Michael Gove Grilled On Why The Government Won't Impose Windfall Tax & Why PM Shouldn't Resign | GMB

If we have already understood what we just talked about, how can we help people insulate their homes? Yes, I was listening to the fascinating conversation you were obviously having, a conversation in light of the new powers the home has. The secretary has to make sure that people can go about their daily activities, but I also think two very important points were raised beyond the legislation. One, we must all recognize that climate change poses some long-term challenges for this country and for the world that require thought and care as we consider how we are going to get our energy in the future.

The second thing, of course, is also that there are steps we can take now, including looking at how we can isolate or improve. Desaturated existing homes, but also how we can ensure that the new homes we are building meet appropriate energy efficiency standards. Can we get back to the issue of the cost of living crisis? I would like to pose the big question. of the moment, which is the

windfall

tax for oil companies, last week the head of bp, no less who just announced record profits and

windfall

profits, said on the record and was questioned about this and absolutely backed up what he said , said there are every possible way to pay a windfall tax and still invest at exactly the level we plan in research and development for the future, so it's almost a green light from BP to

impose

a windfall tax. extraordinary.

The next day, he announced phenomenal profits, why not? You don't

impose

a windfall tax because it would give you a huge amount of money to help people who are facing real problems with their bills. Once again, we have been discussing the vital importance of thinking long term and we have been talking about climate change, but also, of course, the situation that so many people face when it comes to their relationship with energy companies. . Two things. A. We have already stepped in to help people with their energy bills. Two things. that the wrong tax will be applied at the wrong time and in the wrong way, which will deter investment in the North Sea.

I heard what bp said, but I was also in Aberdeen, my home city, the other week, and I know that if we were to impose the wrong kind of tax that would act as a deterrent to some of the future investment, we need not only obtain oil and gas from the North Sea and see the development of new resources, but also invest in other forms of energy. too, but what would make it the wrong kind of tax, surely a simple windfall tax now that the oil companies are making profits they couldn't have dreamed of a couple of years ago and when the boss of one of them has said that If you are totally comfortable paying a windfall tax, why is it an inappropriate tax?

Now is surely exactly the right time to impose a tax. No, the analysis I've seen would lead anyone to conclude that it does. having such attacks on energy companies would act as a talent for the future investment that we need to have long term security of supply Margaret Thatcher was happy with windfall taxes there are certain times and there are certain circumstances uh when they can introduce new taxes, uh, very focused, um, interestingly, that's what I did when the situation that we faced with the builders came and with the cladding crisis, um, we were both able to negotiate with the major developers to get more. money from them to help people who are stuck in rental properties and we also have a particular type of tax that we are levying so when it comes to taking the appropriate steps to tell businesses that they need to do more because we are on the side of the citizen, we will do that, there is no ideological obstacle, quite the opposite, but we have to weigh the questions about what companies can endure because these companies have employees, these employees deserve to have their jobs. is ruling out a beneficial tax on the one-time excess profits that these energy companies are making right now in front of one of the bosses of those energy companies who says they could stand it, so let's talk about something else, what about that on the bills of energy?

Can we suspend that on energy bills? The costs of people are staggering. Yes, the costs are huge, but if you take that away, well, it would certainly help a lot of people. Some of the people I would help would be people who are already rich. So if you remove that from energy bills, then the president or CEO of BP benefits as much, if not more, than people who are in genuine poverty. I only have one article here from May 2016, just before the referendum, in which you wrote in The Sun that the less wealthy are particularly affected by VAT on fuel bills, so what has changed because that was part of his campaign to leave the EU, which would allow him to remove it from energy bills because the less wealthy are especially affected? and that's why we've dedicated extra money to supporting the less wealthy, uh, that's why we've directed our support to those who need it most, those who are in council tax bands a to d, because I'm talking about that in energy bills. because you just said that it would disproportionately benefit the richest, while your campaign in 2016 was that applying VAT to energy bills would actually help the poorest, the campaign then focused on, rightly, the fact that energy bills take up a larger proportion of the total income of people who are at the lower levels of the income spectrum what has changed that has not changed what has changed is that of all the tools that can be implemented to ensure that support is directed to the poorest, there are I would love to have more precise tools.

So were you wrong when you campaigned for that to be reduced on energy bills and said that the less wealthy would be particularly affected and that if we voted leave you would be able to scrap this unfair and damaging tax, yes? and that it was wrong for unelected bureaucrats in Brussels to impose this tax on the poorest and that elected British politicians cannot do anything now that we have achieved Brexit. Elected British politicians can do something, why don't they do it and remove VAT on energy? bills uh I would love to remove that on energy bills but a more effective and even more effective way to help the poorest is by directing support through the council tax system that goes to those who are mostly people who they are going to wonder. why when he is in a position to do so he has decided not to do it.

I just explained to you why okay, sir, this was the weekend, uh, when beergate met partygate. for breaking the rules embarrasses the prime minister since he already received the ticket, he may receive more and he has no intention of going anywhere. No, you don't feel in any way compromised by what Kirsten said she would do. it's exactly the opposite of what the prime minister is refusing to do, no, you could argue, mr

gove

, that it puts more pressure on the prime minister because kirsten wasn't the person who wrote the rules, uh, uh, all these things They are a matter for Kyostomer, not me, but you do not feel in any way that this has raised the discussion about the

resign

ation in the face of the fine and, as I say, the Prime Minister, many predict that there will be more fines in the future.

I don't think that really puts his position in jeopardy. For some time now there has been an understandable focus and discussion on the rule violations that were committed during greed for anyone who has suffered during Covid from the idea that others broke. Those rules are undeniably painful and difficult, of course they are, but it's also true that the Prime Minister was responsible for a number of very, very important decisions during the clover crisis, which meant we handled it better than many other countries. . um on the vaccination in the booster program um on the escape from lockdown you have all those big questions at the moment do you make a judgment on the round? the idea that the prime minister should

resign

is even if he faces more fines you say the position hasn't changed he still doesn't have to resign even if he gets fined again and again.

I have explained my position, which is, I think, the idea that you should force a sitting prime minister who, if you look at everything in the round made all the important decisions about covid, right, to resign, no , that does not for a moment diminish the pain that people endured and the fact that mistakes were made. I think lessons have been learned as a result of that, but um. I think it's entirely fair to say that you are deeply sorry that things went wrong. That people deserve to learn lessons. That there should be recognition, contrition and full and honest apologies, but that it does not deserve the resignation of a sitting president.

Minister, okay, good sir, let's see what Kyo Stamina wants to say or do, that's his business, good sir, we're out of time. Thank you very much for yours this morning. It's uh, thank you, thank you.