Chris Wormald, the cabinet secretary, has dismissed Conservative demands for an investigation into whether the attorney general has advised the government on issues where he has conflicts of interest, Eleni Courea reports.

If you want to know what the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean Convention actually is, and whether the UK should join, a good place to start is this blog by the Centre for Inclusive Trade Policy. It is by Nicolò Tamberi and helpfully it is titled: Should the UK join the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention?

Here is an extract.

As part of its European Neighbourhood Policy, the European Union (EU) has established the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean (PEM) Convention, which allows for diagonal cumulation of rules of origin among the signatory parties. This means that, if Egypt sourced materials from Turkey, Turkish materials can be considered to be “made in Egypt” for purposes of Egypt’s exports to the EU.

The trade and cooperation agreement that governs UK-EU trade relations since 2021 does not allow for diagonal cumulation. If the UK were to join the PEM convention, it could count PEM inputs towards the rules of origin criteria when exporting to the EU. This would broaden the base of what counts as ‘local content’ in UK exports and would therefore render it easier for UK exporters to meet EU rules of origin. As a result, UK exports could access the EU market tariff-free more easily.

To see whether this would matter in practice, we calculate the share of value-added (VA) originating in PEM countries embedded in UK exports to the EU …

The contribution of PEM countries to the VA of UK exports is rather small (Figure 1). Excluding Coke and petroleum products, which exhibit by far the largest PEM VA content but already face a 0% Most Favoured Nation tariff in the EU, the PEM countries’ VA share ranges between 1.1% and 2.8%. The low shares suggest that joining PEM would not be a game-changer for UK exports to the EU.

Rachel Reeves has said she will amend the finance bill to soften planned changes to the tax regime for “the non-dom community” after intense lobbying from wealthy UK residents, Heather Stewart reports.

Commenting on the move, Mel Stride, the shadow chancellor, said:

Labour’s budget is falling apart in front of our eyes. At the election Labour said their plans would raise money, now they have been forced to admit their plans make the UK less attractive.

Downing Street has said that joining a Europe-wide customs agreement as suggested by the European Union would not cross the government’s “red lines” for closer relations with the EU.

After the BBC revealed this morning that the EU has suggested the UK could join the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean Convention (PEM), a customs scheme, two ministers said that this was not something the government was proposing now. (See 9.28am and 10.10am.)

But they did not rule out the idea for good, and at the Downing Street lobby briefing the PM’s spokesperson adopted a more positive tone when asked about the proposal.

The spokesperson said he would not get into a running commentary on specific options up for discussion with the EU.

But, when asked if the PEM would cross the red lines set out in Labour’s manifesto for EU ties (see 10.43am), he said:

The arrangement that’s been discussed is not a customs union.

Our red line has always been that we will never join a single market, freedom of movement, but we’re just not going to get ahead of those discussions.

At first minister’s questions at the Scottish parliament, John Swinney warned the public to take the Storm Éowyn red weather warning seriously, saying that the police were due to issue an unusual ‘do not travel’ notice.

Swinney, who said he would be chairing a meeting of the his government’s resilience room after the FMQs session, and told the Holyrood chamber:

We have to be clear that people should not travel and the Police Scotland will issue a formal do not travel notice shortly. Councils will make decisions today on school closures.

Red weather warnings are very rare, our message is simple. Please follow the advice from the Met Office and the police, take this seriously and stay safe.

Kemi Badenoch has told shadow ministers she wants a period of silence from Liz Truss, as the Conservative leader seeks to distance herself from her predecessor’s economic legacy, Kiran Stacey reports.

Lucy Rigby, the solicitor general, has strongly defended her boss, Lord Hermer, over the fact that he represented Gerry Adams before he joined the government.

Rigby was speaking in response to an urgent question tabled by Helen Grant, her Tory opposite number, about how conflicts of interest are managed in the Attorney General’s Office.

Hermer, who worked closely with Keir Starmer when they were both human rights lawyers, was an unusual choice for attorney general because he had not been an MP or peer before his appointment. Although a distinguished lawyer, he has faced criticism from the Tories because one of the clients he represented before he joined the government was Adams, the former Sinn Féin president who is widely understood to have been an IRA leader (although he has always denied this).

Grant did not explicitly say it was wrong to have an attorney general who had once represented Adams. Instead, since Adams could potentially receive compensation over being interned in the 1970s as a result of a change to the Legacy Act, she asked what was being done to ensure Hermer was not giving advice on this legislation that would amount to a conflict of interest.

But other Tories and unionists did refer to Adams more disparagingly, with one, the DUP’s Jim Shannon, saying Adams’ hands were “dripping with innocent blood”.

Responding to the suggestions that a lawyer who represented Adams should never be attorney general in the first place, Rigby said:

As the Bar Council states, barristers do not choose their clients, nor do they associate themselves with their clients’ opinions or behavior by virtue of representing them.

There’s been a really cynical linking in recent days by the opposition of the attorney general with some of his previous clients.

I grew up on military bases in armed forces communities’ in the 1980s. I remember what it felt like when my dad had to check underneath the car before we made every single journey.

And I note this because it’s the backdrop against which I say that I would defend with every fibre of my being the duty of any barrister in this country, including Lord Hermer, to defend any client before any court, as indeed we all should.

Rigby ended this point with the words “do not judge a surgeon by their patients, a journalist by their interviews, or a lawyer by their clients”, which she said was a quote from Lord Wolfston, the shadow attorney general.

On the point about conflicts of interest if Hermer were to advise the government on law relating to Adams, or any of his other former clients, Rigby said that a “rigorous proess” was in place to stop these occuring. She said:

The Attorney General’s Office has an established and rigorous process for identifying and dealing with conflicts and potential conflicts which arise from the law officer’s past practice.

That process predates the appointment of the attorney general and it sits against the backdrop of every lawyer’s professional obligations to be alert to and to actively manage any situation which might give rise to a potential or actual conflict. Learned members of this house will keenly appreciate the importance that all lawyers place on that obligation.

In identifying conflicts or potential conflicts, the Attorney General’s Office adopts a cautious and ‘beyond reproach’ threshold to any conflicts or potential conflicts.

Rigby said Hermer would recuse himself in cases where there was a conflict of interest. But she said she could not say if that was happening with regard to particular cases because that would involve disclosing what matters the attorney had been asked to advise the government on – which is something law officers are not meant to reveal.

Here is Downing Street news release on the government’s plans to limit the extent to which judicial review can be used to hold up infrastructure projects. The plans will cover England and Wales.

The RSPB, which describes itself as the UK’s largest nature conversation charity, has accused Labour of going back on its pre-election promises to protect nature. Beccy Speight, the RSPB chief executive, said:

The PM claims to ‘clear a path’ for building, but this move runs the risk of bulldozing through our chances for a future where nature, people, and the economy all thrive. We know people want bold action on the climate and nature crises, which was Labour’s election platform, and this rhetoric has them veering wildly off course.

We all know that nature underpins economic growth – that is why government and the environment sector has been actively working together, to try and unlock better outcomes for both planning and nature – yet this rhetoric flies in the face of that collaborative spirit.

But the British Property Federation has welcomed the plans. Melanie Leech, its chief executive, said:

If we want to grow the economy and fund vital public services, then we have to better balance environmental and community interests with the benefits of development, and do so in a clear and timely way. Reducing the scope for vexatious and unmerited legal challenges, whilst retaining a right to appeal, is a very positive step in achieving this.

Khan confirms he would consider legal challenge against Heathrow expansion if it goes ahead

Aletha Adu

Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, has told the London assembly he’ll consider joining a legal challenge if the government supports the proposed third runway at Heathrow airport.

As well as confirming that he remained opposed to Heathrow expansion (see 10.57am), Khan was asked by London assembly member and deputy leader of the Green party Zack Polaski whether there was any money available in the budget for a legal challenge against the proposals. Khan said: “No money has been set aside based on speculation.”

But he also said that, if the speculation were to “become a reality”, he would consider the case for going to court.

Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has said the government’s decision to reject the EU’s suggestion that Britain could join a Europe-wide customs scheme (see 9.28am and 10.10am) is “an act of economic negligence”.

In a statement he said:

It is alarming that the government is happy to negotiate with China but won’t even look at a better trading arrangement with our closest neighbours in Europe. This is an act of economic negligence.

If the government thinks it will get growth back in the economy by borrowing Boris Johnson’s playbook on European negotiations it is going to end up being sorely disappointed.

It is time for a proper UK-EU customs arrangement so we can strengthen our negotiations with Donald Trump, cut the red tape on our businesses and grow the economy.

Sadiq Khan, the Labour mayor of London, has confirmed that he is still opposed to building a third runway at Heathrow.

In a speech next week Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, is expected to confirm plans to go ahead with a third runway at Heathrow, as well as endorsing expansion at Gatwick and Luton.

Khan has said in the past that, if the government were to press ahead with Heathrow expansion, he would go to court to try to block it. Speaking to the London assembly this morning, he said his views on the proposal “haven’t changed” and that he remains opposed.

What Londoners know, and the government knows, is the aviation sector is important for growth, jobs and prosperity, but we face a climate crisis and a climate emergency.

The Climate Change Committee, well respected, set out quite clearly its recommendations, which is the only time expansion of aviation should be considered, I’m paraphrasing, is if it abides with our climate change commitments and so forth.

The three big concerns that would need to be addressed if, in the hypothetical case, the speculation was to become a reality, is could a new runway be built that abides with carbon targets, concerns around noise pollution, and concerns around air pollution?

Should that speculation become a reality, we’ll of course consider the merits of that case.

But I’m quite clear, my views on the expansion of Heathrow by a new runway haven’t changed.

In his BBC interview yesterday Maroš Šefčovič, the vice president of the European commission dealing with post-Brexit policy, said that he hoped the UK and the EU would be able to agree a new veterinary agreement.

The two sides are due to review the post-Brexit trade deal this year, and the British government has said a veterinary agreement is a priority. This would reduce the regulatory barriers affecting trade in food and agricultural goods.

Referring to this option, Šefčovič said “we would have to have the same rules and we have to upgrade them at the same time, we call it dynamic alignment”.

In the Commons Alex Burghart, the shadow Cabinet Office minister, said moving towards dynamic alignment with the EU would be “a very significant step”. He went on:

Will [the minister] be clear with the house – is dynamic alignment on the table?”

It comes to something when Mr Šefčovič is a better guide to what is going on than the British government. Yet if the government is committed to dynamic alignment now, he will know that this is a significant step, because it potentially brings the European court back into having jurisdiction over the United Kingdom.

Will he rule out the ECJ [European court of justice] having jurisdiction over the UK in any regard in future?

Nick Thomas-Symonds, the Cabinet Office minister, said the European Court of Justice already had an involvement in the Windsor framework.

He also said that Labour set out its red lines in its manifesto, where the party gave examples of what it wanted to renegotiate.

The Labour manifesto says:

There will be no return to the single market, the customs union, or freedom of movement.

Instead, Labour will work to improve the UK’s trade and investment relationship with the EU, by tearing down unnecessary barriers to trade. We will seek to negotiate a veterinary agreement to prevent unnecessary border checks and help tackle the cost of food; will help our touring artists; and secure a mutual recognition agreement for professional qualifications to help open up markets for UK service exporters.

In his interview with the BBC, Maroš Šefčovič, the vice president of the European commission who is in charge of the commission’s post-Brexit relations with the UK, criticised the way Labour government has discussed the proposal for a youth mobility scheme.

Ministers have repeatedly ruled out joining a youth mobility scheme, implying that this would be tantamount to accepting EU free movement rules – which voters were widely seen to have rejected when they voted for Brexit in 2016.

In his interview Šefčovič said a youth mobility scheme would “build bridges for the future for the European Union and the UK” and that he and his colleagues were “a little bit surprised what kind of spin it got in the UK”.

He explained:

It is not freedom of movement. We have been very clear what we’ve been proposing.

Nick Thomas-Symonds, the Cabinet Office minister in charge of post-Brexit relations with the EU, is in the Commons taking questions with his departmental colleagues, and he has just been asked about the EU offer for the UK to join the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean Convention (PEM). (See 9.28am.)

The Conservative MP John Cooper said this plan would turn Britain “once again into rule takers and not rule makers”. He also urged the government to rule out dynamic alignment with the EU in terms of regulation.

In response Thomas-Symonds said:

We, of course, welcome the positive, constructive tone from Commissioner Šefčovič.

We’re always looking for ways to reduce barriers of trade, but within our manifesto red lines, because we take a pragmatic view as to where the national interest lies.

But we don’t currently have any plans to join PEM and we are not going to provide a running commentary on every comment that’s made.

That is much the same as what Matthew Pennycook said about this earlier, but the reference to not providing a “running commentary” also suggests that the government is not permanently ruling out this option.

(Governments often try to avoid questions on difficult policy matters by saying they won’t provide a “running commentary”. No 10 tried this earlier this week when asked about Donald Trump pulling out of the Paris climate agreement. But generally this line never holds, because when a question becomes very pressing, dodging it starts to look impossible.)

The Conservatives have claimed that the government’s local government reorganisation will hold up attempts to speed up planning applications.

In a response to the plans announced today to limit the extend to which judicial review can be used to hold up developments, Kevin Hollinrake, the shadow levelling up secretary, said the Tories approved of streamling the planning system, but did not believe Labour would do it properly. He said:

Labour ministers have … sat on their hands on implementing the measures introduced by the Conservatives to cut bureaucracy and provide greater certainty to local residents and developers and abolishing and replacing hundreds of local councils and asking all their employees, including planning officers, to reapply for their jobs is hardly a recipe for accelerating decision-making.

The Conservative party is under new leadership and we will come forward with real plans, not empty announcements, to get Britain building.

Good morning. The government is obsessed with finding any levers it can that might generate growth. At Davos yesterday Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, was asked if growth was even more important than promoting net zero, and she replied: “Well, if [growth is] the number one mission, it’s obviously the most important thing.” Today the government is announcing potentially significant plans that could limit the scope of judicial review applications to hold back growth. Pippa Crerar, Kiran Stacey and Sandra Laville have the details here.

Economists argue that an obvious move to promote growth would be to have closer trade links with the EU. But the government has ruled out rejoining the single market or the custom union (let alone rejoining the EU proper – which is still largely a taboo proposal in most parts of UK politics). And today a minister has ruled out an EU proposal for the UK to join, not the customs union, but a Europe-wide customs scheme that in some respects would be similar.

The idea was floated by Maroš Šefčovič, the vice president of the European commission who is in charge of the commission’s post-Brexit relations with the UK. He is at Davos and, in an interview with the BBC’s economics editor Faisal Islam, he said that a “pan-European [customs] area is something we could consider” as part of “reset” discussions between the UK and EU.

In his write-up, Islam reports:

Šefčovič referred to the idea of the UK joining the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean Convention (PEM).

These are common rules that allow parts, ingredients and materials for manufacturing supply chains to be sourced from across dozens of countries in Europe and North Africa to be used in tariff-free trade.

The Conservatives did not pursue PEM as part of its post-Brexit deal but some firms said it would help the UK rejoin complex supply chains that have been hit by customs barriers.

Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Mr Sefcovic said the idea has not been “precisely formulated” by London yet and the “ball is in the UK’s court”.

Islam said in his story that the government has “begun consultations with business over the benefits of the PEM plan that could help cut red tape and improve trade”.

But Matthew Pennycook, the housing minister, was the government spokesperson on the airwaves this morning and he shot the idea down. He was giving interviews about the plans to reform judicial review rules. But, on the Today programme, when asked about the Šefčovič proposal, he replied:

We’re not seeking to participate in that particular arrangement.

I think in general the government’s been very clear … we do want a closer relationship with our European partners, both in trading terms, but also, importantly … in terms of security and defense cooperation, where we need to work far more closely. So absolutely, yes, we do want a closer relationship.

As for this particular arrangement, though, we’re not seeking to participate in it at the present time.

That sounded like a fairly clear denial – although perhaps Pennycook’s inclusion of the words “at the present time” when he made his second reference to the UK not participating may signal that the door is not closed for good.

Here is the agenda for the day.

9.30am: Pat McFadden, the Cabinet Office minister, takes questions in the Commons.

10am: Sadiq Khan, the London mayor, takes questions at the London assembly.

10am: Sajid Javid, the former health secretary, gives evidence to the Covid inquiry on vaccines.

After 10.30am: Lucy Powell, the leader of the Commons, makes a statement on next week’s Commons business.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

Noon: John Swinney, Scotland’s first minister, takes questions at Holyrood.

And Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, is at Davos, where she doing various speaking and media events. Graeme Wearden is there and is covering it all on the business live blog – Davos edition.

If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.

If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.

I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.

UPDATE: I have changed the heading on this post, and the wording at the end of the final sentence in the first paragraph, to reflect the fact that No 10 is saying it is wrong to describe the PEM as a custom union. See 1.36pm.