Rt Hon Sir John Redwood MP (Wokingham) (Con): With a three-year visa but only six months of guaranteed accommodation, will people have any tenant rights? What is the back-up provision if the sponsor wants to terminate well before the end of the visa?

Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, Minister for Intergovernmental Relations: It is our expectation that those who commit to have someone in their home for six months are undertaking quite a significant commitment, but it is already the case that the expressions of interest suggest that there are many people who want to do exactly that. The experience of previous sponsorship schemes has been that those who have undertaken such a commitment have found it a wonderful thing to have done, and the number of those who have dropped out or opted out has been small. However, it is the case—my right hon. Friend is absolutely right—that there may be occasions where relationships break down, and in those circumstances we will be mobilising the support of not only of central Government and local government, but of civil society, to ensure that individuals who are here can move on. The final thing I would want to say is that many of those on the frontline coming here will of course be women and children, but many of those coming here will want to work, to contribute and to be fully part of society. It is the case already that we have had offers from those in the private sector willing to provide training and jobs to people so that they can fully integrate into society for as long as they are here.

I recently had a discussion with Mark Littlewood from the Institute of Economic Affairs about my latest book, Build Back Green: The Electrifying Shock of the Green Revolution. You can watch it here:

The government now says  it does wish the UK to be more self reliant. One obvious area to start with is energy, the centre of the current cost of living and international crisis.

The government wishes to move to a  net zero future. They need to understand that for the next few years most people will need gas for their home heating boilers, most energy using industry will still need gas for ceramics and steel, bricks and cement.  Most cars, trucks and vans will still need petrol or diesel. The electric revolution will be more widespread next decade, not this.

That is why the UK government now  needs to call in the oil and gas industry in the UK and encourage it to fill the gap of the next few years with more UK produced gas and oil. The Business Secretary implied he would do so. So when will he make the announcements that policy needs? We do not need more studies or White Papers. The need is urgent. He and his officials need to give licences to explore and to produce more  from all the known deposits and fields. The Treasury needs to consider if the tax regime is sending the right signals, as it will be a big winner from more domestic production. Producing UK oil and gas already incurs Corporation tax at double the standard rate.

For its wider goal of decarbonising the government needs to make more rapid progress with small nuclear reactors, to conclude if this is feasible and economic and if so pump prime a development and production programme to make them a  next decade reality. It needs to see which combination of technologies could back its extension of windfarms so that they can keep the lights on when the wind does not blow or blows too much.  They need to decide on   the balance of green hydrogen production, battery storage and pump storage as the main means of storing wind energy when it is available and using it when the wind is on strike. Affordability matters when they make their choices. You cannot rely on more wind farms alone as there are too many hours when there is no wind or when you have to switch off the turbines because the wind is too strong. All the energy they produce on windy nights needs to be stored for use on calm days.

Let me make clear I strongly oppose the brutal Russian invasion and their resort to medieval sieges with modern bombs and artillery raining down on civilians and defenders. I do not post here the few submissions I get which slavishly follow Russian propaganda denying atrocities or blaming others for the  deaths and destruction we can see from reputable media sources.

I also strongly support NATO policy to take every precaution to avoid this becoming a NATO/Russian war.  Whilst NATO would overwhelm Russia there could be much larger loss of life and destruction  in Ukraine and the conflict would be widened by Russia into NATO countries before they lost. NATOs aim should be to encourage settlement between the parties whilst helping Ukraine resist Russia’s unprovoked aggression.

The U.K. as a leading member of NATO needs to stick with NATO policy. In the end like all wars there has to be a truce and preferably a peace settlement which can only come from talking. The U.K. will not play an important role in that as it falls to Russia and Ukraine as the combatants to decide what compromises they will make to end the fighting. It may  take a neutral intermediary like Israel to help them.

Russia seems to want to gain legal title to Crimea and the bits of Donbas it already influenced. It wants to add a land corridor from Russia to Crimea. It wants Ukraine to pledge it will not join either the EU or NATO. Maybe it still wants a change of Ukrainian government. It does not look as if Russia can either easily conquer the whole country or govern significant parts of it by military occupation now it has united most Ukrainians outside Crimea and Donbas against it. Maybe Russia still  thinks it can get unconditional surrender by starving and bombing people out of cities, but it still leaves it with too few troops there to keep down a population of more than 40 million.

Ukraine wants the Russian army to exit and wants to restore democratic government to the whole country. These positions are so far apart because Russia still looks as if she thinks she can at greater cost in lives and destruction claim more territory and the Ukrainians have growing confidence they can make further conquest difficult for the Russians.

There will only be a truce or peace if Russia gives up many of her imperial ambitions and if Ukraine offers Russia some way of climbing down that Putin can accept. Unpleasant  though that is  to the Ukraine side a lot of lives rest on it. It looks to an outside observer who does not have to do any fighting  as if Ukraine will not be able to join the EU or NATO any time soon. It  looks  as if Crimea would in a free vote vote to be Russian. Maybe these are building blocks for a ceasefire. The EU and US  involvement in removing an elected President of Ukraine in 2014 for being anti closer links with the EU triggered military responses from Russia  which have just got a lot worse.Whilst President Macron seeks a ceasefire the  EU issues a Council statement about Ukraine’s European EU future.

Most of us believe in free trade in our own lives. We rely on the free internal market of the Uk to supply most of our wants. I rely on the farmers to grow my  food, on the millers, bakers and retailers to supply my bread and on the energy companies to heat my house and fuel my car. Each of us trains, specialises and takes a job in a relatively narrow field knowing we can rely on our fellow citizens to supply our other wants.

We do this because it is impossible for us to command all the skills and resources it needs to live to the level of sophistication we enjoy by working together. I do not need to plant my garden with potatoes, learn to sew clothes and try to get up to speed on how to make electronic devices when there are so  many people and businesses that can do these things better, faster and cheaper.

The same theory should apply at the international level. Russia should have cheaper oil and gas because it has so much more of it than us. Ukraine should have cheaper wheat as it specialises in growing grains on its fertile plains. Unfortunately war can stop all that potential trade. Taiwan does have better microprocessors, but when the world is short of them we are not going to get all we need by hoping for more imports.

National resilience is about having the capacity to do the things that matter for yourself. In the world wars the UK had to dig for victory, putting more acres under the plough to  grow more food as our imports were being attacked at sea. Today if we want successful industries we could do with more of our own microprocessors and more affordable gas to fuel our factories as foreign supplies are damaged.

There is little point in spending lots of money on defence equipment if in a war you were unable to scale up the production and draw mainly on your own resources to equip and supply your forces. That is why I have stressed that a plan for national resilience is an important part of any National Security Council work on defending ourselves.