Here is some more Twitter comment on the airports expansion letter released by Number 10.

From the Telegraph’s James Kirkup

From the Independent’s John Rentoul

From Sky’s Faisal Islam

Here is Sky’s Faisal Islam on the Number 10 letter about airport expansion.

Q: It has been reported that Liz Sanderson, a special adviser to Theresa May when she was home secretary, knew about concerns about Goddard well before she resigned.

Sedwill says that the same report says he was told about these concerns. But he was not, he says. The report was wrong.

David Winnick, the Labour MP, goes next.

Q: Should we be satisfied with what Amber Rudd told us in September about why Goddard resigned?

Sedwill says Winnick asked Rudd about this in the Commons on Monday. Rudd said she was giving Goddard’s own reason for going.

Given Goddard rejects the allegations, we can only go on her own explanation when wanting to know why she resigned.

Q: When were your first made aware of the allegations of racism against Goddard?

Sedwill says he heard some of these allegations for the first time when he read them in the Times last week.

Q: What about the racism allegations?

Sedwill says he had not heard about those, formally or informally, before they were in the papers. The complaints he had heard about Goddard had been expressed in general terms.

He stresses that Goddard denies these allegations fiercely.

Ranil Jayawardena, a Conservative, goes next.

Q: Are you satisfied that Goddard was vetted properly?

Yes, says Sedwill. She went through a proper vetting process. The Home Office took references from the New Zealand judiciary. He points out that the home affairs committee also took evidence from her.

Q: Did you report to Theresa May on the meeting Drusilla Sharpling had with a Home Office director general in April?

Sedwill says he did not, because he was not aware of that. He says the point of that meeting was to provide an early warning that things were off track. But Sharpling said at the time that she wanted no action taken.

Q: But why wasn’t that reported upwards?

Sedwill says the information was provided in confidence. At that point the panel did not want any action taken. They were trying to resolve the problems.

Q: Was that a reasonable judgement?

Sedwill says that was a reasonable decision for the Home Office director general to take at the time.

The Labour MP Lisa Nandy has been tweeting about what has emerged from the hearing so far.

Q: Did you have regular discussions with the home secretary about the child abuse inquiry?

Sedwill says he had weekly bilateral meetings with Theresa May, when she was home secretary, as he does with Amber Rudd. They discussed child abuse and other issues. But he does not recall specifically discussing how the inquiry was going.

Q: John O’Brien, secretary to the inquiry, said it was separated from the Home Office by a “low brick wall”. What did you mean that?

Sedwill says Tim Loughton would have to ask O’Brien. He says as far as he was concerned, the Home Office had an arm’s length relationship with it.

Q: How many meetings did you have with Goddard?

Sedwill says he met her twice.

Frank and Sharpling say they have no concerns about the current chair.

(That’s fortunate. She is sitting in between them.)

Chuka Umanna goes next.

Q: Can you report if you do not the the confidence of victims’ groups?

Jay says there are many victim and survivor groups. They do not agree. She knows that some will not engage with it. She is sorry about that. But she thinks she has the support of many of these groups.

Sharpling says panel members are being invited to speak to victims’ groups. They are taking up these invitations.

Jay says the new approach she announced yesterday is designed to enable the inquiry to reach conclusions more quickly.

Tim Loughton is pressing on. From the TV coverage (which briefly had the sound turned down - Parliament TV does not broadcast protests at hearings like this) the man who interrupted the proceedings seems to have been ejected.

A member of the public sitting in the inquiry is interrupting.

Labour’s David Winnick goes next.

Q: You say you cannot give us any details about Ben Emmerson’s suspension. This is a public inquiry. Public money is being spent on it. Do you accept us to be happy not to know why Emmerson resigned?

Jay says in his resignation letter Emmerson said he was not the person to take forward the inquiry into the next stage.

Q: Aren’t we entitled to know led up to this?

Jay says the suggestion Emmerson left because of a disagreement with her was not true.

Jay says she has never in her life been accused of tolerating bullying or offensive behaviour.

Q: How many people have left the inquiry since it was set up?

Jay says she does not have the number. But she does not think the number is significant, or “above average”.

James Berry, a Conservative, goes next.

Q: Why was Ben Emmerson suspended as counsel to the inquiry?

Jay says she cannot comment on this. It is a confidential, personnel matter.

Q: Other counsel working for the inquiry have quit. Did any of them mention Emmerson in their resignation letters?

Jay says she cannot comment on that, for the same reason.

A member of the public at the back interrupts briefly, saying the public has been waiting for results too.

Nusrat Ghani, a Conservative, goes next.

Q: When will you finish the inquiry?

Jay says she hopes to get most of the work done by 2020. There will be an interim report by 2018. And there will be reports on particular aspects of the inquiry’s work as it is going along.

She says she will be able to say more about this when she has finished her review of how the inquiry is operating.

Q: Did other members of staff raise concerns about Goddard with members of the panel?

Sharpling says that is not a question she can answer.

Q: Is there anything else the inquiry needs?

Jay says she is glad McDonald asked this. It has been looking for premises in London for a hearing centre. She says it has been difficult, because it needs facilities where victims can speak out. But landlords have been very uncooperative. As soon as they hear it is for the abuse inquiry, they do not want to offer property.

Q: Has the government made available all the information it needs from the government?

Sharpling says she will not go into that, because that is part of the conduct of the inquiry.

The SNP MP Stuart McDonald goes next.

Q: Was there anything Goddard said that made her unfit of her role?

Jay says this is a reference the claims made in the press. She cannot comment on them. Employees are entitled to privacy, she says.

Lisa Nandy, the Labour MP who tabled an urgent question in the Commons yesterday, has written an article for the Guardian which we have just launched saying the full circumstances of Dame Lowell Goddard’s departure must be given.

Sharpling says it is the chair and the panel who are the controlling minds of this inquiry.

Jay says she agrees.

Jay says 20% of the inquiry staff are former Home Office officials.

Q: Can you understand why people think that this is under the control of the Home Office?

Jay says these people are doing these jobs because they are knowledgable about the issues.

Frank says it is normal for the secretary of an inquiry to come from its sponsoring department.

Umunna says in this case some survivors think the Home Office is to blame for what happened.

Labour’s Chuka Umunna goes next.

Q: Why did you go to the Home Office in April?

Sharpling says she does not indulge in gossip. She went to the Home Office because of concerns about the leadership of the inquiry.

Labour’s David Winnick goes next.

Q: I’m not interested in gossip. But hasn’t the inquiry been an unhappy ship since it was launched last year.

Jay says she does not accept that.

My colleague Sandra Laville points out that Sharpling’s revelation about going to the Home Office in April with concerns about Goddard undermines the suggestion from the Home Office (in Amber Rudd’s statement to MPs on Monday) that concerns were only raised in July.

David Burrowes, a Conservative, is asking the questions now.

Q: What has been achieved under Goddard?

Jay says the inquiry has got 200 people to give evidence through its truth project initiative. And she says the literature review conducted by the inquiry was good. And there have been preliminary hearings.

Frank says the inquiry has put victims at the heart of what it does.

Q: Has that been worth £14.7m over the last year?

Frank says reducing the level of child abuse in the UK is not a choice. It is an imperative.

Drusilla Sharpling, another panel member who is giving evidence with Jay, says she does not want to indulge in discussions of character. But she says there were concerns about Goddard.

She says in April she reported her concerns about the leadership of the inquiry to the Home Office, with approval of the panel. She did not want her concerns shared. The panel wanted to manage the issue, she says.

Loughton asks Ivor Frank, a member of the panel who is giving evidence alongside Jay, what he thought of Goddard.

Frank says it was easier when Goddard was out of the country.

Q: Was she a nightmare to work with?

Frank says he would not have used that language.

Jay says she thought Goddard would rather have sat as inquiry chair on her own. Jay says she thought Goddard did not want to work with the panel that was supposed to be advising her.

Tim Loughton, the Conservative acting committee chair, is asking the questions.

Q: Dame Lowell Goddard wrote a letter to the committee after she resigned highlighting problems with the inquiry. Did you agree with it?

Prof Alexis Jay says she agrees with some of Goddard’s points. But she does not agree with Goddard’s call for the scope of the inquiry to be reduced. And Goddard did not address the other problems that arose.

Jay also says Goddard was not right about the inquiry being underfunded, because it did not spend all is budget last year.

Q: Do you agree that Goddard should have addressed the problems she identified as chair?

Yes, says Jay.

Whitehall bade farewell to one of its finest at St Margaret’s church, alongside Westminster Abbey, this lunchtime at the memorial service for Chris Martin, who was principal private secretary to David Cameron.

Martin died of cancer last year at the age of just 42, and the church was packed with friends, many of whom are senior civil servants. Cameron gave a Bible reading, before returning to the pews to sit near former Labour leader Ed Miliband, underlining the best civil servants’ ability to serve politicians of all stripes.

Cabinet secretary Jeremy Heywood also spoke; and the address was given by historian of Number Ten, Anthony Seldon, who said Martin’s rapid rise to the very top of the British establishment, via his local comprehensive and Bristol university - not the standard public school and Oxbridge route - should light the way for others.

The BBC’s Kamal Ahmed has written a helpful blog on the Heathrow decision. Here’s an extract.

Philip Hammond, the chancellor, has been careful not to express a view, but senior Treasury officials have made it clear they believe Heathrow is the better option for boosting economic growth.

That is because it is closer to many more population centres in the UK compared to Gatwick, including Bristol and the South West, the Midlands and the north of England.

One other Cabinet minister told me: “I would do both Heathrow and Gatwick - that would tell the world Britain is open for business.”

That option is not officially on the table, although if the government does back Heathrow, it could make positive noises about Gatwick expansion in the future.

Julian Glover, a former Conservative transport adviser (and a former Guardian journalist), has used a post on Twitter to point out that although the government might want to expand links with China, visa rules are still a significant obstacle.

A post-Brexit promise from the prime minister to Northern Ireland’s two leading politicians has caused a political storm in the region today.

Details of Theresa May’s letter to first minister Arlene Foster and deputy first minister Martin McGuinness have been made public.

In her message to the Democratic Unionist and Sinn Fein ministers, May made yet another commitment to maintain freedom of travel for Irish and British citizens not only across the border in Ireland but between the two states. She said:

The UK government, the Northern Ireland executive and the Irish government have all been clear that we wish to see the continuance of the free movement of people and goods across the island of Ireland and the maintenance of the common travel area across the whole of the UK and Ireland, which has served us well.

Although she cited five key areas where her government will address for Northern Ireland - including the border, the agri-food sector and the energy market - the prime minister was vague in her letter about specifics of how London will help Belfast with any negative post-Brexit impact on the economy and society.

The fact that the letter only became public this morning on BBC Radio Ulster’s The Nolan Show has angered other politicians at the Stormont parliament in Belfast. Colum Eastwood, the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party, has asked why the reply to Foster and McGuinness, who wrote to the Prime Minister in August outlining their concerns, was not debate in the Assembly yesterday. The cross community Alliance party also criticised the lack of “concrete” proposals from Downing Street over Foster and McGuinness’ concerns.

Here is my colleague Jessica Elgot’s story on the airports announcement.

Number 10’s decision to announce that it will be suspending collective responsibility over the airport expansion decision is being taken in the lobby as Downing Street all but admitting that the government will decide to go ahead with the third runway.

This is from the Evening Standard’s Pippa Crerar.

This is from the Daily Mail’s Jason Groves.

And this is from Faisal Islam.

The government will make the final decision on airport expansion at Heathrow or Gatwick next week, the prime minister’s spokeswoman has confirmed.

In the strongest signal the government is preparing to expand the third runway at Heathrow, Theresa May told colleagues at cabinet on Tuesday morning that opponents of whatever decision is made will have a “set period” to speak frankly about their opposition.

Both foreign secretary Boris Johnson and education secretary Justine Greening are vocal opponents of Heathrow expansion. Downing Street would not confirm whether that would mean ministers would have a free vote in Parliament to oppose any decision.

Crucially, the cabinet committee which will make the decision next week has no London MPs among its members. On the committee are Theresa May, chancellor Philip Hammond, business secretary Greg Clark, transport secretary Chris Grayling, communities secretary Sajid Javid. Scottish secretary David Mundell, environment secretary Andrea Leadsom, chief whip Gavin Williamson and party chair Patrick McLoughlin are also on the commitee.

Turning back to William Hague and the Bank of England’s independence (see 9.31am), Ben Chu, the Independent’s economics editor, has been responding to Hague’s article on Twitter.

Here is a story from today’s Financial Times (subscription) about the US chambers of commerce report that Ben Bradshaw raised with Boris Johnson. And here is how it starts. (See 11.54am.)

US companies with almost $600bn of investments in the UK are reviewing their plans for expansion in the UK amid concerns over its post-Brexit access to the EU’s single market, the largest US business group has warned.

The US Chamber of Commerce, in a document due to be presented to the UK’s Cabinet Office this week, warns that a post-Brexit UK would need “unfettered access” to the European market in goods and services to retain and attract US investments.

The warning from the world’s largest national business lobby group, which represents companies with investments worth some $590bn in the UK, follows similar warnings from the Japanese business community.

It highlights the delicate balance that Theresa May’s government faces to retain foreign investors’ confidence while working to deliver on the wishes of the majority of UK voters who opted to leave the EU in June.

Emily Thornberry, the shadow foreign secretary, asks about the article Johnson wrote backing EU membership. Why does he no longer agree with himself?

Johnson says people have have read the article conclude that it actually makes the case for leaving the EU.

Labour’s Ben Bradshaw asks about an American Chambers of Commerce report due out that will reportedly say American firms are thinking of leaving the UK after Brexit.

Johnson says he has not seen the report yet.

He says he has no doubt the UK will be able to strike a fantastic deal with the EU, while also becoming more attractive to other countries by striking a great set of trade deals.

Alex Salmond, the SNP international affairs spokesman, asks what Johnson’s stance is on Turkey joining the EU.

Johnson says he is in favour - provided the UK has left the EU by then.

Salmond says Johnson argued for the UK to have full participation in the single market after Brexit during the EU referendum campaign. So why is it wrong for MPs to demand this?

Johnson says no government lets the Commons have a vote on its negotiating position in talks like this.

Ed Balls seems to be on TV far more often these days talking about his role as a Strictly contestant than he ever was talking about his job as shadow chancellor. He has just been on the BBC’s Victoria Derbyshire show, and he said he thought Jeremy Corbyn might stand down as Labour leader before the general election.

David Coburn, Ukip’s only MEP in Scotland, is one of the UK’s more, er, unvarnished politicians. He has not, until now, features in lists of the runners and riders for the next Ukip leader, but this morning he told Good Morning Scotland, that if the call came, he might be willing to serve. This is what he said when asked if he would be a candidate in the leadership contest.

Can I lead the party? If I were asked by colleagues then of course I would do my best, but it’s not about who is governing, it’s to do with getting a group of people together, a collegiate group of people who are going to run the thing. That’s much more important. Politics is not about individuals, it’s about the collective; what we want is an agenda for the future.

My colleague Marina Hyde has tweeted this response.

For another pen portrait of Coburn, I’ll quote this item from Michael White’s Labour party conference diary two years ago.

After Ed Miliband’s tough conference week it’s now the others’ turn on the ducking stool, starting with Ukip which cheekily meets on the Labour leader’s home patch at Doncaster racecourse tomorrow. Judging by the sound of his noisy telephone conversation on a London-bound train this week, David Coburn, newly-elected Ukip MEP for Scotland, is certain to enliven any debate. Though colourful Coburn complained about leaks from inside Ukip his frequent references to “Nigel” alerted fellow passengers. In quick succession he was heard calling the Greens “a cult-like scientology,” referred to Labour’s Scottish leader, Johann Lamont, as a “fishwife” and to her Tory rival, Ruth Davidson, as “a fat lesbian”. Asked for comment by the Guardian, Coburn, 55, said he often travels on trains, talks a lot and can’t remember it all. Fat lesbian? “Well, she is a lesbian, what about it? I’m a homosexual.” Only in Ukip.

Here is a chart from the ONS bulletin showing changes to CPI inflation over the past year.

The Conservative party conference was dominated by what the party said about immigration but one of the most intriguing lines to emerge was what Theresa May said about monetary policy and quantitative easing. In remarks that seemed highly critical of the Bank of England, and its QE policy, she said: “While monetary policy, with super-low interest rates and quantitative easing, provided the necessary emergency medicine after the financial crash, we have to acknowledge there have been some bad side effects.” Downing Street later had to clarify that she was not trying to interfere with the Bank’s independence and that QE policy was a matter for them.

But it would be unwise to think that that is the end of the matter, and this morning a powerful voice has come to the aid of those in Number 10 who think it is time for a QE rethink. William Hague, the former Conservative leader and former foreign secretary, has used his column in the Telegraph to suggest that the Bank of England should raise interest rates or lose its independence. He also lists 10 problems with the Bank’s continued reliance on QE. Here is an extract.

I am not an economist but I have come to the conclusion that central banks collectively have now indeed lost the plot. The whole point of their independence was that they could be brave enough to make people confront reality. Yet in reality they are blowing up a bubble of make-believe money to avoid immediate pain, except for penalising the poor and the prudent ...

Some central bankers would mount a strong defence of their approach. They would explain that there is a global glut of savings, so interest rates are in any case kept low by market forces. This is true, but it does not mean those rates have to be driven to zero, or even below zero now in some places, by the authorities ...

I have bad news for them. The accumulating effects of loose monetary policy globally are intensely political. When pension funds renege on promises, or inequality widens further, or savers become desperate, huge public and political anger is gong to burst over the heads of the world’s central banks.

The only way out is for the US Fed to summon the courage to lead the way to higher interest rates, and others to follow slowly but surely. If they fail to do so, the era of their much-vaunted independence will come, possibly quite dramatically, to its end.

Where this will lead, I don’t know, but it is strong stuff, and an interesting indication of how the debate is shifting fundamentally on monetary policy. It is also worth imagining what the reaction would be if Jeremy Corbyn or John McDonnell had written this. When they made much milder suggestions last year about interfering with the Bank’s independence, there were howls of protest in the City.

It is a relatively quiet morning at Westminster, but Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, is taking questions in the Commons later. And this afternoon I will be covering the home affairs committee hearing into the child sexual abuse inquiry in detail.

Here is the agenda for the day.

9.30am: Inflation figures are published.

10.45am: The Polish ambassador Arkady Rzegocki and and his Romanian counterpart Dan Mihalache give evidence on Brexit to a Lords committee.

11.10am: Tim Farron, the Lib Dem leader, campaigns in the Witney byelection.

11.30am: Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, takes questions in the Commons.

11.30am: Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, takes part in an LBC phone-in.

2.15pm: Professor Alexis Jay, chair of the child abuse inquiry, gives evidence to the Commons home affairs committee. At 3.45pm Mark Sedwill, the Home Office permanent secretary, gives evidence to the committee.

2.30pm: Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, and Simon Stevens, the NHS England chief executive, gives evidence to the Commons health committee

3.30pm: Margot James, the business minister, gives a speech to the Resolution Foundation on low pay.

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 or contact me on Twitter, I’m on @AndrewSparrow.

I try to monitor the comments BTL but normally I find it impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer direct questions, although sometimes I miss them or don’t have time. Alternatively you could post a question to me on Twitter.