Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of
the costs to (1) public services, and (2) the wider economy, of
the recent campaign by Insulate Britain of obstructing motorways
and major roads.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Transport () (Con)
My Lords, Insulate Britain’s irresponsible actions have disrupted
thousands of people’s lives. National Highways estimates that the
financial impact on drivers from time lost during just three days
of disruption totals £559,946. This does not include the costs of
missed appointments or of managing the incidents, disruption to
manufacturing or retail, or the impact of disruption on other
days. These costs would have been even higher without prompt
action by the police to remove protesters and free up
traffic.
(Con)
My Lords, according to the Observer at the weekend, Insulate
Britain activists are baffled as to why they are not in jail
already. They thought that their campaign would be over in two
days, rather than being allowed to go on for five weeks. I think
that the rest of the country rather shares their bafflement. As
they resume their very expensive campaign of disrupting ordinary
people’s lives, can my noble friend say that the Government both
have and will deploy the necessary legal powers to bring them
before a court of law?
(Con)
We are investigating all possible legal avenues to bring these
people to justice. National Highways and Transport for London
have both rapidly put in place injunctions to deter these sort of
dangerous actions. Only yesterday, the High Court granted
National Highways an interim injunction banning activities which
obstruct traffic and access on any part of the strategic road
network—that is, all motorways and major A roads. Last Friday,
National Highways applied for committal for contempt of court in
respect of nine individuals suspected of breaching injunctions.
If found to be in breach, these individuals could face an
unlimited fine and/or imprisonment.
(Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that what appears to have
been a cunning plan by the secret society of evil net-zero
sceptics to get Insulate Britain to undermine the appeal of the
Green movement was brilliantly executed? Was it not a particular
triumph to choose upper middle-class twits to confront ordinary
people trying to get to work or school? Was it not a stroke of
genius to make sure that some of them had not insulated their own
homes? Does she agree that it is surprising that the
environmental movement has not yet seen through this stunt?
(Con)
I cannot agree more with my noble friend.
(Lab)
My Lords, there is no doubt that the activities of the Insulate
Britain campaign have caused problems and disruption for many
people. I guess that was the point. Does the Minister agree that
these problems will come to be seen as trivial when compared to
the disruption we shall all face to our lives if we fail to
address climate change?
(Con)
This Government have one of the strongest records in the world in
tackling climate change, and I fear that using the word “trivial”
in relation to this disruption is a poor choice of word. Insulate
Britain has said that days of disruption are necessary to force
the Government to act. This is just a small, rag-tag group of
people who will not force the Government to do anything.
(Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am sure that most of your Lordships’ House have been
on demonstrations or protests during their lives, even if they do
not want to admit it now. Those demonstrations were different:
the police were involved beforehand and looked to make sure that
the law was not broken. What we are seeing here are people who
have gone out deliberately to obstruct ordinary daily life. Some
of the demonstrators have said that they think they are not being
arrested and charged properly and ending up in prison because of
the COP 26 conference. There is a kind of feeling that they do
not want people to be in jail for anything vaguely to do with
climate change. Can the Minister confirm or deny this?
(Con)
It certainly has nothing at all to do with COP 26. Obviously,
certain matters are operational matters for the police, but the
noble Baroness is right: we all know of good protests. Getting a
million people out on the streets on a Saturday afternoon where
the police have been told in advance, where there is a good level
of public support and where you do not destroy any statues is a
good protest. Insulate Britain members are not good
protesters.
(Lab)
Climate change is the major challenge of our time, and winning
public support for the cause is critical. Blocking roads and
antagonising people is not going to achieve that objective.
This week, the London Mayor, , has significantly extended
London’s ultra-low emission zone. The Evening Standard yesterday
said that it backed in
“taking steps to clean up our city’s toxic air and cut our carbon
emissions in the process.”
Do the Government also back on this, regarding it too as an
effective example of how the ballot box can prove to be an
effective way for people to respond to the climate crisis?
(Con)
As the noble Lord will know, we probably have a much closer
relationship with the Mayor of London than we would ordinarily
have at the moment. Although transport is devolved in London,
owing to a substantial hole in TfL’s finances we have to provide
it with quite significant funding every now and again. Indeed,
the last deal we agreed with the mayor included that there would
be no change to the extension of ULEZ.
(Con)
My Lords, the laws already exist to deal with this matter, but
the police are just not using their operational freedom to put
them into effect. Could the police be advised that there would be
a lot of public support if they were to use their influence and
arrest people, and a few of them could spend a few days in
prison? It might put them off further action.
(Con)
As I noted, policing matters are an operational matter for the
police, but I am sure that the Metropolitan Police will have
heard my noble friend’s wise words.
The Lord Speaker ()
I call the noble Lord, . No, he is not
present. In that case, I call the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of
Moulsecoomb.
(GP)
My Lords, as of March last year the cost of road congestion in
the UK was £7 billion, estimated at £784 per driver. Clearly, the
Government are irresponsible to let that congestion go ahead and
really ought to have a plan to reduce it that does not involve
building more roads, which actually will attract more traffic.
Would the Minister like to say something about that?
Plus—Insulate Britain is right. Its tactics might be colossally
difficult for us to cope with, but it is right that the
Government should be insulating the leakiest council housing
homes in Britain, rather than allowing those people to spend cold
winters, be ill and emit endless CO2 emissions.
(Con)
Well, I am just relieved that the noble Baroness did not stand up
and agree with her fellow eco-warriors. As I have previously set
out, this Government have a very strong record on tackling
climate change. I point the noble Baroness to the transport
decarbonisation plan, published by the Department for Transport,
which clearly sets out exactly how we intend to decarbonise our
transport system.
