Susan Murray MP: speeches

Speeches

• 17 Jun 2026 · Job Creation · Hansard source

  More

  I have repeatedly asked the Government to publish their assessment of Scotland’s nuclear potential, without success. Perhaps the Minister can help me in the meantime. What does she regard as the greatest benefit of the Wylfa site in Wales: the long-term, skilled jobs, the local investment that it draws in, or the contribution to our energy security? Does she believe that Scotland would be able to share in the same benefits?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Energy Costs · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Energy Costs · Hansard source

  More

  It is good to hear the Government’s intention to reduce energy prices. The hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) is right to call for more affordable energy. In France, electricity is about a third cheaper than it is here, with nuclear at the heart of the system. Does the Minister agree that ruling nuclear out or not progressing it quickly enough is wrong, and will he join me in calling for the assessment of Scotland’s nuclear potential to be published?

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  In 1603, Britain saw the Union of the Crowns. That moment began a journey that would lead to the Acts of Union and the growth of not only our modern democracy but the most powerful economic and industrial force that the world has ever seen. This story was not written by one nation alone; it was a political union of nations enabled by the sharing of skills and resources from every corner of these islands to build something far bigger than anything that could have been achieved individually, with each nation bringing its strengths and each nation benefiting from the strengths of the others. The benefits of the Union are clear and the ties run deep, but if we are to make that case properly, we must be honest about what has gone wrong. As a Scottish Member of Parliament, I speak to too many business owners in Scotland who do not feel supported—too many who feel squeezed, taxed and ignored. Both their Governments have made poor choices. In Holyrood, the Scottish National party has chosen campaigning for independence over economic delivery. It has pulled funding from specialist technical facilities that could have created hundreds of jobs, and refused to back new nuclear, despite Scotland’s engineering heritage and energy expertise. After 20 years of SNP government in Scotland, businesses do not need another referendum. They need stability for investment and growth. In Westminster, Labour’s jobs tax has made it more expensive to employ people and more expensive for firms to expand. Higher running costs mean higher prices for working people, and fewer job opportunities for part-time workers and for young people, at a time when the level of youth unemployment is nearly 16%. Inheritance tax changes have introduced a survival risk for family businesses in the UK, opening them up to hostile takeovers. Businesses need Labour to acknowledge that more than 80% of jobs are in the private sector, in small and medium-sized enterprises, and that increasing taxes on those jobs is not a recipe for growth but, all too often, the death knell for local jobs. In Scotland, recent elections should have been a clear sign for both Labour and the SNP. Only 14% of Scots said that independence was one of the most important issues facing the country, while 63% said that the cost of living was one of the top issues deciding their vote. As a result, 56% of Scottish votes went to unionist parties, a clear sign that people want stability and not another referendum. The English council elections told a similar story of voters looking beyond old two-party habits and desperate for change. It is clear that our current voting system in Westminster is part of the problem. Too often, seats in Parliament do not reflect what people voted for. A fairer, proportional voting system, which Liberal Democrats want to see, would make politicians listen more and would encourage collaboration. It would mean fewer sudden swings from one extreme to another, and a steadier environment for businesses to invest and grow. Although this House may be the mother of Parliaments, that does not mean that it cannot change with the times. Britain has so much potential, and we must be ambitious. Too often we have been too timid, too bureaucratic and too concerned with political differences. I urge everyone here today—everyone who is left—to come together and push for what is best for people in every corner of the UK. While we may need compromise to find agreement, it is the job of every Member of this House to ensure that the UK is at the forefront of change that benefits all our constituents and celebrates our diversity and tolerance.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Lady agree that UK production in the North sea can never put us in a position like Norway, because Margaret Thatcher gave away our oil industry to private companies and we have no sovereign fund?

• 19 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The development of the nuclear site at Wylfa in Wales is set to bring thousands of jobs and revitalise the local community. A similar site near my constituency would play an enormous role in the shift away from oil and gas towards energy independence and bringing costs down. Will the Leader of the House ask the Minister for Energy to meet me to discuss Great British Energy Nuclear’s assessment of Scotland’s nuclear opportunity?

• 4 Mar 2026 · Energy Security and Net Zero: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Energy Security and Net Zero: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. Although I am focusing on Scotland, it is Scotland as part of the UK and not Scotland alone. We want to make sure that we do not lose the skilled labour that is vital to a successful transition, because we would then have to pay more later to import the labour and expertise that we should have retained to do the work. I want to be clear about a point that is often overlooked or used by those with a vested interest against renewables: the UK will need oil and gas for the foreseeable future, even as we decarbonise. In that context, and to secure our own energy security, we should meet as much of the demand for hydrocarbons as possible from a secure, well-regulated domestic supply, rather than simply importing more and losing or exporting jobs. Importing more does not stop consumption; it simply shifts production elsewhere, often to jurisdictions with lower standards and higher geopolitical risk. Domestic supply, properly regulated, can be the safer bridge while we build out our new low-carbon system at scale and ensure security of supply. Will Ministers pull together existing work into a single transition pathway that links North sea decisions to a workforce plan, covering skills mapping, retraining and support where needed? If we want a managed transition, we also have to be honest about the urgency of the whole-system needs of a clean grid. A net zero system is essential—Scotland shows that it is possible, and it should be the goal—but a renewables-heavy system needs predictable, low-carbon power alongside renewables, storage and interconnection. That is why I support nuclear, and why small modular reactors should be part of the plan to achieve net zero in Scotland. The SNP Government’s position is that they do not support building new nuclear power plants in Scotland under current technologies. Meanwhile, the UK Government have confirmed Wylfa in Wales as the site for the UK’s first small modular reactor. The risk is obvious that Scotland will end up hosting more of the infrastructure footprint of the transition but without the benefits, while other parts of the UK will capture more of the firm power investment and the supply chain jobs. In Scotland, the devolution framework really matters. Nuclear market frameworks and regulations are reserved, while planning and community impacts, along with local skills delivery and many aspects of economic development, are devolved. This cannot work without co-ordination. Will Ministers request UK-Scottish Government talks on Scotland’s nuclear policy, with SMRs explicitly on the agenda, to highlight the positive economic benefit for Scotland, and to push for equal access to jobs and development across the UK? Scotland hosts major clean power generation and transmission infrastructure, but fairness must follow that footprint.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Energy Security and Net Zero: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. We have a real opportunity with Great British Energy, in the current environment, to take advantage of what the commercial companies are offering with regard to reducing costs for individual homeowners and to use digital technology to ensure that community energy generated into the grid benefits the communities that host the infrastructure that generates that energy. Communities see the turbines, substations and pylons; as the grid expands, they see that infrastructure expand, too. They live with disruption during construction and operation, and too often they do not see fair value for the disruption that they face. That means that there is an opportunity here. The Government have already been developing the policy infrastructure. DESNZ published a working paper seeking views on the design of a potential mandatory community benefit scheme and the facilitation of shared ownership for low-carbon energy infrastructure. That is not a small thing; it is a recognition that we cannot build at the pace required without public consent, and public consent is strengthened when communities are well-informed and share in the long-term value.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Energy Security and Net Zero: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  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”.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Energy Security and Net Zero: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  The Liberal Democrats are keen that we move to a source of green energy. We are calling for the energy profits levy to be looked at again, as it was introduced as a windfall tax in particular circumstances, when there were very high profits.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Energy Security and Net Zero: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Scotland’s contribution to energy security and net zero. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq, and a privilege to lead this debate on a matter that will have such an impact on Scotland’s economy, our cost of living and our national security. Let me be clear at the outset that Scotland plays a disproportionate role in keeping the lights on across Great Britain, and it is leading the way in the shift to clean power. The evidence is clear: the House of Commons Library noted that in 2024, clean power made up 90% of the generation in Scotland. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has published figures showing that Scotland produces significantly more energy than it consumes, and that it transferred 17 TWh of excess energy to England in 2024. In terms that we can all understand, that is enough energy to power every home in London for two years. That production benefits us all—it supports energy security, making us resilient to international events, and helps to decarbonise the grid for everyone—but there is a problem that we cannot ignore: despite that enormous contribution, too often Scots do not see a fair share of the benefits in good jobs, local investment or lower bills. The case that I want to make today is simple: Scotland is delivering, so the UK’s policy and delivery machine must now match that pace with fairness, infrastructure and security. The North sea is the place to start. The Scottish Affairs Committee set out the stark reality: in 2024, oil and gas production reached a 21st-century low—about 75% below the 1999 peak. Decline is not an abstract theory; it is measurable across Scotland. The workforce impact is already significant. The Library notes that there were 121,000 direct and indirect jobs supported by the oil and gas industry in 2023—a 51% fall compared with 2014. If workers leave before the clean energy pipeline reaches its potential, we will lose the skilled labour that is vital to a successful transition.

• 14 Jan 2026 · Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the Government on the successful seventh round of the allocation of green energy in contracts for difference, nearly 20% of which are going to Scotland. It is good to see that, even amid their U-turns, a Liberal Democrat system from over a decade ago is still delivering. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with his Cabinet colleagues to ensure that the benefits are passed on to the Scottish people through skilled jobs, working to upgrade the grid and, crucially, protecting and defending our offshore infrastructure?

• 26 Nov 2025 · Skills, Development and Training: Forth Valley · Hansard source

  More

  After 18 years of an SNP Government in Scotland, the education system is failing and qualified Scottish pupils are being turned away from Scottish universities. Meanwhile, the private sector in the west of Scotland, such as at the energy technical academy in my constituency, is upskilling workers, who are paying so that they can install electric vehicle chargers and heat pumps. Will the Secretary of State explain to the Scottish Government that educating young people and further education training are good for Scotland?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Renewable Energy Sources: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  Across Scotland and the UK, towns that once powered our economy have been left behind, as coalmines, steelworks, dockyards and, as we are now hearing, refineries and chemical plants are closing down, taking generations of skilled workers with them. We now have a chance to revive those communities by rebuilding British manufacturing to supply the components for our green transition, as well as for the wider net zero economy. As the Government prepare to conclude their consultation on the future of the North sea, do the Government plan to invest in the factories of Britain and in upskilling our workforce to be the innovative and sustainable local supply chain that the North sea and our net zero economy need?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Renewable Energy Sources: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  12. What steps he is taking to provide funding for renewable energy sources.

• 18 Nov 2025 · ExxonMobil: Mossmorran · Hansard source

  More

  I agree that this announcement is devastating for Mossmorran and for the communities around Fife. Hundreds of highly skilled workers now face an uncertain future and it is clear that the closure of this cornerstone facility reflects a deeper failure to provide the stable, long-term industrial environment that businesses need if they are to invest and grow in Scotland. For many years, the Liberal Democrats have warned that the absence of a coherent industrial strategy, first abandoned by the previous Conservative Government and then left to drift further by this Labour Government, has created damaging uncertainty for our manufacturing and energy sectors. Will the Minister assure this House that the energy sector is at the heart of the Government’s industrial strategy? Exxon’s statement made clear that the current economic and policy environment has made continued operations uncompetitive. What steps will the Government take to ensure that the UK remains a viable place for energy production and to prevent further closures of major industrial sites? We also cannot ignore the human impact. Many of the workers are among the most experienced and specialised in the sector, yet only 50 roles are being offered elsewhere and that is nearly 500 miles away. Can the Minister tell the House how many have been offered and accepted relocation, and what support has been put in place locally for those who simply cannot uproot their lives, families and communities? Further, the Exxon closure will see many highly qualified and specialised workers laid off at a time of severe cost of living pressures. What immediate and long-term measures are the Government putting in place to ensure that those individuals can transition to appropriate, well-paid employment? Communities in Fife deserve clarity, certainty and a real plan for the future. I urge the Minister to act quickly, decisively and collaboratively to protect the workers and to ensure that Scotland’s industrial base has a sustainable future.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Carbon Budget Delivery Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I will do my best. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing the debate and bringing attention to this matter. Although some may deny its impact or severity, climate change represents the greatest modern threat to our planet. The data is clear. If we continue down our current path, millions of lives will be lost and our way of life will be changed forever. We have an opportunity to show the world that there is an alternative path to save lives and avoid catastrophe. Steps have been taken to create a Britain at the forefront of climate action, but there are still gaping holes. Although we have enormous capacity for green energy production through wind, tidal and solar, we do not yet take full advantage of it. My constituents in Mid Dunbartonshire demand that we act faster. We must take the opportunity to produce wind turbines domestically; less than half of the wind turbines operating in the UK contain any British component. Instead, we ship turbines in from countries such as China, undermining their green credentials and costing British jobs. We are not moving fast enough to upgrade our grid, meaning that we are restricting the energy output at some sites for as much as 71% of the time. At the same time, we seem to be ignoring the potential of community energy and local projects to take pressure off the wider grid and to provide cheaper bills to British people. It is clear that although we have incredible potential, we need to move faster to exploit it. The Government must place decarbonisation at the heart of the UK’s industrial strategy. The net zero sector is growing three times faster than the overall UK economy and jobs in the sector pay almost 15% more than the national average. If we want good, long-term jobs for British people, we must look seriously at green energy. We can create manufacturing jobs producing the technology, jobs working on the grid, jobs working on offshore sites and many more, but only if we take climate change seriously. That means ensuring that workers and communities in sectors such as North sea oil and gas are not left behind as the industry declines, but supported to move into new, clean industries. Even if all our energy came from renewables we would need oil and gas for the foreseeable future, but it makes no sense to import gas, which is four times as polluting as local production. The Liberal Democrats would introduce a carbon tariff to level the playing field and minimise carbon emissions. The skills already built up in Scotland’s energy sector are the skills that we need for offshore wind, grid upgrades and new green technologies, but there is an urgent need to invest in more skill training and housing if we want the sector to thrive, grow and build new sustainable jobs and communities. The Government have listened to the Liberal Democrats before on green energy. I urge them to do so again to help create a cleaner, fairer future for our children, and across the world.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Devolution in Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for bringing attention to the matter. As my colleagues have made clear, the Liberal Democrats believe in devolution. Our votes pushed it over the line in 1999, delivering a Scottish Parliament and taking decision making closer to the people. We remain proud of that achievement, and we want that devolution to extend to councils and to communities, yet the sad reality is that the opportunities presented to Scotland by devolution have been squandered. Years of financial mismanagement, failed education reforms and endless NHS recovery plans have let Scots down. After nearly two decades in office, the SNP have proved every bit as adept at failing the people of Scotland as they have accused the Conservatives of being. We have watched the SNP divert half a billion pounds from green energy initiatives simply to plug budget gaps; through mismanagement, we have seen the squandering of another half a billion on ferries that were originally promised for less than £100 million; and worryingly, we have seen the party’s own finances called into question. Conservative curtains and cupboards are clearly a no-go, but the SNP motorhomes are all right. Despite those failures and the clear rejection of independence, the SNP continues to demand referenda. In 2014, the “time was right” and the people of Scotland said no. In 2016, the “time was right” again and the courts rejected it. In 2025, it repeats the same mantra. A vote once described as once in a generation has become once in a Parliament. Instead of working for the Scottish people, it flogs the same tired cause. The Liberal Democrats offer a different vision: a fair deal for Scotland within a strong federal United Kingdom. We want decisions taken as close to local communities as possible, empowering them to shape their future, but co-operation at the federal level is vital to tackle the challenges we face as a nation. This is why the Liberal Democrats want a joint council of the nations to drive innovation and co-ordinated action to tackle the climate emergency. We want to secure agreement through the common frameworks and a fair dispute resolution process so that differences between Administrations are resolved maturely, not through endless political games. We want stronger joint ministerial work on issues such as the industrial strategy to ensure that every nation’s voice is heard in shaping our economy. That kind of co-operation delivers results. We should draw on the strengths of all four nations, not tear them apart and play politics with people’s futures. Scotland deserves better than the uncertainty it has experienced. It deserves co-operation, certainty and a Government who listen. I look forward to the Scottish elections next year, with more Liberal Democrat MSPs entering the Scottish Parliament to work hard in the interests of Scottish people of all ages.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Inheritance Tax Relief: Agriculture Sector · Hansard source

  More

  Archibald Young, a foundry in my constituency, manufactures components that are vital to our national security, yet it now faces a devastating blow from Labour’s tax changes. We are hearing that food production—another cornerstone of national security—will also be decimated by these measures. This issue goes to the heart of the protection of our country. Does the Minister agree that Scottish businesses that are essential to national security must be safeguarded, and will she commit to meeting me and others with similar concerns to discuss that?

• 13 Oct 2025 · Baby Loss · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. and hon. Members who secured the debate, as well as those who have shared their story. Every Member here agrees that the tragedy of losing a child is one of the greatest anyone can face, yet sadly it is all too common an experience; nearly half the population has either experienced the loss of a baby or knows someone who has. It is with that deeply saddening thought in mind that I want to pay tribute to the tireless campaigning of Louise Caldwell in Scotland. After her experience of loss, she has influenced the Scottish Government’s strategy on baby loss. She has also succeeded in getting two baby loss units opened—at Wishaw hospital, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke (Pamela Nash), and at Gilbert Bain hospital, with the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and our Liberal Democrat colleague Beatrice Wishart MSP. Those dedicated facilities allow mothers, fathers and families to grieve the loss of their baby in the most dignified and compassionate environment we can provide. I realise that this is a devolved matter, but I am sure that everyone in the Chamber understands the need for baby loss units and, along with them, compassionate labour rooms, away from the sounds of happier arrivals, for those all over the UK who experience delivering a sleeping angel. While dedicated spaces are essential, we must also look at prevention. I find it deeply concerning that we continue to see repeated failings in maternity services. The Ockenden report on Shrewsbury and Telford, and the East Kent inquiry, highlighted systemic issues, including inadequate equipment, crumbling maternity wards, weak incident management and slow triage of urgent cases. Furthermore, it is unacceptable that when my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) asked the Department about progress regarding implementing the recommendations of the report, the answer implied not only that Ministers could not confirm delivery but that they had no mechanism to measure any progress made. That is simply not good enough, as the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) highlighted. We need a national strategy that extends across all four nations, with clear baselines to ensure that mothers and babies receive the care they need and deserve. We need clear and transparent measures to ensure that standards are being met and to identify when they are not, because ultimately this is about protecting women and babies.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I think we have a difference in how we look at Lords amendment 1. It does not water down the Bill; it adds more flexibility so that people get the opportunity to have the kind of employment that works for them. That is particularly important in an environment where we are trying to get people off disability benefits and back into work.

• 17 Jul 2025 · SME Operating Costs · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency and across Scotland, small and medium-sized businesses have taken blow after blow. The Conservatives bungled Brexit, increasing import costs, and energy costs are soaring. Most recently, the hike in national insurance contributions is decimating job opportunities in small and medium-sized businesses. What are the Government doing to support SMEs, which are at the heart of our economic growth, and to get people off benefits and back into work?

• 10 Jul 2025 · Children’s Health · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for bringing such an important debate. I feel strongly about this matter, having trained as a dietician, and I understand the implications that a poor diet in early life can have for a child’s future. From health outcomes to educational outcomes, poor nutrition has a serious, detrimental and long-term effect. The hon. Member mentioned many other health conditions, but I will talk just about diet. We often assume that parents understand what constitutes a healthy diet for their children, but sadly that assumption is often false. There are so many competing messages in this space. According to the British Nutrition Foundation, nearly one third of parents say that they are uncertain about how much their child should eat. More than a third admit that they regularly make their child finish everything on their plate, regardless of hunger or nutritional need. These are not bad parents; they are well-meaning families trying their best in an environment that fails to equip them with the knowledge they need and that often makes healthy choices less accessible. Even when parents have some nutritional awareness, that knowledge does not always translate into healthy practice. Research shows that inconsistent portioning and irregular parental eating habits can contribute to poor outcomes, even among families with higher nutritional literacy. In short, good intentions are being undermined by a lack of clear, practical guidance. That is not a new problem, but it is growing with time. As we have heard, across the UK 10% of children aged four to five are overweight or obese; by the ages of 10 to 11, that figure rises to 22%. The covid pandemic deepened the crisis. During lockdown, many families saw a sharp rise in unhealthy snacking and reduced access to fresh, nutritious food. In homes where both time and money were tight, convenience often won out over balance. The cost of inaction is already visible, and it is vast. Obesity-related conditions cost the NHS more than £6 billion a year, and the wider cost to society stands at around £27 billion annually. Without meaningful intervention, that figure is projected to rise by £50 billion by 2050. Meaningful intervention must include access to NHS dentists. A child with a mouth full of rotten teeth cannot enjoy an apple or crunch on a carrot as a healthy snack. Dental health is really important to a healthy diet.