Conserving our institutions
- Conservative Environment Network
- 8 hours ago
- 5 min read
I recently visited Paris, and a highlight of the trip was a visit to the wonderfully restored Notre Dame. We marvelled at the light–filled nave, bursting with a combination of modern and medieval craftsmanship combined in one perfect whole. How had they achieved this in the five short years since the catastrophic fire? Why can’t we do the same and for example restore the Palace of Westminster?
I started to wonder if I was part of the problem. Like so many of us, I got into politics through local campaigning: saving the local hospital, preventing inappropriately sited wind turbines, stopping HS2. I used my public law knowledge to protect the causes and the places I love. I have always considered these triumphs to be those of the righteous individual pitted against the might of the state. But have we now reached a state where we simply cannot build or restore anything major? Does our current system really work to protect individuals? And should conservatives be advocating staunchly for individual rights and a limited state, or for a paternalistic state acting in what it believes to be the long–term national interest?
Many are seeking to identify the root cause of our keenly– felt planning deadlock. The press is very focused currently on the perception that lawyers are in charge of government decision–making, even when this is contrary to the interest of the nation as a whole. Our common law tradition does rely significantly more on judicial precedent than the legal systems based on civil law of our European neighbours, making judges and lawyers more of a focal point for discontent. But it is too simplistic to see planning stasis as a product of our overweening legal system. Parliamentary sovereignty should always be a safeguard to ensure that it is democratically–elected representatives who have the final say.
I'm also not sure that we can blame our adherence to the various international treaties to which we are signatories. For many years we have seen the 'rule of law' and the 'rules–based international order' as the solution, but these forces are clearly struggling to contain worldwide turmoil. International laws, so long lauded by green groups as useful to encourage other nations to protect the environment together, are now sometimes seen as a threat to our national interest. In fact, international law can effectively regulate many interactions between nations, particularly in the environmental space. For all the press around Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, it remains a landmark climate accord, with the only countries outside the agreement being the USA, Iran, Libya and Yemen. It provides a crucial framework to bring international partners together to strengthen their response to tackle the global threat of climate change. However, it does demonstrate that whilst difficult to reach, international consensus can be even harder to maintain, making the enforcement of international law increasingly challenging.
As a serious partner, we of course try to comply with the rulings of international courts and tribunals to which we are signatories, but if we really feel our national interest is not served by whichever rule is in play, we are free to walk away. These decisions should be seen as what they are, fundamentally political rather than legal.
Instead, the problem seems at heart to be one of our love of proper process, and our very strong adherence to the concept of individual rights.
France has for centuries enjoyed strong central government. The centre of Paris is planned and coherently laid out. There is a good TGV network and adequate nuclear power. By contrast our tradition is much more sceptical of the centre.
Of course, there were many difficulties and regulations standing in the way of the rebuilding of Notre Dame. Anyone who has had any passing dealings with French municipal bureaucracy can imagine the plethora of rules which would be invoked. The French Government did not have the executive power to decree it should be done, but its parliament did have the ability to pass a law in mid–2019 to override obstacles. By contrast in the UK such a bill would have to have gone through the hybrid bill procedure. In fact, it would still be going through the hybrid bill procedure. Hybrid bills are changes to the law that affect the general public but would also have a more significant impact on specific individuals or communities, meaning there are some additional requirements from normal public bills. They have been used to secure parliamentary approval for major infrastructure projects, such as the High Speed Rail. Our enthusiasm for process and consultation is not just present in the planning process but also in the legislative mechanism for overcoming it.
But we are coming to see how the keenness to consult does not necessarily work for the affected individual. Yes, your views are heard; yes, you can slow the build, and you can slow it further by judicially reviewing flaws in the process; but in fact a duty to consult is not a duty to listen or to compensate.
The French have a more practical attitude; it is a French constitutional principle (so parliament is unable to legislate it away) that if you are made to bear a disproportionate loss for the sake of the national interest then you are owed generous compensation. Contrastingly, our core principle of parliamentary sovereignty allows our parliament to legislate away any rights to compensation, with real accountability doled out at the ballot box every five years.
In my view we do need a sensible discussion about how we move forward with the planning system, and this appears to be a core priority for the Labour Government. We live in a country with around the same population size as France, but half the landmass, and it is bound to be difficult to get this balance right. That the Government is taking forward proposals to streamline the process for legal challenges to nationally significant infrastructure projects, following the recommendations of the Banner Review, is a good sign.
The Planning and Infrastructure Bill which was brought before Parliament in March 2025 is the Government's attempt to rectify these problems. The bill would restrict the ability of local councils to refuse planning permission and narrow the opportunities for communities to oppose developments. There are some obvious causes for concern, not least in rural communities which are feeling particularly alienated at the moment following a series of decisions which threaten family farms and put food security at risk. Farmers are worried that their land may now be bought from them at cheaper than market value.
The bill gives local authorities the power to pay less for land, by excluding the increase in value which might attach to an area following the grant of planning permission. The legislation would also reduce inconvenience payments caused by compulsory purchases. A concern is that councils may now find it easier to purchase by compulsion rather than by agreement.
Undoubtedly, getting the balance right between local views and the wider public interest is not going to be easy. We need to rethink what constitutes proper consultation and compensation and ensure this is enshrined and protected in our political and legal systems. This will enable our system of parliamentary sovereignty and common law to utilise its flexibility to unlock the planning backlog and enable individuals’ voices to be heard and accounted for. As conservatives we should advocate for a pragmatic approach which protects the rights of individuals, the family, and the community, whilst acting strategically and limitedly in the long–term interests of the nation.
Views expressed in this chapter are those of the author, not necessarily those of the Conservative Environment Network.
Comments