Andrew Sparrow 

Iain Duncan Smith announces Child Poverty Act being scrapped – Politics live

Rolling coverage of all the day’s political developments as they happen, including reaction to the Davies report saying a new runway should be built at Heathrow, and David Cameron and Harriet Harman at PMQs and Iain Duncan Smith’s statement on changing child poverty figures
  
  

Iain Duncan Smith is today announcing plans to change the child poverty measures.
Iain Duncan Smith is today announcing plans to change the child poverty measures. Photograph: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images

The End Child Poverty coalition, an umbrella group representing more than 150 groups campaigning against child poverty, has put out a statement about the government’s plan. This is from its chair, David Holmes.

Five years ago, all the main political parties promised to act to end child poverty by 2020. Today the government decided to pull the teeth from the Child Poverty Act, and break its promise to the millions of children who live in poverty in Britain today.

The government has proposed to remove the current definition of poverty in the Child Poverty Act and to remove legally binding targets to reduce the number children living in low income families. By replacing them with duties to report on worklessness and poor educational attainment, the government has made the extraordinary step of no longer recognising that child poverty is, at its heart, about families not having enough money to live on.

Perhaps most importantly the government has indicated it will abandon its goal of tackling low income poverty amongst the more than two million children who live in poverty in working families. With nearly two thirds of children in poverty in working families, this simply makes no sense.

The End Child Poverty Coalition exists in order to ensure that the government keeps the promise to end child poverty by 2020. We will continue to work with Parliamentarians to keep the government to this goal.

Stephen Timms, the acting shadow work and pensions secretary, has put out a formal response to the plan to replace the Child Poverty Act. Here’s an excerpt.

David Cameron’s government is trying to make child poverty go away by pretending that if you don’t measure it, it doesn’t exist. The Tory manifesto promised to ‘eliminate child poverty’. But now Tory ministers are trying to change the definition of child poverty to hide the government’s lack of progress.

Alan Milburn, the former Labour cabinet minister who chairs the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, has put out a fairly nuanced statement about the government’s decision to replace the Child Poverty Act (and give the commission a new name).

In a nutshell, Milburn:

  • Backs the idea of focusing on new measures relating to life chances, but says there must be a target for improving life chances.
  • Insists that income should remain a key factor when poverty is measured.
  • Urges the government to develop an anti-poverty strategy, arguing that doing something about poverty is more important than measuring it.
  • Says the commission will carry on “as usual” despite the government wanting to rename it.

Here is the statement in full.

It has long been obvious that the existing child poverty targets are not going to be met. In fact they will be missed by a country mile. The commission has argued in the past that a more rounded way of measuring poverty – taking greater account of causal risk factors – is sensible. The life chances of children, the poorest especially, depend on many things including good parenting, childcare, education and employment. For that reason we welcome the new legal duties on worklessness and educational attainment. It is not credible, however, to try to improve the life chances of the poor without acknowledging the most obvious symptom of poverty, lack of money. Unless the government sets out a clear target for improving the life chances of the poorest families, its agenda for healing social division in our country will lack both ambition and credibility.

Abolishing the legal targets doesn’t make the issue of child poverty go away. It remains a deep scar in the fabric of our nation. The key issue is less how child poverty is measured and more how it is tackled. Far more needs to be done to make sure that the poorest families share in the proceeds of economic growth. When two in three poor children are nowadays in families where someone is in work, the priority has to be to tackle in-work poverty. That’s why we look to the Government to champion the living wage and to ensure that welfare cuts do not fall exclusively on the working poor. The risk is otherwise that child poverty - regardless of how it is measured - will go on rising, not falling.

We welcome the government’s commitment to continued independent scrutiny of progress in relation to social mobility, life chances and poverty. Ultimately, it is a matter for parliament to determine the basis on which the Commission operates, but in the meantime the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission will continue to function on its present basis. We will publish our annual State of the Nation report in the autumn as usual.

Here’s my colleague Tom Clark on Iain Duncan Smith’s redefinition of poverty.

It was not entirely clear from Iain Duncan Smith’s statement, and from the press release, whether the Child Poverty Act is being repealed, or just drastically amended. I phoned the Department for Work and Pension press office and was told: “In effect, it’s being repealed.”

Here’s Alison Garnham, chief executive of the Child Poverty Action Group, on Iain Duncan Smith’s announcement.

The government is turning its back on poor children. Only a year ago, the secretary of state claimed the child poverty targets would be met but last week’s child poverty statistics showed that absolute child poverty has risen by half a million since 2010 and that progress on relative poverty has stalled.

Today’s statement isn’t about strengthening efforts to end child poverty but about burying the failure of the government’s child poverty approach. And with more cuts coming down the line, child poverty is set to rise.

Two thirds of poor children are in working families – it’s unclear whether these children will be counted as poor in the future ... A child poverty strategy which excludes income isn’t a child poverty strategy.

Here’s a more extensive quote on relative poverty from David Cameron’s Scarman lecture in 2006.

John Moore [a former Conservative minister] was wrong to declare the end of poverty ...

As well as absolute poverty, there is relative poverty.

We exist as part of a community, as members of society.

Even if we are not destitute, we still experience poverty if we cannot afford things that society regards as essential.

The fact that we do not suffer the conditions of a hundred years ago is irrelevant.

In the nineteenth century Lord Macaulay pointed out that the poor of his day lived lives of far greater material prosperity than the greatest noblemen of the Tudor period.

But as Dickens observed, the poor of those days were still poor.

Fifty years from today, people will be considered poor if they don’t have something which hasn’t even been invented yet.

So poverty is relative - and those who pretend otherwise are wrong.

Ed Miliband has been tweeting about the government’s decision to scrap the Child Poverty Act.

Miliband is quoting here from what Cameron said in his Scarman lecture in 2006.

Iain Duncan Smith's statement - Summary

Here is a summary of the key points in Iain Duncan Smith’s statement.

  • Duncan Smith said the Child Poverty Act was flawed because it did not take into account measures to improve life chances, education, or the importance of work as a route out of poverty.
  • He said he would replace the Child Poverty Act targets with legislation giving the government a duty to report on progress against other indicators. But he did not describe these as targets. He said:

Today, I am announcing that we will bring forward legislation to remove the existing measures and targets in the Child Poverty Act, as well as the other duties and provisions.

However, the legislation will at the same time introduce a statutory duty to report on measures of:

worklessness

and educational attainment

The worklessness measures will identify the proportion of children living in workless households, and the proportion of children in long-term workless households.

The educational attainment measures will focus on GCSE attainment for all pupils and for disadvantaged pupils.

The worklessness and education measures will reflect the agreed responsibilities in the Devolution Agreement.

  • He said the government would continue to publish the annual households below average income (HBAI) figures (the conventional poverty figures).
  • He said new measures would also be developed relating to “the root causes of poverty”.

Alongside the statutory measures, we will develop a range of other indicators to measure the progress against the root causes of poverty.

We know that in households with unstable relationships, where debt and addiction destabilise families, where parents lack employment skills, that these children don’t have the same chances in life as other children.

They cannot break out of the cycle of disadvantage.

We are currently developing these measures, including family breakdown, problem debt, and drug and alcohol dependency.

We will report each year on these life chances measures as well.

  • He said the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission would become the Social Mobility Commission.
  • He said the relative income measure of child poverty was unsatisfactory.

The problem with a statutory framework set around the relative income measure has become all too apparent.

At 60% of median income:

If you sit below the line, you are said to be poor. If you sit above it, you are not.

  • He said focusing on relative income led the last Labour to spend money inefficiently.

For example, we saw massive spikes in tax credit spending in the run up to election years:

In the 2 years before the 2005 election it increased by nearly £10bn

In the 2 years before the 2010 election it increased by nearly £6bn

From 2002 to 2010, spending on tax credits more than doubled, from £14bn to £31bn most of this due to child tax credit.

Looking at welfare overall - spending increased by 60% in real terms under the last government.

Driven by the need to chase a moving line.

But, despite all this, the number of workless households doubled under Labour and in-work poverty rose, he said.

  • He said focusing on relative poverty also meant that positive developments in the economy could increase poverty.

We had reached the position where a growing economy drives increases in the measure of child poverty …

… whilst, if the economy crashes as happened under Labour, child poverty apparently falls.

Even today, if we increase the state pension we run the risk of increasing the median income and thus increasing the number of households in poverty.

Updated

Frank Field, the Labour MP, former welfare minister and new chair of the Commons work and pensions committee, has welcomed Iain Duncan Smith’s announcement. In a statement he said:

This is a really welcome start. But we mustn’t flit around with general aspirations about educational attainment when we know life chances are determined before children enter school. So the measure therefore must look at whether we are equalising life opportunities for the poorest children before they reach school, and that definition will then drive policy to achieve those objectives.

The Child Poverty Act has four child poverty targets for 2020.

Here they are.

  • Relative poverty – to reduce the proportion of children who live in relative low income (in families with incomes below 60% of the median, before housing costs) to less than 10%.
  • Combined low income and material deprivation – to reduce the proportion of children who live in material deprivation and have a low income (below 70% of the median, before housing costs) to less than 5%.
  • “Persistent” poverty – to reduce the proportion of children that experience long periods of relative poverty, with the specific target to be set by December 2014; and
  • “Absolute” poverty – to reduce the proportion of children who live below an income threshold fixed in real terms to less than 5%.

I’ve taken this summary from this House of Commons briefing note on the Child Poverty Act (pdf).

DWP plans to replace Child Poverty Act - Details

This is what the Department for Work and Pensions is saying about its plans in a news release.

The government will introduce a new and strengthened approach to tracking the life chances of Britain’s most disadvantaged children, secretary of state for work and pensions, Iain Duncan Smith, announced today.

Improving people’s life chances will be central to the government’s ‘one nation’ approach to the next five years and ministers want a much more effective measure focused on the real causes of poverty.

The current child poverty measure – defined as 60% of median income – is considered to be deeply flawed and a poor test of whether children’s lives are genuinely improving.

This was shown when the number of children in poverty went down significantly as the economy shrank during the recent recession, when in reality there was little change to those children’s lives ...

The government will bring forward legislation to correct that with new measures focused on levels of work within a family and improvements in education attainment, two key areas in terms of improving social mobility.

New legislation to replace the Child Poverty Act 2010 will use:

  • the proportion of children living in workless household as well as long-term workless households;
  • the educational attainment of all pupils and the most disadvantaged pupils at age 16.

Duncan Smith says targets in Child Poverty Act will be scrapped

Iain Duncan Smith is also scrapping the targets in the Child Poverty Act.

He said:

I am announcing that we will bring forward legislation to remove the existing measures and targets in the Child Poverty Act, as well as the other duties and provisions.

Labour says poverty announcement is 'obituary notice for compassionate Conservatism'

In his response Stephen Timms, the acting shadow work and pensions secretary (Rachel Reeves is on maternity leave) said this announcement amounted to “the obituary notice for compassionate Conservatism”. He went on:

It’s the death toll for any idea that [Iain Duncan Smith’s] party might one day be the party for working people.

Iain Duncan Smith announces changes to child poverty measures

Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, has just made a statement in the Commons announcing that he will change the way the government measures child poverty.

Updated

Heathrow - What Cameron and McLoughlin are hinting about government thinking

As I said earlier, the big question is what the government is going to do about hte Davies Commission report. We have now heard from David Cameron and Patrick McLoughlin, the transport secretary. So what have we learnt?

Officially, not much. But if you apply the skills of parliamentary cryptology, some interesting clues have emerged. Perhaps the Ladbrokes 3/1 odds on Gatwick (see 11.37am) are not so generous after all.

Here are the key points.

  • Ministers have said they will announce a decision on the new runway (ie, whether to go for Heathrow or Gatwick) by the autumn. Cameron said that a decision would be made “by the end of the year”, but McLoughlin said the government would come back in the autumn.
  • Cameron claimed that he could not commit himself at this point because, if he did, he would leave the government open to a legal challenge via judicial review. This sounded at least as much like a delaying tactic, as a genuine concern. When Harriet Harman first asked about the Davies report, Cameron replied:

I think there is a lot of common ground across all sides of the House, or almost all sides of the House, that there is the need for additional airport capacity in the south east of England, not least to maintain this country’s competitiveness. But it is important now there is a very detailed report that we study it and I am very clear about the legal position, that if we say anything now before studying the report, actually you can endanger whatever decision is made.

But Cameron then dropped a couple of hints that suggest he is Heathrow-leaning. First, when Harman asked him about the briefing suggesting he would oppose Heathrow (see 8.13am), Cameron replied:

I would have thought with all your years of experience, you would know not to believe everything you read in your morning’s newspapers - it would probably be good for your blood pressure if you didn’t, as well as good for mine.

And then later, in response to a question from the Tory MP Zac Goldsmith, he said this.

If you make some precipitate decision or rule out one particular option you will actually make the decision you would like to make impossible to achieve because of judicial review.

It is very hard to know what this implies, but it is at least as likely that this implies pro-Heathrow thinking as pro-Gatwick thinking, because the prospect of the Heathrow decision being undermined by judicial review seems higher (because of the environmental issues).

  • McLoughlin said that Cameron’s “no ifs, not buts” promise to block a third runway at Heathrow (see 9.01am) no longer applied. Asked about this, he said:

I think what the prime was talking about initially was a proposal which was put forward by [Labour] which was not a proper proposal and would not have answered the question as far as capacity is concerned.

  • McLoughlin also hinted that he favoured Heathrow in response to a question from Kenneth Clark. Clarke said the government was elected in order to deliver a modern, competitive economy for future generations, and he said that decisions on infrastructure should be taken in the national interest. He was clearly implying that local concerns should not be allowed to block Heathrow. McLoughlin said:

I think [Clarke] makes a number of points that we do have to bear in mind, and it is a pity that progress has no been made on some of these subjects sooner.

David Lammy, the Labour MP and mayoral hopeful, asks if McLoughlin will take into account the jobs that could be created by Heathrow expansion, and not just the interests of Boris Johnson and Zac Goldsmith.

McLoughlin points out that Sadiq Kahn opposes Heathrow expansion.

Dominic Grieve, the Conservative MP for Beaconsfield, says his constituents will have mixed views on Heathrow expansion. They will be affected by traffic and “grubby” activities (it is not clear what he means) more than by noise, he says.

McLoughlin jokes that he may need a private conversation with Grieve to find out what those “grubby” activities are. But he accepts the general point.

Sadiq Khan, the Labour MP for Tooting and mayoral hopeful, says air pollution in London is getting worse and worse. Will McLoughlin look seriously at Gatwick?

McLoughlin says Khan supported a third runway at Heathrow when he was transport minister.

Tania Mathias, the Conservative MP for Twickenham, says her constituents already put up with too much pollution. Air quality pollution is twice what it should be. And she says she does not want children in his constituency having to sit on pods in the playground because of the noise.

Sir Alan Haselhurst, a Conservative, says there is a contradiction in Davies saying Heathrow should get a third runway, but not a fourth.

Here is Sir Howard Davies explaining why he favours Heathrow.

And here is Boris Johnson saying why he is opposed.

Labour’s John McDonnell says David Cameron gave a “no ifs, not buts” promise to block a third runway in his (McDonnell’s) constituency. He says thousands of his constituents would lose his home if this went ahead.

McLoughlin says Cameron was speaking in 2009 about a different proposal, put forward by Labour.

Kenneth Clarke, the Conservative former chancellor, says the government was elected to deliver a modern, successful economy. Will McLoughlin ensure the government takes decisions in the national interest?

McLoughlin says he agrees with these points. This decision should have been taken sooner, he says.

Zac Goldsmith, a Conservative, says Heathrow is the biggest noise polluter in the whole of Europe. There is not a single air quality expert in the world who thinks you can reconcile Heathrow expansion with air quality targets.

McLoughlin says he does not accept that. But Goldsmith is free to make his case.

Sir Simon Burns, a Conservative, asks for an assurance that the government is not bound by the report.

McLoughlin agrees. He says the government needs to talk to promoters of the schemes, and residents too.

McLoughlin is responding to Dugher.

He says opposition is not just on the Tory side. Some Labour MPs are opposed to, like Sadiq Khan, a leading Labour mayoral candidate.

Michael Dugher, the shadow transport secretary, says a decision on Heathrow expansion should have been taken many years ago. He says that was a failure of governments from both main parties.

He lists the tests Labour think should apply before Heathrow goes ahead. See 9.56am.

He says this is the biggest decision of UK plc for decade.

He accepts that McLoughlin has the “profoundest difficulties” in the Conservative party over this. But Labour is willing to support him on this, he says.

McLoughlin says the government will study the report carefully.

He says it will also look at how best to grant the planning permission necessary.

And he says the government will come back in the autumn with a “clear direction” on what it will do.

We must act, he says.

Patrick McLoughlin's statement on Heathrow

Patrick McLoughlin, the transport secretary, is making a statement on the Davies report.

He says the Davies Commission looked at more than 50 propositions.

He says the UK has the third largest airport network in the world, after the US and China. But it is congested.

The report says London’s airports are showing signs of strain.

The commission said all three shortlisted schemes were credible options. But it said Heathrow was the best option.

He is now summarising what the report says about the conditions that should apply for Heathrow to go ahead.

Updated

Cameron says the Davies commission landed on his desk yesterday afternoon. He is going to study it carefully. If he makes a precipitate announcement, he would lead himself open to judicial review. That could make it harder to achieve what he actually wants to achieve.

Labour’s Dennis Skinner asks Cameron why, in his visits to Europe, he has not taken up state aid to support the mining industry.

Cameron says it is good to hear Labour MPs cheering “Jurassic Park”. The government offered £20m to keep Hatfield Colliery open. Unlike Labour, they were prepared to issue ministerial directions on this.

Jack Lopresti, a Conservative, asks Cameron if he is happy about a Conservative government having a target for aid spending, but not for defence spending.

Cameron says the government has so far always met the 2% target for defence spending. A decision on future spending will be made in the autumn.

The SNP’s Chris Law asks Cameron if he will answer the question about whether Scottish MPs will be prevented from voting on matters that affect Scotland.

Cameron says he has given a clear answer. The plans discussed in the last parliament will be introduced. This plan will give English MPs the ability to block laws they don’t like. It will not give them the power to make law.

Cameron says in the past government and local education authorities have been too tolerant of failing schools.

Asked again about English votes for English laws, Cameron says he thought the SNP wanted to take themselves out of Westminster, not continue voting on English matters.

Richard Benyon, a Conservative, says it would be a great pity if ministers were not held to account at the despatch box.

Cameron says he agrees. He recalls being told when he became an MP how, during the war, when Churchill was prime minister, the Commons sat in the House of Lords chamber at one point (after the Commons was bombed).

Having dropped a hint as to what he would like to happen when the Commons repairs take place, he says he will leave it at that.

In response to a closed question, Cameron defends PMQs. It puts the government on the spot to the public, and puts the government on the spot to the prime minister.

Labour’s Graham Allen says, since the Commons may have to move out, will Cameron move the Commons around the four nations of the UK so they can all enjoy the benefits of PMQs.

Cameron says he is not sure that would cut the costs of politics. He says it is for the House of Commons to decide if it moves out. But he has an emotional attachment to this place, he says.

PMQs - Snap verdict

PMQs - Snap verdict: A consensual exchange gave way to some rather gentle sparring over the Davies commission. Harman rather effectively exposed Cameron’s reluctance to commit himself - when did you last hear a PM cite “legal advice” as an excuse for not answering a policy question? - but her Boris jibe did not go much beyond teasing, and Cameron has pretty effective response, which also included a dig at Andy Burnham.

Updated

The SNP’s Angus Robertson says decisions on English laws have an impact on Scotland’s budget. Will Cameron confirm that he will stop Scottish MPs voting on matters that affect the Scottish budget?

Cameron says English MPs have no say on Scottish matters. He is proposing a measured step, that would allow English MPs to vote on one stage in a bill’s progress. But all MPs would still vote on the legislation at another stage in its passage through parliament.

Robertson says English MPs have outvoted Scottish MPs on the Scotland bill. Cameron is even planning to deprive Scottish MPs of a majority on the Scottish affairs committee. Is this his respect agenda?

Cameron says his respect agenda involves implementing everything in the Smith Commission. Isn’t it time the SNP said what they would do with these powers. None of Scotland’s MPs want pensions to be devolved. So apparently the SNP backs the idea of pooling risk at a UK level.

Harman says if Cameron makes a swift decision on Davies, Labour will support him. Will he put the country first?

Cameron says it is interesting that he wants to talk about child poverty, and Harman wants him to talk about a report that people have not read yet. He will read the report and make a decision before the end of the year.

Harman turns to the Davies report. Does Cameron agree that, subject to environmental tests being met, the report should be implemented?

Cameron says there is agreement on the need for additional airport capacity. He says the legal position says, if he says anything now, it will endanger the decision that will be made. A decision will be made by the end of the year.

Harman says there is no common ground in Number 10. The briefing suggests Heathrow will not happen. It looks as if Cameron is being over-ruled by Boris Johnson. Will Cameron stand up to Boris?

Cameron says Harman should not believe everything in the papers.Labour got into trouble last week when Andy Burnham said child poverty would rise, and it did not.

Updated

Harman says there is radicalisation in the UK too. Last year the intelligence and security committee said the Prevent programme had not been given enough priority. Will Cameron look at this, and ensure that those affected by the new public duty to tackle radicalisation get training?

Cameron says Prevent funding has been increased. He says Harman raises an important point re the public duty. Going back to Prevent, he says it was right to change Prevent. In the past, groups promoting extremism got public funding.

Harman says Cameron should continue to reflect on this. If he does that, Labour will support him.

Harriet Harman says the England woman’s football team, with only a fraction of the funding the men get, are showing the men how it should be done.

Will Cameron ensure that there is a taskforce to support those injured in the massacre in Tunisia?

Cameron says he can give that assurance. The number of Britons confirmed to have been killed is now at 27. That number is expected to rise. He says he will set up a ministerial committee to ensure the relatives get all the help they need, and to ensure the victims are properly commemorated.

Harman says there are reports the killer was part of a cell. What progress is being made in the investigation?

Cameron says the inquiry is still going on. He will ensure the Commons is updated. The government is looking at things from protective security in hotels to better government-to-government security cooperation.

Cameron says the government will implement plans in the Conservative manifesto to make school funding fairer.

The SNP’s Angela Crawley says English Votes for English laws will affect her rights as an MP. Will Cameron assure her that she will still be able to vote on laws directly or indirectly affecting Scotland.

Cameron says the government will publish its plans soon. They will not create two classes of MPs. But they will introduce fairness. MPs will have plenty of time to study them, he says.

David Cameron starts by congratulating the England woman’s football team on making the semi finals of the World Cup.

Updated

Here is a live feed of PMQs.

Downing Street has indicated that any minister who refuses to accept the government’s decision on a new airport runway at Gatwick or Heathrow will have to resign.

The prime minister’s spokeswoman said that Patrick McLoughlin, the transport secretary who is expected to make a decision on the location of a new runway in the autumn, would make a decision on behalf of the government as a whole. The spokeswoman said that the ministerial code, which says that ministers should act with care if a constituency matter has an impact on their work as a minister, would also apply.

Government sources have stressed that ministers will make their own decision on the location of the new runway and will not be bound by the recommendation of the Davies commission. The airports commission has recommended that a new runway should be built at Heathrow although it has left the way open for the government to opt for Gatwick by describing it as a credible option.

PMQs

PMQs starts in five minutes.

Here is a list of MPs down to ask questions.

Liz Kendall, a candidate for the Labour leadership, is backing Heathrow expansion unequivocally. She has put out this statement.

The country has to get behind this now - the time for fudge and indecision is over. Many thousands of jobs right across the country depend on Britain maintaining an international hub airport that keeps pace with the rest of the world. With my leadership, Labour will be a party of jobs and work – so I will back the commission’s decision. We need to act now.

The official party line is more qualified. See 9.56am.

Ivan Massow, the businessman seeking the Conservative nomination for London mayor, has reluctantly backed the Davies recommendation.

Residents, many of whom represent the myriad of campaign groups opposed to a second runway, have been gathering in Ifield. Despite the conservation area already lying close to Gatwick it feels relatively untouched - at least for now - with birds making more noise tha

Michael Weeks (pictured with dog Millie), who had lived in Ifield for 43 years, said the boundary of the extended airport would be 300 yards from his house. “It’s a good interim decision,” he said. “It would be utterly ludicrous if after getting a commission to look at this for three or four years, David Cameron went eeny meeny miny moe [and ignored it].”

There would be no homes demolished (although 17 listed buildings would go) if a second runway were to be built at Gatwick but the refrain all those opposed is that it just doesn’t have the infrastructure to cope.

Derek Meakings, who lives in Crawley and is campaign co-ordinator for the One’s Enough group, speaking as though the battle continues, said: “The big issue for Crawley is going to be the road traffic, the road pollution. Crawley already breaks EU laws on one of the main roads … Gatwick’s not credible when the only direct (rail) access into London is the overcrowded Brighton line. The only access to the rest of the country is 12 miles of the M23 which links to the M25. To build the road infrastructure would cost £15bn.

Sally Pavey, chair of pressure group Cagne (Communities against noise and pollution), said: “We don’t wish another runway on Heathrow residents. At the same time we are relieved he [Howard Davies] has seen through the spin of Gatwick. You can’t keep putting everything in the south east.”

This is from the Sun’s Steve Hawkes.

Ladbrokes has released its odds on when the third runway could be built, and on the government eventually choosing Gatwick. Here’s an extract from its news release.

The first flight looks unlikely to take off from the third runway at Heathrow before 2025 according to Ladbrokes.

The bookies make it odds-on at 8/11 that we wait until 2025 for the runway to come into use with evens offered that any flight takes off before then.

A U-turn isn’t ruled out either, with odds of just 3/1 quoted for an expansion of Gatwick to take place instead.

I don’t offer betting advice, but 3/1 on Gatwick does seem a good price.

The airlines wanted the new runway at Heathrow, not Gatwick. This is from the Board of Airline Representatives in the UK, BAR UK, the industry body.

The government now needs to evaluate the independent findings of the Airports Commission and to expediently act upon their recommendations. Now is the time for everyone, including politicians of all parties, to pull together in the national interest and support the bold plans to expand and improve airport infrastructure at Heathrow in order to maintain the UK’s position as Europe’s most important aviation hub.

Tim Farron, the favourite in the Lib Dem leadership contest, says he is opposed to Heathrow expansion.

Today’s Sir Howard Davies review has proposed extra expansion at Heathrow. This is something I oppose. I do so based on the critical issue of air pollution and noise for the residents who live close to the flight path. Emissions from aviation are increasing faster than from almost any other sector and in reality there are no real measures in place to restrain them.

Here is some more reaction to the Davies report from Labour MPs.

From John McDonnell, MP for Hayes and Harlington

This is from Andy Slaughter, Labour MP for Hammersmith.

This is from Huffington Post’s Paul Waugh.

Boris Johnson has tweeted a picture of himself and other MPs opposed to Heathrow expansion.

Christian Wolmar, the transport specialist who is seeking the nomination to be Labour’s candidate for London mayor, has written a blog post saying Heathrow expansion will never happen. Here’s an extract.

Heathrow will never happen because the cost to the public purse is too high and the environmental damage too great. Financially, the Heathrow proposal does not stack up.

But above all, the opposition within Tory ranks is too great. The MP for Uxbridge is implacable in his opposition to Heathrow expansion, and the MP for Richmond Park has said he will resign his seat and force a by-election if the Government approves a third runway at Heathrow.

As I highlighted on the BBC, if this Tory government adopts the report’s recommendation, it makes it impossible for them to support Zac Goldsmith as their candidate for London mayor.

Community leaders in the picture-perfect village of Harmondsworth which would be largely flattened to make way for a third runway at Heathrow have reacted with anger at Howard Davies’ recommendation that it should go ahead and alleged they were “deceived” by the government.

Gathering on the village green, dismayed villagers this morning pledged to fight on, including supporting “direct action” against attempts to bulldoze 750 homes, some dating to the 17th century, if the government backs today’s recommendation that the west London airport should be expanded rather than Gatwick.

The venerable Amatu Christian-Iwuagwu, vicar at the 950-year old St Mary-the-Virgin church said: “The government always knew this was going to happen and have deceived us. They have caused a lot of anxiety in this parish especially among older people. They should have told us so people could get on with their lives.”

He said he does not want to be the last of 50 vicars to serve the village over close to a 1,000 years and said that he has even seen some in his congregation question their faith in God over the runway issue.

In the middle of the village residents have erected a mural showing where the new runway would be and how the airport perimeter would be 30 yards from where historic wisteria-clad cottages currently stand. They have also planted “a forest of defiance” on the recreational ground that would become the runway with oaks, hornbeams and field maples. But the destruction of the village is moving closer. Within 90 minutes of Davies’ decision, letters were delivered from Heathrow’s chief executive, John Holland-Kaye reminding villagers their homes will be subject to compulsory purchase.

He said: “I know this is a time of significant uncertainty and we will continue to keep you informed throughout the process.”

Martin Spurrier, standing a stone’s throw from where the 2nd runway would be built at Gatwick, gave a cautious welcome to the decision.

“It’s not over till its over,” said Spurrier from the Coneyhurst Concern group. “But it’s a good start. This is only the recommendation, the government has to make it’s decision in 2016. We hope that the government will follow the recommendation, given that they (the report’s authors) studied it for three years. We’ll drink the champagne when the decision is made.”

On LBC this morning the Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith suggested that Sir Howard Davies had decided to back Heathrow from the start. Davies said that if Goldsmith was really saying that, it was a lie.

This is from the BBC’s Jason Rosam.

Green groups criticise Davies recommendation

But environmental groups are opposed to the Davies report recommendation.

This is from Greenpeace UK’s executive director, John Sauven.

Whether it’s at Heathrow or Gatwick, the carbon bomb stored up by a new runway will put the UK’s climate targets at risk. The Davies Commission has so far completely fudged the central question of whether we need a new runway at all. London already has one of the biggest airport systems in the world with six runways and five airports. And the aviation lobby’s favourite economic argument ignores that business flights are declining. The solution is not to build more tarmac strips but to manage demand. And one way to do this is to make flight taxes fairer so that the burden is shifted from families flying on an annual holiday onto frequent fliers who are driving the expansion and pushing up carbon emissions.

And this is from Friends of the Earth’s head of campaigns, Andrew Pendleton.

This report vacillates over a false choice - expansion at Heathrow or Gatwick - when neither can be allowed if we’re to stop runaway global warming.

Building a new runway at Gatwick or Heathrow would have a hugely damaging impact on local people and their environment and would be a step backwards in UK efforts to tackle climate change.

Airport expansion also risks worsening local air pollution levels which already breach legal limits.

The UK will be a laughing stock if it turns up at crucial climate talks in Paris later this year, claiming global leadership while at home having nodded through new runways, killed its onshore wind industry and foisted fracking on communities that don’t want it.

Business groups back Heathrow expansion

The Davies recommendation for Heathrow is popular with business. Here is some of the reaction that has come in from business groups.

From Simon Walker, director general of the Institute Of Directors

The IoD warmly welcomes the Airports Commission’s recommendation to expand Heathrow. There is a clear business case for a new runway, with only 3% of our members believing that our current airport infrastructure is sufficient to ensure the UK’s long-term economic growth.

When asked to choose which of London’s major airports should get a new runway, 61% of IoD members chose Heathrow, compared to 39% who chose Gatwick.

From John Longworth, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce

After three years of deliberation, businesses across the UK will be pleased that the Airports Commission has finally come to a clear recommendation. Now that all the evidence is on the table, firms in every corner of the UK want to see an irreversible government commitment to a new runway at Heathrow by the end of 2015, with planning complete and diggers on the ground by the end of this parliament in 2020.

From Terry Scuoler, chief executive of EEF, the manufacturers’ organisation,

Heathrow is a global freight hub and the clear preference for manufacturers with a business need for aviation expansion. Today’s recommendation that Heathrow should be allowed to expand is the right one for industry and the country.”

From John Cridland, CBI director general

Now that Sir Howard’s Commission has made its recommendation, the Government must commit to the decision now, and get diggers in the ground at Heathrow swiftly by 2020. Growing airport capacity in the South East is absolutely critical to the whole of the UK’s economic future - it simply isn’t an optional ‘nice to do’. Each day the Government delays taking the decision, the UK loses out as our competitors reap the rewards and strengthen their trade links.

From Mark Tanzer, chief executive of the Association of British Travel Agents

Today’s announcement is the first step towards the delivery of urgently needed capacity at the UK’s hub airport and we now look forward to the government’s response. We call on Government to work across party boundaries and create a robust political consensus which will deliver this recommendation for UK businesses, and passengers.

From Lady Jo Valentine, chief executive of London First, which represents London business

With half a century of indecision on airports expansion behind us, it’s time for the government to implement the Commission’s recommendation and get on with a new runway at Heathrow. Anything else is now inexcusable.

But the Lib Dems are opposed to Heathrow expansion. This is from Tom Brake, MP for Carshalton and Wallington in south west London.

Liberal Democrats are vehemently opposed to any expansion at Heathrow, as well as at Stansted or Gatwick. Our environment must come first and we are deeply sceptical of the need for airport expansion which would inevitably mean more air and noise pollution.

Labour offers qualified support for Heathrow expansion

Labour has offered qualified support for the Davies recommendation. This is from Michael Dugher, the shadow transport secretary.

Labour has always been clear that more airport capacity is vital to Britain’s economic success and we need action if we are to maintain our status as Europe’s most important aviation hub.

We will scrutinise the Airports Commission’s final report carefully. If the recommendation can meet a number of tests, including consistency with our climate change obligations, we will take a swift decision to back Sir Howard Davies’ proposals.

How we tackle the need for aviation expansion is likely to be one of the biggest decisions for this country this decade and the ministers’ difficulties with their own party should not influence their approach. We must not let politics get in the way of good business – there is too much at stake.

This issue has been kicked into the long grass too many times and Labour will be ready to back the decision that is in the best long-term interests of the country.

Labour’s tests include: ensuring that the increased capacity will actually be delivered; ensuring that Heathrow expansion will not stop Britain cutting CO2 emissions from aviation and meeting its climate change obligations; ensuring noise and pollution is minimised; and ensuring that Heathrow expansion benefits the whole of the UK.

Updated

Louise Ellman, the Labour MP who chairs the Commons transport committee, has welcomed the Davies recommendation. Her committee also came out in favour of a third runway at Heathrow when it looked at this in the last parliament, she said.

Sir Howard’s findings echo those of the transport committee I chaired in the last parliament, when we concluded that a third runway at Heathrow was necessary for the UK to maintain its status as an international aviation hub.

The Airports Commission is right not to rule out the expansion of Gatwick—a new runway at Gatwick, alongside an expanded Heathrow hub, could help to meet future demand, and enhance competition to the benefit of passengers.

Now that Sir Howard has reported it is crucial that action is taken to address the shortfall in airport capacity. For too long airport expansion has been viewed as too difficult, with decisions deferred and postponed. To do so again would present serious risks for the UK’s economy.

Unite tells government to back Heathrow

The Unite union is backing Heathrow. This is from its London regional secretary, Peter Kavanagh.

The government needs to move swiftly and take forward the Airports Commission’s recommendations. The livelihoods of over 100,000 people working at Heathrow and those of tens of thousands in associated industries would be secured under this plan which cements Heathrow’s status as a world leader.

This option, with the safeguards provided, delivers the biggest boost to the economy and will create over 70,000 jobs.

Any further delay and uncertainty risks Heathrow losing out to rival airports across the globe, which is why the government now needs to show leadership and give the green light to Heathrow’s expansion.

Caroline Lucas, the Green MP, says the Davies recommendation is “deeply disappointing”. In a statement she says:

The reality is that endless growth in our aviation capacity is incompatible with the UK’s climate change commitments. It’s also bad news for local residents who will suffer enormously from increasing noise and air pollution.

It’s clear that a small minority of wealthy individuals are fuelling the demand for airport expansion - not families taking an annual holiday or businesses. We need fairer and more honest approach to the aviation debate that rules out airport expansion once and for all. The government must urgently look into the proposed frequent flier levy as a fair way of reducing the demand for flights from those who fly the most, whilst benefiting the majority of people and protecting us all from the threat of climate change.

Labour’s candidates in the contest to be the party’s candidate for London mayor are split over Heathrow. Three of them have issued statements this morning.

Sadiq Khan is against. He said:

This is a bad decision. All Londoners should know if I’m elected mayor I will do everything in my power to stop this health and environmental catastrophe blighting London.

But David Lammy said he was in favour.

This is good news for our city. We urgently need new runway capacity and an expanded Heathrow will allow us to build the 21st Century transport infrastructure fit for a modern city in a global and increasingly interconnected world.

And Gareth Thomas also backed the Davies recommendation. He said:

I welcome the Airports Commission’s clear backing for a third runway at Heathrow. We’ve been debating airport expansion in London and the South East for far too long, and now it is time to show bold leadership, and take decisive action to actually start work on a new runway.

Sir Howard Davies’ report is clear that we can build a new runway and still meet our targets on climate change and air quality, and have set out severe restrictions that any new runway would have to meet to help reduce the noise impact on local residents.

Those who remain opposed to expanding Heathrow are dismissing the commission’s clear recommendation that a third runway is best placed to deliver the type of capacity we need, and help keep the UK competitive in the years ahead.

Croydon council says it will continue to fight for Gatwick expansion. This is from its leader, Tony Newman.

We continue to pledge our support to Gatwick’s campaign for a second runway. We believe Gatwick offers the best deal for Croydon, London and the UK as a whole.

Croydon is on the brink of Olympic-scale transformation, and just 15 minutes away by train, Gatwick can make a really important contribution to the regeneration and investment already under way in our borough.

Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative MP for Richmond Park and the favourite in the contest to be the Tory candidate for London mayor, has just told Sky News that the Davies report has not changed his view that the third runway at Heathrow will not go ahead. It is politically undeliverable, he says. At least five cabinet ministers are implacably opposed to it, he says.

He also says that Heathrow bosses have told MPs that if a third runway is built at Heathrow, a fourth runway will follow.

http://news.sky.com/watch-live

If you are minded to read the full 344-page Davies report, it is here (pdf).

There are also 10 technical reports that go with it.

And here is a copy of the letter accompanying the report that Sir Howard Davies has sent to Patrick McLoughlin, the transport secretary. In it, he tells the government not to drag its feet. (Bold text from me.)

Having completed our assessment, our conclusions are clear and unanimous. It is now for the government to reach its own decision on how to proceed. The commission’s analysis was detailed and comprehensive and we appreciate that you will need to review it carefully. But we would urge you not to prolong that process any more than is necessary, if the UK’s position as Europe’s most important aviation hub is to be secured.

Here’s the report in the Richmond and Twickenham Times of David Cameron promising in 2009 to block a third runway at Heathrow.

More than 600 people applied to attend the Cameron Direct event, held in the Richmond Park parliamentary constituency, and 350 turned up on the night. They had the chance to put questions to Mr Cameron on topics as diverse as fox hunting, immigration and Europe.

When questions on aviation and global warming were put to the Tory leader he was firm in his belief that Heathrow expansion will not go ahead.

“The third runway at Heathrow is not going ahead, no ifs, no buts,” he told a packed audience at Christ’s School on Monday.

Davies says Cameron's 2009 promise to block third runway applied to a different plan

Sir Howard Davies, who chaired the Airports Commission, has been speaking this morning about his report and its recommendations. Here are the key points.

  • Davies said that David Cameron’s “no ifs, no buts” promise in 2009 to block a third runway at Heathrow applied to a different plan.

The proposal in place then was a deficient proposal; it did not offer the economic advantages of this proposal. It was a short runway to the north of Heathrow, really focussed just on regional links, there was none of the proposals that we are making about the noise framework for the airport, the air quality framework. So, I think the prime minister has a very different proposition to look at today.

  • Davies summarised the benefits of Heathrow.

The economic benefits of expanding Heathrow are much greater than from any other of the options. Heathrow offers the kind of long haul connectivity flights to emerging markets which are very important to the future of the British economy, and expanding it would allow Heathrow to offer more of those flights, Gatwick is much more focussed on short haul intra-European flying. Heathrow is also, by a long, long way, the centre for air freight, which is increasingly important particularly to those markets, and there is a network of logistics companies around Heathrow which support the airport, so you’d get a big boost to air freight exports as well. Those are the principle arguments.

  • He insisted that the conditions being imposed on Heathrow expansion would make the airport “a much better neighbour” for residents.

We have made it clear that we think the airport must operate in a very different way in future, if it is to gain enough support from its local communities to expand. We have taken our cue here by a campaign run by Hounslow council actually which is called ‘better not bigger’. But in our view, the airport can get better if it becomes bigger.

So, we have recommended a lot of things, some of which the airport I think will not particularly like, for example a ban on night flights before 6am. We think those are the flights that are particularly annoying too local people, that the airport should operate within a noise envelope, its noise should be no greater than it is today. There should be a noise levy on passengers passing through the airport, and a lot of other things that we think will make the airport a much better neighbour than it has been in the past.

  • He said Gatwick was still an option for government.

Let me be very clear. If you ask me is ‘Gatwick a conceivable option’ then the answer to that is yes.

But the commission thought Heathrow would be better, he said.

  • He accused Boris Johnson of failing to come up with a “plausible” alternative.

[Johnson’s] made a lot of phrases during this debate but not actually come up with a plausible proposal for something that would actually expand London’s capacity in an economically helpful way.

I’ve taken the quotes from PoliticsHome.

Updated

As you would expect, residents who would be affected by Heathrow expansion say they are determined to stop the third runway going ahead.

This is from Robert Barnstone, campaign organiser for the residents’ group Hacan and and an Uxbridge resident.

This is not the end of the story. The Airports Commission report is published, but we’re going to write the final chapter of this report and see it off for good. The real issue now is this is now a decision for the government and there are many many people in the cabinet that are opposed to this.

And this is from Paul McGuinness, a spokesman for Teddington Action Group, a local group campaigning against noise and pollution from Heathrow.

It’s incredible that a government which has recently been legally bound by the supreme court to improve air quality to meet EU directives can even begin to consider a third runway at Heathrow, an area which currently exceeds all limit values on toxic emissions.

Gatwick says it is “still in the race” for the new runway. This is from Gatwick Airport’s chief executive, Stewart Wingate.

Gatwick is still very much in the race. The commission’s report makes clear that expansion at Gatwick is deliverable. It is for the commission to make a recommendation but it is of course for the government to decide.

So we now enter the most important stage of the process. We are confident that when the government makes that decision they will choose Gatwick as the only deliverable option.

For instance, this report highlights the very significant environmental challenges at Heathrow such as air quality and noise impact.Gatwick will give the country the economic benefits it needs and at the same time impact far less people. It is quicker simpler and quieter. Above all - after decades of delay - it can actually happen.

Updated

Here’s a Guardian graphic showing where the third runway would go.

Johnson says he does not think this runway will go ahead. It might have been allowed in China in the 1950s, but it is not deliverable now.

The long-term solution lies in the Thames estuary.

Q: Davies rejected that. Was it a mistake to promote the Thames estuary, when you should have focused on Gatwick.

Johnson says Gatwick is a bad option, but Heathrow is much worse.

He predicts that eventually the Thames estuary option will be seen as the best one.

Davies was set up to provide “a fig leaf for an an establishment U-turn” on Heathrow.

Johnson says, if the third runway goes ahead, the number of people affected by noise in London will go up to 1m.

Q: But there are restrictions proposed in the report to address that.

Johnson says he does not think the restrictions would have that effect. And he does not think the restrictions would even be imposed anyway.

This is “fundamentally exacerbating a planning error” made in the 1950s, he says.

The best solution would be to build something that goes beyond 2030.

Q: What will happen if David Cameron backs Heathrow?

Johnson says we are not at that stage yet. The Tories campaigned against a third runway in 2010. To U-turn on that would be very difficult, he says.

Boris Johnson's interview on Today

Boris Johnson, the Conservative mayor of London and a leading opponent of Heathrow expansion, is being interviewed on Today now.

He says he agrees with John Holland-Kaye about London needing a connected airport.

But Heathrow is not the answer.

He says the current plan is the same, if not worse, than the one on the table six years ago.

He says it is not clear, from Holland-Kaye’s interview, that he would accept the ban on night flights proposed by Davies.

The restrictions demanded by Davies “give the game away”. They should how disruptive this would be.

Holland-Kaye was being evasive on noise, he says.

And the report only applies for 15 years.

Q: Davies says a law should be passed banning a fourth runway.

Johnson says no parliament can bind its successor. And he says Heathrow is already in breach of all sorts of laws.

Updated

Q: What would you say to Boris Johnson to win him over?

Holland-Kaye says he would say that London is a world city, and world cities need connected airports.

Heathrow chief executive's interview on Today

John Holland-Kaye, the chief executive of Heathrow, is on the Today programme now.

He says the plan proposed by Heathrow now is very different from the one that David Cameron committed himself to blocking six years ago.

Q: The Davies report says the third runway should only go ahead if there is a ban on night flights. Would you accept that?

Holland-Kaye says the government would work with the government on conditions.

Q: Davies also says noise levels should not be any higher. Can you deliver that?

Holland-Kaye says Heathrow’s plans do not involve noise levels getting higher.

He repeats the point about the plan being different.

We’ve changed, so he [David Cameron] doesn’t have to.

Updated

The BBC’s Norman Smith has been speaking to Number 10 about the Davies report.

All of this suggests that David Cameron is backing away from committing himself to a third runway at Heathrow. This is what previous reports have suggested. For example, this is from last weekend’s Sunday Times (paywall).

Aides to David Cameron have told Tory MPs that the prime minister is reluctant to break his “no ifs, no buts” promise not to build a third runway at Heathrow, made in 2009.

A senior Tory said: “Cameron sees it as a trust issue and people like [the political strategist] Lynton Crosby have told him not to break his promises.”

Treasury officials signalled that George Osborne, who has previously been seen as a cheerleader for Heathrow expansion, would be prepared to support Gatwick.

So, at last we know what Sir Howard Davies’s Airports Commission is saying about where Britain’s new runway should go. Here’s the commission’s press notice, and here’s the Guardian’s story. Here’s how it starts.

A third runway should be built at Heathrow, the Airports Commission has recommended, but only if it can meet stringent conditions on noise and air pollution.

Those conditions should include a ban on night flights, legally binding caps on noise and air quality – and legislation to rule out ever building a fourth runway.

The commission said on Wednesday morning that it was “clear and unanimous” Heathrow’s plan was the strongest case for future airport capacity, delivering the greatest strategic and economic benefits, and the conditions would make the airport a “better neighbour” than today.

The £17bn expansion plan would mean 250,000 more flights a year, providing a £150bn boost to GDP over 60 years and 70,000 new jobs – but would mean demolishing 783 homes including most of the neighbouring village of Harmondsworth.

The long-awaited verdict comes five years after the government cancelled plans for a new runway at Britain’s biggest airport and is expected to spark a renewed political battle.

Sir Howard Davies, the commission chair, said the government would need to review the analysis carefully before making a decision. But he warned it to “move as quickly as it can” or be seen as unwilling to “take the steps needed to maintain [Britain’s] position as a well-connected open trading economy”.

But there are two things we don’t know:

What’s the government going to do?

and

What will get through parliament?

The two questions are, of course, related.

I will be covering the reaction today, in the hope of getting some clues as to the answers to these questions. We’ve also got PMQS at 12pm, and a Commons statement from Patrick McLoughlin, the transport secretary, on the Davies report at 12.30pm.

As usual I will be covering the breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web. I will post a summary at lunchtime and another in the afternoon.

If you want to follow me on Twitter, I’m on @AndrewSparrow

 

Leave a Comment

Required fields are marked *

*

*