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."
'Strong momentum'
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.CEO John Flint 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.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
26 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Reeves's review was a sobering experience for hard-pressed taxpayers
SIR – Listening to the Chancellor's long list of extra government spending pledges, I thought to myself: 'Some poor sods are going to have to pay for all this.' Then I realised that I shall be one of them. J Alan Smith Epping, Essex SIR – After the promises announced by Labour in the spending review, the alleged inherited £22 billion black hole looks like a drop in the ocean. Roger Gentry Weavering, Kent SIR – Labour is forever trotting out that its aim is to help 'working people', with policies designed to improve their quality of life. In the past, the phrase covered manual workers, such as miners and steelworkers, but those industries no longer exist. So who are modern-day working people? Arguably, everyone who works, but Labour's definition is probably much narrower: any workers who vote Labour. Sandy Pratt Storrington, West Sussex SIR – The Chancellor's ambitions have numbers and dates attached, but there is no evidence that she has carried out any logistical analysis. Building requires trained personnel, materials and space. Schools need qualified teachers. The health service needs experienced medics. Power plants and grids must have thriving industries to supply and maintain them. Merely allocating money does not fulfil the ambition. Michael Marks Leominster, Herefordshire SIR – Rachel Reeves clearly lacks confidence in her plans, as throughout the spending review she took shots at opposition parties, using their alleged failings to justify her decisions. She should let her proposals speak for themselves. Given the poor state of the economy and its dismal growth on her watch, it was striking that the Chancellor did not fully explain how she will pay for her commitments. She said about her policies: 'These are my choices. These are this Government's choices. These are the British people's choices.' I don't think this claim would stand up if a general election were held today. Peter Williman Chatteris, Cambridgeshire SIR – When the next general election comes along, the only thing opposition parties will have to do to relieve the present administration of its responsibilities is remind the electorate of the Chagos and winter fuel fiascos. These offer sufficient evidence of incompetence – though plenty more is likely to be provided over the next four years. John Firrell Litton Cheney, Dorset Covered faces SIR – Reform UK and Kemi Badenoch are right to trigger a debate rather than campaign for a ban on all face coverings, including the burka. Jack Straw, as a Cabinet minister in Tony Blair's government, did the same thing in 2006. Both Mr Straw and Mrs Badenoch have said that they were not comfortable speaking to people whose faces were covered, and expressions therefore obscured, in their constituency offices. Surely the same concerns apply to teachers and students, judges and witnesses in court, and to medical professionals and patients, where it is essential to see each other properly. This should not be an outright ban, nor confined to religious apparel. B Brodkin Edgware, Middlesex SIR – I write to plead for open faces for men, women and children on behalf of the millions who, to a greater or lesser degree, rely on reading faces to grasp people's communications. I cannot talk with anyone of any background who has even a partially closed-off face. That's not rudeness – it's a practicality. And there are many millions like me, as nature is remarkably casual with hearing. Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con) London SW1 Why we need nuclear SIR – Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, and Labour deserve credit for deciding to build Sizewell C and invest in small modular reactors (report, June 10). We need these to provide clean, reliable energy and help us move away from fossil fuels, and to tackle climate change. More nuclear power will lead to well-paid jobs and greater energy security. Many environmentalists oppose nuclear power, but this is naive and unrealistic. Germany showed how closing nuclear plants and investing solely in renewables leads to burning more fossil fuels, as well as more expensive energy. Nuclear has high energy density and so requires less land and fewer materials. It is very good news that Labour stood up to the environmentalists, and, by investing in nuclear power, it is doing what is best for the country as well as the climate. Mark Dawes London E11 Space to remember SIR – Charles Moore (Notebook, June 10) writes about Holocaust Memorial Day and the risk of the concept being watered down. In January this year, I was surprised to see that this day was not printed on my calendar, so I emailed the company concerned to ask why. The reply stated that it wasn't able to include every important date, and this was partly so that there would be enough space in the boxes for customers to write in. Not only was another single entry printed for that date (Holiday, Australia), but room had also been found elsewhere in the calendar for Waitangi Day, Juneteenth and Presidents' Day. Priorities? Sue Thomas Monmouth Brotherly love SIR – My nephew, the second of my sister's three sons, sent his mother a card for Mother's Day (Letters, June 11) with the caption: 'If at first you don't succeed, try again. Love from your second son.' His older brother's reaction was not recorded. Prep school closures SIR – The announcement that two more private schools, in Putney and Kingston, are to close (report, June 7) following the Government's imposition of VAT on fees must be hugely upsetting for the children and parents involved. There are also 11,000 fewer pupils in private schools compared with a year ago. It has become obvious just how unpleasant this policy is. It highlights how the Left simply does not understand ambition, or parents' desire to do the best for their children. Which is the 'nasty party' now? Richard Allison Edinburgh Exasperating NHS SIR – I received an envelope from the NHS containing two sheets of paper. One said: 'This envelope contains a letter.' The other had details of an important appointment. It also told me that, if I needed to change the appointment, I would have to telephone the number provided, or I would be deleted from the list. But there was no number. About 20 minutes later, on my fourth try, I got to speak to a person. He didn't know that the number was not on the letter. Roger Hart Sheffield, South Yorkshire SIR – I am a blood donor (Features, June 7). We used to be able to book our next session on the same day we gave blood. Now we have to do it later online. It was so easy before. This is probably why donors don't always rebook and donations are wider apart. George Martin Warmington, Northamptonshire Lunch with Freddie SIR – I read Simon Heffer's article about his friend Freddie Forsyth (Features, June 11) with some sadness. In the early 1980s I was working in Hong Kong in Sutherland House, opposite the Hong Kong Club. One day I returned from lunch and, entering the lift to the 10th floor, I recognised Freddie, who was obviously going to the Foreign Correspondents' Club on the 11th floor. I had often been jealous of its members, as they invariably staggered out in the late afternoon, after a boozy lunch with colleagues, just as I was leaving the office. Each time I read his letters to The Telegraph, I found myself agreeing with his views. I would have given anything to have had lunch with him and put the world to rights. Neville Dickinson Morpeth, Northumberland Keeping churchyards trim – with a little help SIR – Grass and weeds in churchyards need controlling, but what is the best way of doing this? Strimmers and motorised mowers require energy and produce unattractive heaps of cut grass, and strimmers can damage gravestones. In theory, the parson can use the grass for hay-making, but that is probably uneconomic. Goats and sheep (Letters, June 11) require fenced churchyards, which must be properly managed. Helpfully, they consume wreaths and cut flowers, which have a finite life and need removing before they become unsightly. Grazing at regular and stated times is ideal. David J Critchley Buckingham The fundamental flaw in ID card proposals SIR – Robin Nonhebel (Letters, June 10) believes that identity cards should be introduced to help curb illegal immigration and abuse of the benefits system. However, for an ID card scheme to be appealing, voters would have to trust the state. Along with millions of others, I don't. Anyhow, I have an ID card already – it's called a passport or driving licence. William Rusbridge Tregony, Cornwall SIR– Robin Nonhebel is quite correct. You have to ask why migrants want to come to the UK, bypassing Germany, France and other European countries. Could it be because those countries have national ID cards? These let holders use government services, and are required to obtain work and access healthcare and other state benefits. ID cards would improve government efficiency, removing the need for multiple other forms of identification. Yet we think we know best, and so the debate continues ad infinitum. R Jones Northwood, Middlesex SIR – An ID card scheme would surely offer an opportunity for people-traffickers to enhance their income further by selling forged cards. Carole Doggett Milford, Hampshire SIR – The idea of having to prove yourself to the state day in, day out is objectionable. Why should I – a private citizen – have to verify who I am to a policeman, when the policeman should rightly show his warrant card to me? Letters to the Editor We accept letters by email and post. Please include name, address, work and home telephone numbers. ADDRESS: 111 Buckingham Palace Road, London, SW1W 0DT EMAIL: dtletters@ FOLLOW: Telegraph Letters @LettersDesk
Spectator
38 minutes ago
- Spectator
Rachel Reeves, the Iron Chancer
Gordon Brown may not be every teenager's political pin-up. But as an Oxford student, Rachel Reeves proudly kept a framed photo of him in her bedroom. It was Brown who introduced the first multi-year spending review in 1998: the kind of big political set-piece speech which he relished. Reeves's speech on Wednesday showed the level of constraints facing the Treasury this decade vs the 1990s. Chess, not poker, is the Chancellor's chosen game of recreation. As a player and a politician, she prides herself on making decisions guided by skill, care and thought. Yet this week she staked her government's future on a series of political bets. Her tax rises and changes to Treasury rules gave her some £300 billion to spend across Whitehall – including £113 billion in capital funding. This is proof, her supporters say, that Reeves offers the kind of long-term thinking so absent under the Tories. But her exposure to risk means she is less 'Iron Chancellor', more 'Iron Chancer'. Her first bet is on the UK's finances holding strong until October. Her fiscal headroom is just £9.9 billion, a buffer that could prove insufficient against further economic shocks. Domestic growth is sluggish and the global economy is set for its worst decade since the 1960s. Within the Treasury there are predictions of another nervy summer spent watching the bond markets. In the past year, UK ten-year gilt yields are now higher than after the Liz Truss 'mini-Budget' which the Chancellor so disdains. The high UK risk premium means yields have risen more than their equivalents in any other G7 country this year, bar Japan. Reeves is waging that the City views her plan as credible both now and when the OBR reports in the autumn. The bond markets need only be lucky once; she will have to be lucky always. Then there is inflation, which is at 3.5 per cent. One aide involved in the last spending review, back in 2021, suggests the subsequent erosion of Whitehall budgets should serve as a 'cautionary tale' for ministers cheering this week. 'Labour is running a looser policy. It just shows all of this is for naught if you don't have a wider grip,' they said. Rachel Reeves has staked her government's future on a series of political bets Reeves's second big bet is on health, the winner of the review. Wes Streeting's department received a £29 billion rise in its day-to-day spending budget: 60 per cent of the cash increase available to Reeves. 'If we don't fix the NHS, we won't win re-election' is the argument Streeting made to the Treasury. More money, though, won't guarantee results. As Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies – and one of Reeves's favourite economists – noted this week, 'very, very big increases' in the number of doctors and nurses in NHS England between 2019 and 2024 yielded a 'much smaller increase in measured activity'. On current trends, the health service will employ almost 10 per cent of England's entire workforce within a decade. An ageing population will only increase its demands for state spending. The third bet is on her party's stomach for spending cuts. Citing the jump in spending from 2026/27 to 2028/29, Reeves told the House: 'In place of chaos, I choose stability. In place of decline, I choose investment.' But her words will give little encouragement to her backbenchers. Labour's U-turn over the winter fuel payment, which dominated so much of the pre-review coverage, concerned just £1.2 billion (0.4 per cent of welfare spending) in a state that is projected to spend nearly £1.5 trillion by 2029. While the Chancellor goes all in on public services, others are placing their bets elsewhere. Some senior Tories, jaded by their time in office, argue privately that Britain's woes will be fixed only by an overhaul of Whitehall's power structures. It is not just the post-Blair constitutional settlement that needs reversing, but the post-Brown Treasury set-up, too. While No. 10 and the Treasury slugged it out over the precise wording of Reeves's speech on the day before the review, Richard Tice, Reform's deputy leader, met 15 hedge fund leaders for breakfast. It was the kind of smoked salmon schmoozing that Reeves did in opposition not so long ago. 'I think they call it a vibe shift,' remarks one aide. That change in the pace of politics is precisely why Labour MPs are urging the Chancellor to 'get the money out the door as quickly as possible'. Colleagues cite Joe Biden's failure to convince voters that they were better off under him, arguing that the British electorate must feel any benefits from new spending within the next year. Reeves can point to quick measures such as public sector pay increases and 500,000 more children getting free school meals. The £13.2 billion warm homes plan was ring-fenced, much to Ed Miliband's delight, to try to bring down energy bills. Long-term infrastructure schemes, such as £14.2 billion for Sizewell C, have been balanced against £15.6 billion on local projects. Yet such was the level of concern about MPs' reaction that Reeves began briefing them a full 24 hours before delivering her statement. The Chancellor's more generous colleagues recognise the immense strain she is under. Reeves must contend with two things that Brown's Treasury never faced: a stuttering economy and the end of the Cold War peace dividend. Defence spending will rise to 2.6 per cent in April 2027. 'Gordon never had to face a review like this,' remarks one veteran, citing Brown's persistent and vocal demands for Reeves to lift the two-child benefit cap. Another Labour MP notes that any political consensus tends to last 30 years: 'We might now be coming to the end of the Third Way consensus.' At cabinet, prior to heading to the Commons, Keir Starmer told ministers that the spending review 'marks the end of the first phase of this government'. It was a remark intended to signal a line in the sand after a difficult first year in office. Yet if, as expected, Reeves hikes taxes again in the autumn, voters may struggle to see the difference. The Chancellor's figures rest on the hope that growth will be strong enough, inflation tame enough and tax receipts robust enough to last until October. Will her plan pay off? Don't bet on it.
Daily Mail
42 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Council tax to soar by 5% for three years, Reeves reveals - as average home's council tax bill will increase by £359 by 2029
The average home's council tax bill will increase by £359 by 2029, the Spending Review revealed. Ministers are working on the basis that councils will increase the rate by 5 per cent a year for the next three years. The rise will fund the settlement for local authorities, which includes social care – an issue on which Labour is yet to outline its policy. It also assumes that the police precept – the portion of council tax that goes directly to forces – will have to rise. Asked about the increase, Chancellor Rachel Reeves said: 'The previous government increased council tax by 5 per cent a year, and we have stuck to that. 'We won't be going above that. That is the council tax policy that we inherited from the previous government, and that we will be continuing. 'Of course, that money goes into those local public services, including social care, and in case of the police precept, it goes into our local policing.' Figures show that council tax for the average Band D home will increase by £359 over the next three years. Kevin Hollinrake, Tory communities spokesman, said: 'Rachel Reeves claimed council tax wouldn't have to go up to afford her spending spree, but this tax bombshell shows that you can't trust a word she says. 'Because of Labour's profligate spending plans today, tax and borrowing increases in the autumn are now inevitable. 'This tax double-whammy is just rubbing salt in the wounds, and means hundreds of pounds less in take-home pay for hard-working people.' Despite the increase, local government representatives said there would still not be enough cash to fund services and warned of further cuts.
