Plans for a new nuclear power station in England have come under severe criticism from a Westminster committee, which warns that taxpayers and electricity customers could face billions of pounds in additional costs while private investors enjoy protected returns.

The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee has raised serious concerns about the financing of Sizewell C in Suffolk, prompting the SNP to challenge Scottish Labour’s support for new nuclear power stations.

In its report published on 28 October, the committee examined a project expected to cost between £40.5 billion and £47.7 billion, with construction potentially continuing into the early 2040s.

The committee concluded that the funding arrangements leave consumers and taxpayers carrying substantial financial risks despite the Government holding a minority stake in the company responsible for delivering the project.

Its findings are particularly concerning because previous nuclear projects using comparable reactor technology have experienced major delays and substantial increases in construction costs.

The report warns that if costs reach the upper estimate, consumers could pay an additional £9.8 billion during construction and another £12 billion over the station’s operating lifetime.

Private investors, meanwhile, would be required to provide only another £30 million under the financing arrangements examined by MPs.

The committee’s assessment is particularly critical of the balance between public financial exposure and private investment returns.

The report states:

“Sizewell C represents a terrible deal for the UK taxpayer.”

It also warns that consumers could face higher electricity bills if construction costs rise, while questioning whether the arrangements provide sufficient incentives for private investors to control expenditure.

The committee has called for stronger public scrutiny, including detailed progress reports every six months rather than relying on annual updates.

The SNP has seized on the findings to challenge Scottish Labour politicians Michael Marra and Douglas Alexander over their support for expanding nuclear power generation.

The party argues that Scotland should prioritise investment in renewable energy rather than commit public money to new nuclear developments.

SNP MSP Alan Brown said:

“This report couldn’t be any clearer, nuclear power is costly, takes too long to develop, and is highly likely to increase energy bills.

“The Labour Party’s dream of imposing new nuclear power stations on Scotland has gone into meltdown and must now end.

“Unfortunately knowing the UK Labour Government they will probably double down on it and saddle Scots with an even higher nuclear tax than they pay already.

“This independent report from the House of Commons, the very institution they serve to protect, should cause Michael Marra and Douglas Alexander to pause, reflect and apologise to Scots for wanting to inflict something entirely unnecessary on our people.

“Our oil and gas revenues are being used to pay for these delirious ideas when every single penny should be invested in Scotland’s renewable energy future, only the SNP is demanding is exactly that.”

The Public Accounts Committee’s findings concern the financing and delivery of Sizewell C, rather than providing a direct assessment of whether Scotland should build new nuclear power stations.

The UK Government maintains that Sizewell C will provide reliable electricity, strengthen energy security and support the transition towards lower carbon power generation.

However, the National Audit Office has also identified significant delivery risks, including uncertainty over whether the new financing model provides sufficient value for consumers.

For Scotland, the report adds another dimension to the political debate over nuclear investment, renewable energy and who should bear the financial risks of major energy projects.

The immediate concern raised by MPs is whether the public could be left paying substantially more than anticipated for Sizewell C while private investors remain protected from much of the additional expense.