John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con):

Will individual schools have direct access to the money and the temporary accommodation, if they need it? And will every local education authority make an urgent statement about their role in commissioning the schools in the first place and about maintenance, where they are responsible?

Gillian Keegan, Secretary of State for Education:

We have put a caseworker in place so that each school can work with that caseworker, as well as having access to the temporary accommodation and the company that can do the propping work, which we have already secured, or to additional surveying, if required. We are working closely with local authorities, but I urge the 5% of local authorities that have not responded to the questionnaire to respond—that is more important than ever.

Last night just 19 of us voted against the Energy Bill. The Bill was supported by Labour, SNP, Lib Dems , and the Green MP. These parties tried to amend it to stop UK oil and gas earlier and to increase the costs on UK business more. The Conservative government voted these unhelpful amendments down with large majorities but stuck with a Bill which intervenes too much with people’s preferences and with an energy market already distorted by windfall taxes, subsidies and complex rules.

We had too little time to debate it as the united parties stuck with a timetable motion that allowed backbenchers around just 2 hours to discuss 426 pages of law and 146 amendments. Because there were 6 votes there was no time for any debate on Third reading which would have provided chance to review the Bill as amended.

In my time restricted remarks I stressed the need to carbon account more realistically. As energy policy is driven by net zero rather than by affordability and availability it is important to count carbon sensibly. It makes no sense for the UK to tax and price and regulate the end of high CO 2 activities here if we simply import the high energy goods from somewhere else adding to world CO 2 totals. It makes no sense to dump your petrol car early to buy an electric car if you do not do a high mileage as the CO 2 generated by making the EV and destroying the petrol car will be greater than the savings in use. When looking at CO 2 outcomes you cannot assume all UK electricity is green when we often generate more than half from gas. When assessing the electrical revolution you need to include all the CO 2 generated by making steel for new pylons, by smelting new copper for cables, making new bitumen to repair the roads after digging them up to put in cables, all the CO 2 in mining the materials for batteries and fabricating them.

I did not vote for the Climate Change Act of 2008. I was critical of the lack of costings and forecasts of what would be needed to undertake such a fundamental  change of the energy we used and the ways we used it. No one proposing it could tell us what technologies would work and would be needed to decarbonise diets, aviation, heavy plant, industry and home heating.

This week I am unable to support the government’s latest essay in energy policy geared to hitting the net zero targets. The Bill continues the development of a complex web of subsidies, windfall taxes, price controls and regulations that run the risk of imposing dear energy on us. The UK seems to think cutting our CO 2 output by closing factories and steel works here is good for the planet when importing these items will add to world CO 2.

I am concerned about the UK spending an estimated £20 bn on carbon capture and storage. This is all extra cost which will either be paid for by taxpayers through subsidies or by energy users through higher prices. Either way it is bad for inflation, jobs and business here in the UK .

The UK should not be putting our own energy using businesses or our domestic consumers at a disadvantage. The UK does not have to pioneer carbon capture before other far larger CO 2 producers like China and the EU get around to using carbon capture.

Around the country especially in the hotspots there is a shortage of rented accommodation. There are reports of high and rising rents and little or  no choice of homes for people needing them. There are demands for further changes to the law to give tenants more rights, as tenants worry about the affordability and lack of choice.

There are also lobbies from landlords. Many smaller landlords are thinking of giving up. They have to pay more tax following changes. Their mortgages and loans to finance the properties are now much dearer. Many are finding it difficult to make the  numbers work, with cost escalation over finance, maintenance, management and tax . If they sell to another landlord the home remains available, but if they sell to an owner occupier the property is no longer helping ease the rental market.

There are many who say second homes need to be made dearer. Some communities report too many second homes, which can be bad news if the people who own them do not spend much time in those communities. They help drive up the price of homes making it more difficult for local people to afford them, whilst they do not spend enough in local shops or join in with local life and services as people would who live there all the time. In such conditions the wish is to see restrictions on purchase.

Others say that second home owners can provide additional spending power coming in with higher incomes and wealth, and may stimulate demand for additional services and goods. Some people with jobs in two places may need modest accommodation in the place they visit less, as with MPs.

Where ever rent controls and strict regulation have been tried the supply of rented accommodation has fallen and things have got worse for tenants.

The recent revisions to the ONS GDP and national income figures for recent years show they do not know what has happened to our economy. It is good news the UK has leapt from bottom to third from top amongst G 7 nations for post pandemic growth. It is worrying the figures for the outturn alter so much. It makes it even harder for those trying to forecast what might happen next.

Meanwhile the OBR has regularly overstated the deficit for the immediate year by more than £100 bn .The Bank of England forecast inflation staying at 2% as it rose to 11%. It then said the rise would be short lived yet we are still way over target.

Despite this inability of these 3 bodies to tell us what has happened and  what will happen next, the  government remains wedded to tax and spend policies based on these inaccurate numbers. Worse still it accepts as the main  guide on whether tax cuts can be afforded the OBR forecast of the deficit in five years time. No one can forecast that accurately as who knows what world growth will be in five years time, who will be President of the USA or Chairman of the Fed or what their policies will be. To ask the OBR to get that right when they cannot get the current  year right and  then to rely on it as if it were right to a  few billions is absurd. The OBR task is made more difficult by past ONS understatements of GDP and therefore of productivity as these figures matter for the 5 year forecast . If you cannot rely on the Bank forecast of inflation you cannot know whether the Bank in 5 years time will need high rates to cut another inflation it has caused, or need low rates to end a recession it has brought on.

So what needs doing? All 3 forecasting and retro casting official bodies need to be asked to revise their models until they can predict and define the past more accurately . They need to back test their models and agree how to compute outturns.

The government needs to get rid of the 5 year deficit target. It should steer the economy with a 2% inflation target and a 2% growth target.  It should use forecasting models with a better track record than the OBR, and make judgements taking into account  money and credit conditions and allowing for how growth boosts tax revenues and can be boosted by lower tax rates. It should stop making tax the only flexible part of the package  and see the importance of better spending controls and priorities to good outcomes.