Energy minister 'won't apologise' for investment in nuclear power
Scottish Labour MP Michael Shanks insisted that nuclear was part of the UK's 'energy mix' and claimed the SNP's 'ideological opposition' to nuclear is costing Scotland jobs.
It comes after we told how in last week's spending review Chancellor Rachel Reeves effectively cut £2.5 billion of funding for GB Energy.
Reeves said the state-owned clean energy company would now share the overall £8.3bn funding with a separate body looking to invest in nuclear energy.
READ MORE: UK jets being sent to the Middle East as Keir Starmer refuses to rule out defending Israel
The Treasury said the £2.5bn would go towards a new generation of small modular nuclear reactors.
On BBC Scotland's Sunday Show, Shanks was challenged on the fact that billions intended for renewables will now be invested in nuclear power. Journalist Martin Geissler pointed out there was no mention of nuclear anywhere in the Labour party's manifesto ahead of the 2024 general election, but it instead focussed on clean power projects such as onshore wind, solar, and hydro power.
'Well, it's not an exclusive list, because there's a lot of other clean energy technologies,' Shanks said.
'Nuclear is part of our energy mix.
'I'm not going to make any apologies for the government investing in nuclear where thousands of highly skilled jobs can be delivered, including in Scotland if it wasn't for the ideological position of the SNP to block new nuclear, could be delivering those well paid skilled jobs here in Scotland.
(Image: BBC) 'They turned their face against that, and they will have to answer for that.'
He added: 'The broader point here is Great British Energy is all about harnessing the power of the public purse to invest not just in clean power projects directly but supply chains that drive them.
'Because unlike the previous government, we want to see those well paid, industrialised jobs coming alongside us, not towing in offshore wind and switching it on, but building it in this country and getting the manufacturing jobs that go with it. That's how we deliver the jobs of the future.'
Geissler put it to Shanks that oil and gas companies are leaving Aberdeen and that the just transition should be a 'safety net' for workers, but that currently there is 'no net' for workers.
Asked if that was a fair assessment, Shanks said: 'Well, look, every single job loss is hugely distressing for the individuals and for their families and communities.
'I don't for a second discount the impact that job losses have, but I don't think that is an entirely fair assessment, because yes, there's been job losses recently announced, but there's also been thousands of jobs created.'
READ MORE: Ian Murray 'does not understand how devolution works', minister says
He added: 'We shouldn't just look at one side of the equation here.
'A transition means there will be jobs moving from one part of the industry into the other.
'We need to make sure that that happens, but we also need to support the workers to get those jobs, and that's why we announced incredibly quickly that passporting support, where if you're an offshore oil and gas worker doing a particular job and you could do the same job in offshore wind, you shouldn't have to re qualify and have your skills reassessed. You should be able to move straight into that job. That's something the previous government developed for a long time. We delivered it.'
We told how GB energy chair, Jürgen Maier, who will be based in Manchester, poured cold water over another Labour pledge of creating 1000 jobs for Aberdeen – saying it might take 20 years.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
31 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
STEPHEN DAISLEY: Swinney has no spark, no vision and no clue. If he were to quit now he'd leave no legacy ... just consequences
Reports of a plot to replace John Swinney as SNP leader prompt an obvious question: with whom? The First Minister's pitch when he took over the leadership was that he would be Mr Stability, a safe pair of hands who could move the party on from the Humza Yousaf disaster, factional disagreements over gender and independence strategy, and the never-ending police investigation. Now, there's a lot to be said for stability. After all, 'May you live in interesting times' is intended as a curse, not a blessing. But whose interests are served by Swinneyean 'stability'? Certainly not taxpayers who want to see their money spent wisely on the improvement of public services. Swinney, like his recent predecessors, is adept at raking money in and pouring it back out but the record on outcomes leaves a lot to be desired. The finance secretary who gutted funding for local government. The education secretary who tried to fix an exams disaster by downgrading the results of working-class children. The Covid recovery secretary who produced no recovery in hospitals or on high streets. The first minister who, over a long and undistinguished ministerial career, has had a hand in every calamity to issue from St Andrew's House, from the educational attainment gap to the unlawful named persons scheme, the Ferguson Marine ferries to the Gender Recognition Reform Bill, the secrecy that bedevilled the Alex Salmond inquiry to the brazen deletion of ministerial messages from the Covid pandemic. Internal rivals might be displeased with his absolutely honking performance in the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election, losing a safe SNP seat to a Labour party that he said wasn't even in the race, but if anyone is entitled to vent about the man's performance it is the general public. They thought they were getting a political handyman, someone who would roll up his sleeves and fix the breaks, cracks, squeaks and grumbles across government. Thirteen months later, the same faults remain. Decrepitude has become the norm. Which brings us back to the 'who' question. Let's say the plotters give Swinney his jotters. Who follows him into Bute House? Stephen Flynn is a name insiders keep bringing up, and I keep advising them to put right back down. Flynn is a wide boy with a restless mouth and a smug manner and zero in the way of executive experience. He is a less qualified Humza Yousaf. Angus Robertson? Cold, aloof, and unrelatable. If Scottish elections were held only in Stockbridge and Kelvinbridge, he'd romp home, but the farther you get from a university, a Waitrose or a book festival, the further his appeal diminishes. Kate Forbes could make a decent fist of it but the green-haired brigade would sooner see Reform in government than allow a Bible-believing Christian to lead the party. Not that any of this matters, of course. The problem is the SNP itself, its failure to govern and its shifting priorities. Scotland will not flourish under Swinney. It will not flourish under Flynn or anyone else touted as a possible successor. The SNP is not a party that exists to make Scotland flourish; it exists to make Scotland independent. Yet the Nationalists are no closer today to achieving either than they were 18 years ago when they entered government. Scotland did not flourish under Alex Salmond, whose energies were directed to the SNP's raison d'etre. It was of little consolation to those who hoped for economic and social progress during those first seven years, but Salmond spoke often of independence as the necessary condition for transforming the country into a powerhouse of prosperity, innovation and fairness. Unionists could dislike his objectives and his personality while recognising that he had ambition for the country, however misguided. Scotland is still not flourishing but nor is it making much progress towards independence. Under the post-Salmond leadership of the SNP, the unholy trinity of Nicola Sturgeon, Humza Yousaf and John Swinney, the journey has not merely stalled, the destination has changed. The immediate objective is not tending, growing or marshalling the independence movement, but entrenching and expanding their own ruling caste, a self-perpetuating elite whose purpose is not social or constitutional change but the acquisition of power and status for their own sake. They are in office to be in office and every decision is taken with the maintenance of office in mind. They are embedding themselves as the new Scottish establishment, helpfully sporting yellow rather than red rosettes so they may be distinguished from the old establishment, and nothing - not the improvement of education, nor the recovery of the NHS, nor even independence - will get in their way. That establishment was on full display last week in John Swinney's mini reshuffle, an ingathering of the inconsequential, an anointing of the adequate. It's hard to be disappointed in the calibre of ministers, for how do you work up any kind of feeling towards a Tom Arthur or a Màiri McAllan? There is nothing there to oppose because there is nothing there. At the head of this committee of beige sits Swinney, the beigest man of all.. No spark, no passion, no vision, no clue. Tomorrow, the First Minister will address the Scotland 2050 conference in Edinburgh where he will urge us to reject 'another 25 years of Westminster mismanagement' and instead 'look around us at our immense potential today, and have the confidence that we can do better with the full powers of independence'. The party that proclaimed 'Scotland free by 93', and then 'Nationalist heaven in 2007', now wants its followers to believe independence will be nifty in 2050. At some point, the party faithful will have to accept that they are not being led but strung along. The SNP will not deliver a booming economy and radically improved public services to ordinary voters, and nor will it, in its current incarnation, deliver independence to those for whom the constitution comes before all else. The SNP will deliver only for the nomenklatura in whose grips it has been held for more than a decade now. That ruling elite has its priorities but they are not those of the general public nor, for the most part, of the rank and file of the independence movement. They are nationalists who put themselves before the nation. Why remove John Swinney as leader when he is the ideal figurehead of today's SNP? A man with a lanyard, indistinguishable in ideology or political purpose from all the other men and women with lanyards, no more or less likely to grow the economy, close the attainment gap, meet A&E targets or secure another referendum on independence. If Swinney were to go now, he would leave no legacy, only consequences, fashioned by his failings but borne by others. The young people denied a quality, life-changing education. The local government services cut and the people who relied upon them abandoned. The hollowed out town centres, the boarded up shops and businesses, the pervasive economic despair and societal gloom of a country where venturing beyond the major cities will bring you face to face with communities that have been given up on for so long they have given up on themselves. A first minister worthy of the office would set about tackling these social ailments, but John Swinney is not worthy of the office, and nor are any of those who would be likely to succeed him.
Daily Mirror
36 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Keir Starmer doubles down on DWP PIP cuts as major Labour revolt looms
Most of the savings to the welfare bill will be made by restricting access to a key disability benefit - Personal Independence Payments (PIP) - in a move that has caused alarm Keir Starmer has stood by controversial welfare cuts despite facing the biggest revolt of his premiership so far. The Prime Minister insisted "we have got to get the reforms through" as he sidestepped questions over whether there would be any concessions on the plans. It comes as Mr Starmer braces for a massive revolt when Labour MPs are asked to vote on proposals aimed at slashing £5billion from welfare. Most of the savings will be made by restricting access to a key disability benefit - Personal Independence Payments (PIP) - in a move that has caused alarm among charities and campaigners. The government's own internal assessment said the reforms could result in an extra 250,000 people, including 50,000 children, falling into poverty. READ MORE: Disability cut impact could be even worse than expected warns food bank charity Legislation implementing the changes is expected to be introduced in the Commons this week - before MPs are asked to vote on the changes. Well over 100 Labour MPs have called for a delay or suggested they will rebel. Asked whether he was confident he had the numbers to get the reforms through Parliament, Mr Starmer told reporters: "We've got to reform the welfare system. "Everybody agrees with that proposition. So we've got to do that basic reform. It doesn't work for those that need support and help into work and it doesn't work for the taxpayer. "So it's got to be reformed. The principles remain the same, those who can work should work. "Those who need support in to work should have that support in to work which I don't think they are getting at the moment. "Those who are never going to be able to work should be properly supported and protected. And that includes not being reassessed and reassessed. "So they are the principles, we need to do reform and we will be getting on with that reform when the bill comes." Pressed on whether there would be any more concessions to win over rebellious Labour MPs, Mr Starmer added: "Well we have got to get the reforms through and I have been clear about that from start to finish. "The system is not working, it's not working for those that need support, it's not working for taxpayers."
Metro
2 hours ago
- Metro
Disability benefit isn't 'disposable income', says reader
Do you agree with our readers? Have your say on these MetroTalk topics and more in the comments. Claire (MetroTalk, Thu) says the 'problem' working people have is that those on benefits have more disposable income than them. It's a fact that many disabled people have extra living costs. Many also have to supplement housing benefit payments out of their own pocket. Many more disability benefit claimants would rather work but are unable to find jobs that offer the flexibility those with fluctuating conditions require in order to make work a reality. Many of the myths about disabled benefit claimants are born of falsehoods fuelled by a downgrading of the sick and disabled, which has become prevalent in recent decades. This is hardly surprising when they're often described as a burden to the welfare state. James, Stockport Claire's view is entirely misguided. People on only universal credit have no disposable income despite (variable) allowances on council tax etc. The extra money disabled people get is to cover foreseen and unforeseen costs related to their disability and, anyway, it isn't a fortune. The disabled and unemployed are not your enemy. It's the tax cheats and uber-wealthy millionaires and billionaires funnelling their resources towards themselves who are. Deon, Barnet Of course Sir Keir Starmer is right to restore winter fuel payments to all but the wealthiest pensioners (MetroTalk, Thu) – but for political reasons. Reasonably well-off pensioners managed to get through winter without the payment but they made Labour pay at the ballot box. Pensioners make up around a quarter of the electorate and they always turn out to vote. Taking hundreds of pounds from them was always political suicide. Mess about with pensioners, find out at the election. It's a shame Sir Keir had to be reminded of this. John, Glasgow P Wright from Solihull (MetroTalk, Thu) argues that being willing to change your mind is a good thing, asking how many lives could have been saved if the British Army had done so on the first day of The Somme. His analogy is unconvincing. The fact that this 'progressive' administration did not know or care that large numbers of elderly people do not have access to generously funded workplace pensions shows how politically naive it is. The economy has barely improved since the payments were axed to all but those on pension credit so there is no financial argument to be made for reversing the cut. It is an obvious political ploy to slow the rise of Nigel Farage's Reform and has made no difference to political polling. Chris Shepherd, London Mick (MetroTalk, Thu) suggests Benjamin Netanyahu and his cabinet should watch a video of 'Israeli atrocities'. He was responding to Greta Thunberg being asked to watch a video of those carried out by Hamas on its October 7 attacks in 2023 that killed 1,200. The environmental activist and her colleagues had been detained trying to break the aid blockade on Gaza. The video they reportedly wanted to show Greta was of all the atrocities Hamas intentionally perpetrated against civilians – kidnap, rape and murder. Israel is fighting a war she did not start or want and all civilian deaths in Gaza are a tragedy. However they have been caused by Hamas using its civilians as human shields – hiding in schools, mosques and hospitals. Daniel, Milan It is a pity Greta Thunberg did not watch the video. It may have helped her to see it is Israel that needs aid for its survival. William, Bromley Further to the government allocating £16.7billon for nuclear power projects. More Trending Nuclear power won't make us self-sufficient in energy because it relies on uranium, which has to be imported. Around 50 per cent of the world's uranium comes from Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Then there is the problem of radioactive waste. The facility at Sellafield is leaking waste into the ground and is expected to do so until 2050. The vast sums that building nuclear reactors will cost would be far better spent on wave power. Roger Smith, Witham MORE: Partner of mum, 48, killed in skydive accident saw her fall to her death MORE: Three ways latest Middle East crisis could make life more expensive in the UK MORE: Emotional Jessie J vows to 'beat breast cancer' in final performance before surgery
