Downing Street wants to stop green activists from using a little-known international law to tie up major infrastructure projects in the courts using millions of pounds of taxpayer cash, Sky News can reveal.

An obscure international agreement known as the Aarhus Convention, named after Denmark’s second city, is delaying some of the biggest industrial projects in the country.

Politics latest: Farage says White House row a ‘blessing’

Around 80 cases a year are brought under the convention, Sky News has learned, which caps the costs of anyone bringing a case at £5,000 if the case is brought by an individual or £10,000 by organisations.

If this convention did not exist, costs would otherwise be awarded against a claimant for the losing side’s legal fees in the event the claimant is unsuccessful – and could potentially run into the hundreds of thousands or even higher.

This means it’s costing the taxpayer millions every year in legal fees – on top of what critics say is hundreds of millions of additional costs for developers as projects go through the courts.

The international law was brought in to allow those without deep pockets to challenge companies and governments they believe are breaking green laws.

However, it is causing big frustration in government.

Even some in the environmental movement believe it is being abused.

Modern lawfare

Campaigners who use it, however, say it is a vital tool to hold ministers to their green targets.

Many of the cases are brought by specialist human rights and environmentalist law firm Leigh Day, whose lead environmental lawyer told Sky News the convention “is extremely important to every claimant who’s bringing an environmental case in this country”.

These cases leave the taxpayer facing bills of millions of pounds, and developer costs reaching into the hundreds of millions because of delays to building work.

A source in Number 10 said the prime minister is personally affronted by this sort of use of the law, and it has been labelled “lawfare” – a derogatory term which means using the legal system to the detriment of one’s opponents.

This week, a computer scientist and former Norfolk councillor is in court once more challenging the first carbon capture storage project on a gas-fired power station, which is due to be built on Teesside.

Andrew Boswell was the subject of a personal attack by the prime minister in the Daily Mail, who identified him as one of the “NIMBYs and zealots” for his legal challenges – including road schemes.

Read more:
Will PM beat the NIMBYs?
Starmer accused of ‘bullying’ campaigners

Sky News took Mr Boswell to the site where building of the project, which is majority-run by BP, is due to take place once the court challenges are complete.

He said he was challenging the project on the grounds it would break the government’s promises to adhere to carbon budgets under the Climate Change Act.

“People would be very surprised to hear they’re going to build a gas-fired power station here,” he said.

“They are going to put carbon capture and storage on it. But our analysis is that actually is not a good solution environmentally.”

‘We are holding the government to account’

Mr Boswell has so far lost the cases he has brought, and Sky News understands the delays to this project are costing £100m every three months.

Asked if this made him reconsider his decision to challenge the project, he said: “We are holding the government to account.”

“The point is we have laws in this country, and we have a Climate Change Act, which we’re legally enshrined to meet, and government ministers have been making decisions which aren’t consistent with that,” he added.

He said he and other environmental activists would not be able to bring such cases in the event that the Aarhus convention did not get the taxpayer to pay most of the costs against them in the event the case is unsuccessful.

“It would be very difficult for individual campaigners like myself and also the environmental groups and other groups who wish to go to court,” he told me.

Projects of ‘huge significance’ being challenged

The law firm used by Mr Boswell, Leigh Day, brings several cases each year using the Aarhus Convention.

Carol Day, from Leigh Day, said about 80 cases were brought to the High Court per year on environmental issues.

“That doesn’t sound like very many, but they are mostly very important projects of huge significance,” she said, with “enormous implications for the protection of the environment”.

A series of cases have been brought under the Aarhus Convention.

Mr Boswell himself took his case against proposed improvements to the A47 in Norfolk by National Highways all the way up to the Supreme Court.

In 2021, the Supreme Court overturned a block on Heathrow’s expansion, a challenge brought under the convention capping the losers’ costs at £10,000.

Activists point to the successful challenge by Sarah Finch.

Last year the challenge, by the self-employed writer resulted in a Supreme Court ruling that carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels should be factored into planning decisions.

The ruling has scotched an oil well near Gatwick and another near the village of Biscathorpe in Lincolnshire. The challenge would not have happened unless she knew her costs would be capped if she had lost.

Asked about whether it was right that millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money are going to lawyers fighting cases that effectively delay big infrastructure projects for years, she insisted there would be “no challenge” if the projects “were made lawfully”.

‘We can’t get things done’

Ben Houchen, the Tory Teesside mayor, whose Teesworks site will host the carbon capture and storage gas power station, said the system must change.

“The system has gone so far,” he said, with “too many challenges”.

“We can’t get things done in this country. We have a democratically elected government that wants to deliver growth. It wants to deliver these types of investments. I’ve been elected on the promise of delivering these investments.”

Mr Houchen called for “fundamental reform” to help “stop these activists from being able to stop any sort of economic growth and investment that creates jobs”.

It appears Sir Keir Starmer agrees in principle. Whether he can reform an international treaty remains to be seen.

Jeremy Corbyn has urged Sir Keir Starmer to set up an independent Chilcot-style inquiry into the UK’s involvement in Israel’s war in Gaza.

In a letter to the prime minister seen by Sky News, the former Labour leader argued there was public concern British officials had been implicated “in the gravest breaches of international law” because of decisions made by the government.

Mr Corbyn, now the independent MP for Islington North, said he had repeatedly sought answers on the continued sale of components for F-35 jets to Israel, the role of British military bases and the legal definition of genocide – but had been met with “evasion, obstruction and silence”.

As a result, the government was “leaving the public in the dark over the ways in which the responsibilities of government have been discharged”, Mr Corbyn argued.

Politics latest: Zelenskyy was ‘rude’ to Trump, says Farage

‘History is repeating itself’

Drawing parallels with the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq War – which found the UK’s decision to invade was based on “flawed intelligence and assessments” – Mr Corbyn said “history is repeating itself”.

The Chilcot report, which was published in 2016 following a series of delays, criticised former Labour prime minister Sir Tony Blair for not consulting his cabinet before giving George W Bush assurances the UK would be with him “whatever”, eight months before the invasion began.

It also said the circumstances leading up to the then attorney general’s controversial advice that the war was legal – without a second UN resolution – were “far from satisfactory”.

In his letter, Mr Corbyn said “many people believe the government has taken decisions that have implicated officials in the gravest breaches of international law”.

“These charges will not go away until there is a comprehensive, public, independent inquiry with the legal power to establish the truth,” he added.

The Islington MP, who was suspended from the parliamentary Labour Party in 2020 in a row over antisemitism and later blocked from standing as one of its general election candidates, said in the interests of “transparency and accountability” he would be “working with colleagues in pursuing all avenues to establish an independent inquiry”.

“Today, the death toll in Gaza has exceeded 61,000,” he said, referring to figures that include people who are missing and presumed dead.

According to the Hamas-run health ministry, Israel’s assault on Gaza has killed more than 48,000 Palestinians. It does not distinguish between civilians and combatants in this count.

Mr Corbyn continued: “At least 110,000 – or one in twenty – people have been injured. It is estimated that 92% of housing units have been destroyed or damaged.

“Two Israeli officials are now wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes and crimes against humanity.”

These officials are Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence secretary Yoav Gallant. Mr Netanyahu’s office rejected the ICC warrants against him and Mr Gallant as “antisemitic” and said Israel “rejects with disgust the absurd and false actions”.

Referring to the October 7 attack that triggered Israel’s invasion of Gaza, Mr Netanyahu said: “With what audacity do you compare Hamas that murdered, burned, butchered, decapitated, raped and kidnapped our brothers and sisters and the IDF soldiers fighting a just war?”

While in opposition, Sir Keir struggled to contain divisions within Labour when Israel began its incursion into Gaza following the Hamas terrorist attack that killed 1,200 Israelis and saw about 250 taken hostage.

The Labour leader drew criticism for an interview he gave to LBC in which he appeared to suggest that Israel had a right to limit essential supplies, including water and electricity, to Gaza.

He later said he was only referring to the right Israel had to defend itself.

Arms sales to Israel

Last April, under Conservative prime minister Rishi Sunak, the government was warned it was breaching international law by continuing to arm Israel and faced calls to suspend arms exports to the country after three British aid workers were killed in an airstrike.

Months later, the newly elected Labour government announced it would suspend some arms sales to Israel, following a review of export licences which found there was a “clear risk” they might be used to commit “a serious violation of international humanitarian law”.

While the UK does not directly supply Israel with weapons, it does grant export licences for British companies to sell arms to the country.

The suspension covered components that go into military aircraft that have been used in Gaza, including helicopters and drones, as well as items which facilitate ground targeting.

But it did not include parts for multinational F-35 fighter jets – something that has concerned opposition MPs and human rights charities.

In response, Mr Netanyahu said the decision was “shameful” and “will not change Israel’s determination to defeat Hamas, a genocidal terrorist organization that savagely murdered 1200 people on October 7, including 14 British citizens”.

Read more:
Which countries could send troops to Ukraine?
Israel stops all goods and supplies into Gaza

Defining genocide

Sir Keir, a former public prosecutor and human rights barrister, has also faced pressure to share his legal definition of genocide following questioning from an independent MP in the Commons.

The prime minister told the Commons he was “well aware of the definition of genocide, and that is why I have never described this as, and referred to it as, genocide”.

Middle East and North Africa minister Hamish Falconer later told Mr Corbyn in a letter that it was the government’s “long-standing policy” that “any determination that genocide has occurred is a matter for a competent national or international court, not for governments or non-judicial bodies”.

“This approach ensures that any determination is above politics, lobbying and individual or national interest,” he said.

A Government spokesperson said: “Our priority since day one has been a sustainable ceasefire, and a lasting peace that will ensure the long-term peace and security of both Palestinians and Israelis.

“We must build confidence on all sides that helps sustain the ceasefire and move it from phase one through to phase three, and into a lasting peace and an end to the suffering on all sides.”

A newly elected Labour MP has gone public with his objections to the government’s proposed farm tax, saying it would “penalise” small farms in rural communities.

Henry Tufnell, MP for South and Mid-Pembrokeshire, told Sky News he and other colleagues had informed ministers it’s not only wealthy landowners who would be affected by the decision to levy inheritance tax on farms worth more than £1m.

Politics latest: Farage says White House row a ‘blessing’

It comes as farmers gather in central London again today, although without their tractors, to protest the changes.

The controversial decision to remove Agricultural Property Relief was announced by Rachel Reeves at last year’s budget and is due to take effect in April 2026.

It has seen a growing backlash from farmers, as well as supermarkets Tesco, Aldi and Lidl, who have raised concerns about food security, and business group the CBI, which last week said it would hit growth.

Mr Tufnell is the third Labour MP to speak out, and it’s understood more could follow, as a vote on the change looms in the coming months.

‘We have to stand up’

After making representations to Treasury ministers behind the scenes, Mr Tufnell is calling for the threshold for levying the tax to be raised.

He also wants an amnesty or transition period for older farmers who may not be able to pass farms on to their children in time to avoid it.

“Me and a number of other MPs who are part of this new, broader, coalition within the Labour Party have to stand up and inform government that this is affecting our constituents,” he said.

Farmers ‘critical’ to boost growth

“It’s affecting the fabric of the society within those rural communities and that’s why we were elected,” he added.

He said the tax relief for farmers had “encouraged them to die in their boots” – and farmers in their 70s and 80s had been put “in this incredibly difficult position” as they could not plan for the change.

“The policy needs to be improved,” he added, saying farmers are “critical” not just for the government’s growth agenda, but also hitting its environmental targets.

Read more:
What’s the beef with farmers’ inheritance tax?

A broken election promise?

Mr Tufnell, 32, narrowly won the seat from Conservative former cabinet minister Stephen Crabb, having told constituents during the election campaign that no changes to inheritance tax were planned.

His is one of 59 rural constituencies which are among the 100 most marginal wins for Labour.

The MP, who lives in Pembrokeshire, has faced questions after it was revealed last year that a portion of the land on the 2,200 acre Gloucestershire farm belonging to his parents Mark and Jane, worth a reported £20m, had been passed to his brother Albermarle just before the budget.

It means if Mark Tufnell lives for another seven years, no inheritance tax – which would be levied at a rate of 20% – would be paid on that part.

Mr Tufnell reiterated to Sky News he had no inkling of the change, which was not in Labour’s manifesto, saying it’s “completely preposterous” to suggest a backbencher would know in advance.

‘Dyson and Clarkson should pay more’

Mr Tufnell couldn’t say where the threshold should be set, but said it’s something the government should discuss with farming unions.

The government says with tax reliefs that apply to farms owned by couples with children, the threshold could be up to £3m.

“I completely agree James Dyson and Jeremy Clarkson should pay more,” he said.

‘Huge concerns’

The MP acknowledged there have been “issues” with people “dodging tax” and around how the relief “artificially inflates the price of land”.

“But I’ve been engaging extensively with my constituents in Pembrokeshire, speaking to individual farmers in beef, dairy, poultry, on small-scale family farms, and they’ve got huge concerns,” he said.

“It’s not about me and my family. I appreciate that I come from a farming family. But fundamentally I’m standing up for my constituents on a constituency matter and that’s the issue here.”

‘The straw that broke the camel’s back’

A group of some 30 rural Labour MPs deeply concerned about the impact of the policy are understood to have held meetings with Treasury ministers in the past month.

Steve Witherden, MP for Montgomeryshire and Glyndwr, and on the left of the party, said in January the proposed changes “feel like the straw that broke the camel’s back”.

Marcus Campbell-Savours, MP for the rural constituency of Penrith and Solway, said he planned to vote against the government’s plans in their current form and would seek “important amendments.”

The chancellor insisted at the October budget that the changes, which the government estimated would save £500m a year, would “ensure we continue to protect family farms”.

She said the top of 7% of claims currently account for 40% of the total tax relief, but the National Farmers Union claim the figures are “misleading” and tens of thousands of farms could be affected.