Windfall tax on energy giants will not tackle cost of living crisis, ministers warn Sunak

CABINET ministers have lined up to warn Rishi Sunak off plans for a windfall tax on energy firms, insisting the move would damage the economy and have unintended consequences.

In a highly unusual display of public dissent, Brandon Lewis, the Northern Ireland Secretary, and Sajid Javid, the Health Secretary, yesterday became the fifth and sixth Cabinet members to speak out against the policy in the space of a week.

The Chancellor has refused to rule out the idea of a one-off windfall tax on energy firms, which is being pushed by Labour and has support from some Tory backbenchers – although others fear it would be un-conservative. Kwasi Kwarteng, the Business Secretary, last week described a windfall tax as “taxing investment in jobs”. Liz Truss, Suella Braverman and Jacob Rees-Mogg were also critical of the idea.

Mr Lewis told The Sunday Telegraph that it “doesn’t really work” as a means of tackling the cost of living crisis.

“It puts off investment both in that sector and, absolutely, the risk in others,” he said. “So we’d be very, very wary of a windfall tax.

“What we want to see is companies using the money they’ve got to invest, particularly in that industry.”

The Northern Ireland Secretary insisted the Government could not rule anything out if investments did not take place, but stressed ministers were “all very right to be wary of windfall taxes”.

“I’m a Conservative. I believe in a low-tax economy,” Mr Lewis said.

“We want to see as much money in people’s pockets as we possibly can and businesses investing in high productivity and high skilled, high paid jobs.”

And accusing Labour of prioritising “a few headlines” over supporting business, Mr Lewis warned: “Dropping those kinds of things out there can scare off investment. That is damaging to the UK economy.”

At the Welsh Conservative conference yesterday, Mr Javid said: “You just mentioned the windfall tax

which insults and degrades women.” Ministers are understood to agree with the approach of the Labour government in 2007, which decided to stop the use of male pronouns in contexts where legislation was intended to refer to both men and women.

But they are concerned about the use of “gender neutral” terms in place of nouns such as “woman” and “mother”.

The change to the guidance follows a review that stemmed from the passage of the Ministerial and Other Maternity Allowances Bill last year.

At the time, Conservative, Labour and crossbench peers expressed outrage at the initial form of the legislation, which referred to a pregnant “person” rather than “woman”.

The legislation was intended to enable Suella Braverman, the Attorney General, to keep her post after having a baby. Previously, she would have had to resign to take time off after the birth. At the time, Baroness Hayman, a crossbench peer, said: “I believe the drafters of this Bill have [simply] got it wrong in trying to Snopake [correction fluid] the word ‘woman’ from the legislative lexicon. The price of so-called gender neutrality in this Bill is an awkward and ugly distortion of the English language and an affront to common sense.”

Baroness Fox of Buckley, a non-affiliated peer, said: “Erasing women from public discourse on maternity is not ahead of the curve; it is regressive and demeaning ... If we erase the word ‘women’, the danger is that we erase the struggle for women’s rights that got us here.”

Stonewall’s advice to employers includes using “gender neutral language” in order to be inclusive towards trans staff. A series of government departments have now quit the equality charity’s “diversity champions” programme, which includes guidance on gender-neutral spaces and the use of

‘Erasing women from public discourse on maternity is not ahead of the curve; it is regressive and demeaning’

pronouns, following controversy about its value for money and the extent of its influence on Whitehall.

But Stonewall has insisted that the scheme simply “provides guidance and support on making HR policies inclusive for LGBTQ+ employees”, adding: “It has no bearing on the drafting of legislation, which is the responsibility of the relevant government department.”

Dave Penman, general secretary of the FDA, the civil servants’ union, said that ministers could simply veto language to which they object, before any legislation reaches Parliament. “There is no subterfuge around this stuff.”