Government fund pledges £30m to reopen tin mine
Nearly £30m is to be invested in the reopening of Cornwall's South Crofty tin mine in a scheme expected to create more than 300 jobs.
The National Wealth Fund (NWF) announced a £28.6m direct equity investment into the mine's owner, Cornish Metals Inc, on Tuesday.
The NWF's funding is part of a £56m fundraising bid by Cornish Metals to "further de-risk" the South Crofty tin project and support initial work.
Chancellor of the exchequer Rachel Reeves said the Redruth scheme would create jobs and opportunities.
Reeves said: "Growth is this government's number one mission, and we're going further and faster to kickstart our economy so that we can put more money in people's pockets.
"This is just the kind of investment that will help us do that, not only supporting the growth of the Cornish mining sector, but creating high-quality jobs and opportunity for the region and beyond."
South Crofty is a fully permitted underground tin mine with more than 400 years of recorded production prior to its closure in 1998. It hosts one of the highest grade tin resources in the world.
The NWF is wholly-owned and backed by HM Treasury and aims to invest alongside the private sector in projects across the country, primarily focusing on initiatives that support clean energy.
Cornish Metals said the £56m fundraising bid would be used to fund early project works, place orders on long-lead items and complete key work programmes.
John Flint, CEO of the NWF, said: "Critical minerals are not only an important driver of the UK's transition to net zero, but also of the UK's growth mission, providing opportunities to anchor important supply chains in the UK."
Don Turvey, chief executive officer of Cornish Metals, added: "This financing will enable the company to maintain this strong momentum and further unlock the project's potential by delivering crucial milestones."
The investment is subject to shareholder approval in March 2025.
Cornish Metals has previously said it hopes to get South Crofty back into production as early as 2026.
Follow BBC Cornwall on X, Facebook and Instagram. Send your story ideas to spotlight@bbc.co.uk.
Proposal for new buildings at tin mine
Cornwall MPs call for renewable energy support
National Wealth Fund
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Child Benefit changes on cards after Martin Lewis' WhatsApp from Rachel Reeves
Child Benefit changes could be on the cards as Martin Lewis mentioned in a Newsnight appearance, in which he shared that Rachel Reeves had sent hm a WhatsApp message following the winter fuel payment u-turn. On Newsnight, the Money Saving Expert founder said: "I've been complaining about the Child Benefit Higher Income tax clawback for years, because what that does is that it says if the highest earner in the household earns over £80,000, you don't get Child Benefit. "So then you've got two neighbours who earn just under £60,000, so that's £120,000 for that family. They get Child Benefit. Their next door neighbour, one earns £80,000, one earns nothing, they don't get it. "I have been told for years that we can't split a household payment into a personal tax payment, which is exactly what the government has just done. "So when I got a WhatsApp today from Rachel Reeves telling me, 'sorry I couldn't explain to you in person', because I've been lobbying hard that we need to change on this (winter fuel payment changes), my first reply back is, 'this is wonderful news, and I am relieved, and this is a massive improvement, and I think it will take a lot of pressure off a lot of vulnerable people'. But I did also say, 'by the way, can we now do it for Child Benefit'?." The high-income child benefit charge applies if you or your partner earn more than £60,000. Under current rules, you need to file a self-assessment tax return to pay the charge, but it was mentioned in the Spring Statement that this will soon be available to pay directly through PAYE. Once registered with HMRC, parents should be able to choose to have their HICBC collected through their monthly pay packet, meaning they'll no longer need to file a return for that purpose. "I got a Whatsapp today from Rachel Reeves..." Martin Lewis tells @vicderbyshire he has been texting the Chancellor on how her Winter Fuel U-turn could pave the way for a new approach to Child Benefit payments. #Newsnight — BBC Newsnight (@BBCNewsnight) June 9, 2025 From April 7 2025, parents receive £26.05 a week (£1,355 a year) for their eldest or only child and £17.25 a week (£897 a year) for each additional child. These figures are a 1.7% increase on the £1,331 a year for the eldest child and £881 a year for each additional child paid in 2024-25 For now, if your income is over the threshold, you can choose to either get Child Benefit payments and pay any tax charge at the end of each tax year, or opt out of getting payments and not pay the tax charge. You should still fill in the Child Benefit claim form. You need to state on the form that you do not want to get payments. You need to fill in the claim form if you want to: get National Insurance credits, which count towards your State Pension get your child a National Insurance number without them having to apply for one - they'll usually get the number before they turn 16 years old Recommended reading: Some parents are owed thousands by HMRC - check if you are eligible Need a last-minute Father's Day gift? We've got it covered Family holidays for less than £250 across France, Spain and Italy No, and this is the cause of a great deal of confusion, as Martin Lewis has explained on his website Money Saving Expert. "Child Benefit is a universal payment made for every child you have," he says. "It should accurately be called the 'two-child limit for Universal Credit or Tax Credits'. "This one applies to the benefits that people who have low incomes, whether they're working or not working, get. That's what this is about. "And in simple terms, it means if you have more than two children, then you won't get any additional benefit for the costs that they are incurring you (on Universal Credit and Tax Credits)."
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Voices: Wes Streeting has won the spending review – but will he blow his winnings?
If Rachel Reeves did the spending review like a game show, she could invite her cabinet colleagues to 'come on down' the catwalk between the two red lines in the Commons, to music and strobe lights, to take their seats on the front bench. She could announce the winners of the competition for public funding over the next three years in reverse order, with David Lammy, the foreign secretary – who has lost a big chunk of his foreign aid budget – going first, followed by Heidi Alexander, the transport secretary, and Steve Reed, environment. The last to be summoned, as the ABBA soundtrack switches from 'Money, Money, Money' to 'The Winner Takes It All', would be Wes Streeting, the health secretary, who has been allocated spending increases of 2.8 per cent a year more than inflation over the three years from next year to 2029. Arms in the air, in a sequinned jacket, as glitter falls from the ceiling, Streeting would take his place next to John Healey, the defence secretary, at the top of the line of winners and losers. Sadly, the announcement of spending plans for the rest of this parliament will be less showbiz. Reeves will try to generate a bit of excitement, and maybe even some waving of order papers, by spinning the big and welcome increase in capital investment – although she has already cannibalised some of her good news stories with her transport infrastructure announcement last week and the go-ahead for Sizewell C nuclear power station today. The problem with the capital projects, though, is that they will not start until 2027 at the earliest, so they won't have delivered anything except feelgood press releases before the next election. Whereas the big increase in day-to-day spending on the NHS is the kind of vote-winning largesse for which Labour MPs are desperate. In the absence of glitter and balloons, the waving of order papers will be compulsory on the government benches at this point. But wait: who is this, coming to spoil the party? It is the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), performing its constitutional role of puncturing inflated government claims. Labour, having used the IFS to attack the Conservatives at fiscal events over the previous 14 years, will find that the tables have turned (even if the Treasury insists that this is not a 'fiscal event' – it is merely allocating a spending total set at the Budget). Max Warner and Ben Zaranko of the IFS have written a paper for the Oxford Review of Economic Policy entitled 'Future challenges for health and social care provision in the UK'. It contains some startling facts, such as that, by the middle of the next decade, the NHS will employ 10 per cent of the entire workforce of England. It also contains a striking table showing the increase in the number of doctors and nurses employed in the NHS since 2019, and the increase in treatments. There are 18 per cent more consultants, 32 per cent more resident doctors (who were called junior doctors in the old days, a year ago) and 23 per cent more nurses and health visitors, which are huge increases in just five years. But the outputs from such dramatic increases have been disappointing. Hospital admissions have risen by just 9 per cent (except A&E admissions, up 2 per cent), and outpatient appointments have increased by just 12 per cent. The IFS authors comment: 'The large fall in NHS hospital productivity since the start of the pandemic complicates the picture.' They say there are two scenarios for the future: 'The optimistic view is that there is substantial scope for 'catch-up' improvements in productivity: merely returning to pre-pandemic levels would represent a considerable improvement. The more pessimistic view is that the pandemic has permanently lowered NHS productivity, because of the ongoing impacts of Covid-19 on patient health and complexity and changes to working practices or expectations.' They tentatively conclude that there are recent signs that NHS productivity is recovering, but the loss of capacity is still alarming. Despite the huge amounts of extra spending devoted to the NHS since the election, and promised for the next three years, no one in the think tanks that specialise in the health service thinks that Labour's targets will be hit by the next election. Will Streeting, the lucky winner of the spending review showdown, be able to convince the voters that he has spent their money well?
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
OPINION - The City wanted Labour to succeed, but the goodwill has been rapidly squandered
In April 2024 the boardrooms in the City of London and some from industry and commerce were buzzing with excitement at the prospect of Labour taking over from a rudderless Conservative administration. In the previous four years, the Tory government never recovered from the damage inflicted by Covid, coupled with indolent leadership from three Prime Ministers in double quick time. This was Labour's time. The mood was upbeat. 'Fear initially knocked at the door, faith answered; no one was there.' The smoked salmon bagel breakfasts hosted for combinations from Messrs Starmer, Reeves, Reynolds and Siddiq were very encouraging. The PM in waiting and his colleagues had charmingly reassured their board table hosts that Labour was the party for business and growth. Business had nothing to worry about. Labour was very much 'on-side' and knew unequivocally that to achieve growth, incentives to invest must be encouraged. All Labour's ducks seemed to be set up cleverly in a row. It took only six months for the reassured to start having considerable doubts, such was the damage inflicted on business by an increase on employers' share of National Insurance Contributions. There were also very little in the way of incentives to encourage inward investment, despite the formation of the National Wealth Fund and the British Business Bank to support Labour's ambitious plans for massive infrastructure projects. Confidence in the new government started to fall like a stone. Global investors seemed very reluctant to support some of our aspiring SMES, especially the fin-tech operations. Many market activists have blamed Brexit, which had only been delivered in name only. What was so frustrating was the ineptness of the Conservatives, which failed to deliver a gold-plated certainty – the increased prosperity of the 'City' – the quintessential cash cow. The financial sector in the UK was already delivering £75 billion of revenue per annum to the HM Treasury's coffers and there could have been so much more to come. The previous Government failed to capitalise on the value of the City. Brexit should have been a 'slam-dunk' for the City. Sadly, no exciting tax incentives for companies to set up in the UK were put into place. Regulation was far too onerous and cumbersome. Also, if the UK aspired to be the world's leading financial centre, charging stamp duty on trading shares was unrealistic financial nonsense. Also spiteful legislation towards 'non-doms' just exacerbates the negative perception of the UK's ability to create growth. The '80's were the halcyon years for the City, triggered by the abolition of exchange controls in 1979, followed up in 1986 by 'Big Bang', which saw international investment banks such as Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Deutsche Bank and UBS rub shoulders and then usurp many of the grand old merchant banks of the day such as SG Warburg, Morgan Grenfell, Schroders, Samuel Montagu and Barclays Capital. The introduction of the LIFFE futures market in 1984 and the explosion of derivative trading triggered the expansion of capital markets and a tsunami of IPOS and privatisations. London still remains a major financial hub. However, there is some alarming unappetising data to reckon with. In 2007, the UK had 252 Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) on the London Stock Exchange. This represented a decrease from the 367 IPOs the previous year, with overseas IPOs attracted 86 companies from 22 countries. Last year was a poor year for IPOS, mainly due to a dip in confidence and geopolitical issues – just 17 in total here in London and 18 so far this year. There have been 58 IPOS in New York since January 2025. What is very worrying is that in the last year 88 companies have delisted in London. The delisting started with ARM, which left London supposedly valued at $32 billion, is now valued at $138 billion! Flutter and DarkTrace - fallen to US private equity- plus many others have followed. It is generally acknowledged that US fund managers have access to many more investors and consequently greater liquidity has contributed to a 25% valuation premium there. A lack of confidence and enthusiasm in the UK economy have encouraged moves to New York. Recently, Revolut served notice to establish a new Western Europe HQ in Paris and earlier last week 'Wise' said it will be delisting in London and heading for New York. It is alarming to note that only 4% of the LSE'S annual income is derived from stock exchange business. The rest comes from technology (Refinitiv). The LSE needs to raise its game, as does AIM. Aquis Exchange have hosted 4 IPOS so far this year and the outlook, under fresh ownership of 'Six' looks encouraging. Monzo, Starling Bank, Virgin Atlantic, ASDA and Boots are in the mix of companies that may seek public quotations this year, but much depends on market conditions. Hong Kong's Shein's IPO remains in doubt. If the Government believes in growth, then its emissaries, Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds, Economc Secretary Emma Reynolds and investment minister Baroness Poppy Gustafsson need to wake up and smell the coffee? Business's risk appetite is at a low ebb. Confidence and sentiment are stagnant. Investors are vital. They must be encouraged with incentives! Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
