Not providing public cash for arms ‘student union politics', says Healey
The comments come as the Prime Minister is due to announce the outcome of a major defence review in a visit to Scotland on Monday.
The Scottish Government refuses to provide funding to firms directly for the creation of arms, but does offer cash for other things, such as diversifying away from the munitions industry and apprenticeships.
The policy has again come to the fore as a result of a wrangle over £2.5 million of funding required by Rolls-Royce to create a specialist welding centre in Glasgow, with the UK Government saying it would provide the cash if the Edinburgh administration did not.
Asked about the policy on BBC Scotland's Sunday Show, Defence Secretary John Healey said: 'It's the first time I've come across (such a policy), but it really strikes me as student union politics.
'This is not a serious Government concerned about the opportunities for young people for the future, concerned about the skills base for Scotland, or indeed the industry and innovation in the future that means that Scotland has a big part to play in strengthening the British industrial base, as we will through more defence investment.'
Rolls-Royce, he said, is 'central to much of the most important military equipment that keeps all of us safe' and the welding centre would not only be about work in munitions.
Mr Healey added: 'It's about support for Scotland's shipyard pipeline as well as essential skills, new opportunities for young people.
'I can hardly believe this is the case that the Scottish nationalist Government are saying they won't step in to provide some of the funding to make sure this new welding skills centre can get up and running.
'And if the Scottish SNP Government won't step up to support skills and the future of jobs in Scotland, then we will.'
Speaking later on the same programme, Scottish Rural Affairs Secretary Mairi Gougeon said the welding centre was never eligible for funding thanks to the 'long-standing' policy.
She added: 'I think the key difference here between ourselves and the UK Government is that when we have principles, we stick to them.'
The Scottish Government, she went on to say, 'completely understands' the 'really unprecedented threats' the UK faces on the world stage, but pointed out that First Minister John Swinney welcomed the increased defence spending announced by the Prime Minister.
'But that doesn't mean that we can't also still maintain the policy positions that we've had for quite a long time and have been long-standing within our party, that we don't support the use of public finance for the manufacture of munitions and neither do we support that for nuclear weapons,' she said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
26 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Labour spends £35k on pub beer mats to boast about minimum wage rise
Labour spent more than £35,000 of taxpayer cash on beer mats in pubs advertising the increase to the national minimum wage, a minister has admitted. The Government sent out promotional material to pubs across the country to tell workers that the minimum wage and national living wage were going up. Justin Madders, the employment minister, rationalised the £35,580 expense as he said the beer mats offered a 'unique opportunity to engage audiences in a social, high-dwell environment where financial conversations naturally occur'. The red and pale blue beer mats were government-branded and said: 'Millions got a pay rise.' 'National minimum and living wages went up on 1st April', it added, and displayed a barcode for customers to scan for details on how to 'make sure you're getting paid correctly'. The employment minister responded to a written question by Richard Holden, the shadow paymaster general, about the cost of the drink mats. He said: 'The cost to advertise in pubs using beer mats was £35,580, which was approved at official level.' He confirmed that the advertising push was approved by the Cabinet Office, and came out of the 2025 National Minimum Wage and National Living Wage campaign budget of £650,000. He added: 'The 2024 campaign saw an increase in reach to eligible workers. However, recognition remained low, reinforcing the need for bolder, more engaging formats for the 2025 campaign, which expected to deliver an estimated 3.2 million impressions. 'It offered a unique opportunity to engage audiences in a social, high-dwell environment where financial conversations naturally occur. 'This setting encourages discussion and word-of-mouth sharing about rate changes and offers an effective nudge for audiences to 'check their pay'.' 'We will be ruthless' Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have both pledged a war on waste in Whitehall, with the Government having taken such moves as freezing government credit cards and abolishing NHS England. The Prime Minister said in October: 'We will also be ruthless in clamping down on government waste, just as we will be ruthless on clamping down on tax avoidance ', emphasising the intention to show so the British people that 'every penny counts'. He added: 'Every single person in this country had to do that during the cost-of-living crisis and government must be no different.' The national living wage for those aged 21 and over rose from £11.44 per hour to £12.21 per hour, an increase of 6.7 per cent. The national minimum wage for those between 18 and 20 went up from £8.60 to £10 per hour, a 16.3 per cent boost. The Government has also begun to name and shame firms that do not pay their workers the appropriate wages, demanding they pay back what they owe and in some instances a further financial penalty.
Telegraph
41 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Concern over mass migration is terrorist ideology, says Prevent
Lord Young suggested the definition could even capture Mr Jenrick, the former immigration minister, who has previously warned that 'excessive, uncontrolled migration threatens to cannibalise the compassion of the British public.' Senior Labour politicians could also fall within the scope of the definition, he claimed. Lord Young cited Sir Keir's recent statement that without fair immigration rules, 'we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together.' There are growing fears that police are wrongly seeking to limit free speech. The Telegraph disclosed last month that Julian Foulkes, a retired police officer, was arrested and detained over a social media post warning about the threat of anti-Semitism. Officers who conducted a search of his house described a collection of books by authors such as Mr Murray as 'very Brexity'. Mr Foulkes later received an apology and £20,000 compensation. Last year, Allison Pearson, the Telegraph columnist, was questioned at home by two officers over an X post following pro-Palestinian protests. The Telegraph has also covered the case of Hamit Koskun, who was fined this week for burning a Koran. It led Mr Jenrick to accuse the courts of reviving blasphemy law. Lord Young said the course material appeared to reflect a shift in the Prevent approach from focusing on conduct – such as acquiring weapons or inciting violence – to 'treating ideology itself as a risk indicator, encompassing belief, alignment or political attitude'. He said the FSU had already had to support members referred to Prevent, including a 24-year-old autistic man whose social worker reported that he had been viewing 'offensive and anti-trans' websites and 'focusing on lots of Right-wing dark comedy'. Prevent referral could stain person's name Even if a person was subsequently deemed to require 'no further action', their name would risk remaining on police and other databases that could be accessed by MI5, MI6, the Home Office, Border Force, HMRC, the Charity Commission and local safeguarding teams. Lord Young said: 'There are multiple documented cases in which individuals referred to Prevent – despite not meeting the threshold for further action – suffered serious and lasting consequences simply because their names were logged in the system.' The row comes despite a report by Sir William Shawcross, a former independent reviewer of Prevent, which criticised the way that mainstream literature and even a former Cabinet minister had been described as 'cultural nationalists' by a Home Office research unit on extremism. The minister was later revealed as Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg. Sir William recommended that Prevent must be 'consistent in the threshold that it applies across ideologies to ensure a proportionate and effective response.' He added that there were major failings with Prevent more broadly, including that it wrongly funnelled money to extremist organisations and had repeatedly failed to identify people who went on to carry out terrorist attacks. Lord Carlile, a former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said: 'It is a very difficult job that the Home Office has to do, but maybe they should do a careful bit of editing so that people who are close to the political mainstream are not caught up in it.' A former government adviser said the 'cultural nationalism' definition was 'pretty shoddy'. 'Agencies like counter-terrorism police and MI5 are much more rigorous in their classifications,' they said. 'We are talking about Right-wing extremists, who are often neo-Nazis. It undermines the seriousness of what counter-extremism is all about.' Professor Ian Acheson, a former government adviser on extremism, said: 'We are now beginning to see the consequences of a referral mechanism built on training like this which skews away from suspicion by conduct to the mere possession of beliefs that are perfectly legitimate but regarded by Prevent policy wonks as 'problematic.''
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
‘Spiteful' boss cut pregnant accountant's hours after she told him she had morning sickness
A 'spiteful' boss cut his pregnant employee's work hours after she told him she had morning sickness, and then fired her when her maternity leave was due to start, a tribunal has heard. Sadia Shakil had worked as an accountant and bookkeeper at the property development firm Samsons in Bedford since October 2020, and became pregnant early the following year. But after Ms Shakil phoned her boss Mohammed Saleem on 30 March 2021 to inform him that she was experiencing morning sickness due to her pregnancy, he then proceeded to tell her in an email the following day that he was cutting her working hours. In the email seen by the tribunal, Mr Saleem wrote: 'Considering that I am unable to give you extra work as I am abroad and in view that you are feeling unwell during your pregnancy it would be best if you only come into work for 2 days per week.' The tribunal ruled that this was a 'fundamental' breach of Ms Shakil's employment contract, which caused her to experience 'stress, anxiety and panic' while questioning how she and her husband would be able to afford essential items for their baby now that their main source of income had been unilaterally reduced. During this period, Ms Shakil suffered sleepless nights and panic attacks while being 'plagued by worrisome thoughts', including 'doubts about whether she had done the right thing to have a baby at all when she was not financially stable'. After informing her boss that she needed to resign, Ms Shakil managed to secure a second full-time job in May, but she continued to work at Samsons in her spare time in the hope she would be able to resume her full-time role at the firm after her maternity leave. In the months that followed, Mr Saleem ignored multiple emails from Ms Shakil about her upcoming maternity leave, 'which caused her further stress and worry', at a time when she also suffered complications, being admitted to hospital on two occasions. By the end of September, blood tests had revealed a potentially serious condition which Ms Shakil was told put her baby at risk of still birth, resulting in the hospital booking her in to have her baby induced on 17 October. Two days after Ms Shakil's final email on 27 September, informing Mr Saleem that her leave would now commence on 1 October, he finally responded – referring to a letter she had not received 'putting her role at risk of redundancy '. Ms Shakil was dismissed with effect from 1 October 2021, when she began maternity leave, the tribunal noted. After her son was born on 18 October, the family were forced to move back in with Ms Shakil's parents 'due to the financial pressure that [her] loss of employment and lack of maternity pay had created'. Ms Shakil's subsequent claim to the Department for Work and Pensions for maternity allowance was then rejected on the grounds that her employer was responsible for paying it. 'The claimant's early weeks and months with her new baby were marred by the need to devote time to trying to resolve her financial predicament and bringing the employment tribunal proceedings,' the tribunal found. After an initial tribunal in Birmingham in April 2023, Ms Shakil was awarded £5,000 in damages for maternity discrimination and Samsons ordered to pay her for income lost while on reduced hours. In an email sent in June 2023 in which he asked Ms Shakil to provide her bank details so that he could pay her the sum awarded by the tribunal, Mr Saleem wrote 'I hope that you have a wonderful time utilising the monies gained from me', adding that the loss of money 'will make no difference to me'. A further appeal hearing in March 2025 found that Ms Shakil 'was horrified' by the email – which she described as 'disturbing and 'nasty' – and 'was shocked that Mr Saleem could be so spiteful to her'. Ms Shakil's appeal that the sum awarded to her had been too low was accepted, and the judge ordered Samsons to pay her a total of £31,860. Finding it to be a 'serious case of discrimination', the tribunal found: 'The discrimination took place at a time in the claimant's life which she had hoped and planned would be exciting and happy – the pregnancy, birth and early life of her first child. 'Instead, she suffered physical and emotional symptoms of anxiety and distress. These included sleepless nights, panic attacks, intrusive anxious thoughts and tearfulness. There was evidence that the claimant's confidence and self-esteem were damaged by the discrimination. 'These symptoms persisted from the time she was told that her hours had been cut to two days per week, until her baby was born. The symptoms did not stop then, however, because of the claimants' ongoing financial struggles.' It added: 'The effects of the discriminatory dismissal were ongoing at the time of the hearing, four years later, because the claimant is still worried that she might have a similar experience with her new employer if she decides to have another baby.'
