed figures and figures that we know from the statement today. As somebody whose father worked at Ravenscraig in the 1980s, I know very well the impact such things have on families. The Minister has talked a lot about commercial decision making, but it does not happen in a vacuum; it is done on the basis of the policy environment and legislative environment in which companies are operating. He is not addressing that key issue, which is making a just transition unviable as it stands. Will he address those points?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In the light of the deeply damaging situation at Mossmorran, what is the Minister’s assessment of the potential impact on the Acorn carbon capture, utilisation and storage project?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Energy · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, the jobs are transferable, but the work they can be transferred to needs to exist. It does not exist at the current time. The downturn in the North sea from a crippling fiscal regime is absolutely destroying those jobs and the skills that we need to get to that clean energy potential. The SNP is clear in its support for a just transition for Scotland’s oil and gas sector, recognising the maturity of the North sea basin and aligning with our climate change commitments. However, we must be absolutely clear that a just transition does not mean simply stopping all future oil and gas activity overnight, as that approach threatens energy security and destroys the very skills we need to transfer to net zero. We have repeatedly called on the UK Government to approach decisions for North sea oil and gas projects on a rigorously evidence-led, case-by-case basis, with climate compatibility and energy security as key considerations. Instead, we have seen a fiscal and licensing regime that is actively destroying the highly skilled jobs required to deliver clean energy security. The energy profits levy is a crippling tax on Scotland’s energy and we must see its end in the upcoming Budget. We have seen the consequences laid bare: Harbour Energy confirms a cumulative headcount reduction of approximately 600 roles since the EPL was introduced in 2022, blaming the “punitive domestic fiscal regime”. Meanwhile, a landmark report found that one in four north-east firms has slashed jobs due to the tax. The decline in North sea oil and gas jobs currently outstrips the number of jobs created by the scale-up of the clean energy industry. The loss of highly skilled offshore workers with transferable skills without the jobs to transfer to makes a mockery of the just transition. The Chancellor has the opportunity to fix this in two weeks. The question is: will she? Furthermore, where is the support for the alternative? Labour promised that its flagship GB Energy project would bring down bills and create 1,000 new jobs in the north-east of Scotland, yet only 13 out of 69 employees at GB Energy are based in Aberdeen, while 31 are employed in London. Now we have heard the astonishing admission that creating 1,000 jobs was never the intention. Let us turn to the soaring cost of living and the broken promises made to Scottish households. The Labour party promised to cut energy bills by £300 before the election, but the reality is that since the Government took office, bills have soared. Independent analysis shows that average energy bills could rise by £287 on their watch. To meet their original pledge, the Labour Government would need to cut bills by nearly £600. The situation facing Scots is completely absurd: we are an energy-rich country where bills are going up while energy jobs are going down. We produce enormous amounts of electricity, yet Scots pay among the highest energy bills anywhere in Europe. Finally, we must address the UK Government’s ideological obsession with nuclear energy, which threatens Scotland’s transition to renewables. Scotland already has an abundance of clean, renewable energy—enough to power our country several times over. We do not need expensive nuclear power, yet Scots are being forced to pay for a nuclear power station they do not want and will not benefit from—and at great risk to our economy. I am speaking, of course, about the nuclear tax being imposed on Scottish households to fund the construction of Sizewell C in Suffolk. The plant is not expected to generate electricity until the mid-2030s at the earliest. Furthermore, the long-term legacy of nuclear power is routinely ignored by Ministers. The true cost of the geological disposal facility for nuclear waste is now estimated to be up to £69 billion at current prices. The body responsible for the GDF project has described it as “unachievable”. This is an eye-wateringly large amount of money. Whether it is the reckless fiscal regime destroying jobs in the North sea, the broken promises leaving families facing sky-high bills, or the imposition of a toxic nuclear tax to fund white elephants in England, Westminster’s energy policy—dictated to us by both Labour and the Tories—has been a complete failure. It is no wonder that more and more Scots are concluding that the only way to escape this repeated mismanagement and the only route to cheaper bills is through a fresh start with independence. It is time to put Scotland’s energy in Scotland’s hands.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Energy · Hansard source

  More

  It is vital that we challenge the bankrupt energy record of the UK Government—a record of failure that continues to punish Scottish workers, strip our national wealth and plunge families into fuel poverty. The current policy being prosecuted from Westminster is not a sustainable plan. It is quite simply ripping jobs from the north-east of Scotland with nothing to replace them. Scotland is an energy-rich nation, abundant in both oil and gas, with world-leading renewable potential.

• 29 Oct 2025 · Asylum Seekers: MOD Housing · Hansard source

  More

  My colleague Shirley-Anne Somerville, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice in the Scottish Government, wrote to the Secretary of State about this issue on 26 September, seeking an urgent meeting with Highland council and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. No reply to that letter was received, and the first she knew of the decision was when she heard about it on the radio, as many of the rest of us did. Asylum seekers, by their very nature, are fleeing conflict and persecution. Many require wraparound support, having suffered significant mental and, in some cases, physical trauma. If there is no support package in place, things are not going to go well. The arrival of 300 people in Inverness in such a short space of time puts a huge strain on local services. What is the Minister doing to address those issues with the Scottish Government and with Highland council?

• 22 Oct 2025 · Devolution in Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  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—

• 22 Oct 2025 · Devolution in Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Devolution in Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  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—

• 22 Oct 2025 · Devolution in Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Devolution in Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Devolution in Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  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.