Votes, Votes, Votes
Robert Courts almost always votes with his party whip. It’s tempting, expected and understandable, but is this unswerving fidelity a good enough reason for voting against the climate?
We’ve been reviewing some of Robert’s votes in the House of Commons. Looking at some of his votes when he’s wearing his Westminster hat. They don’t fit with science. They don’t fit with common sense and the precautionary principle. They don’t fit with our longer-term economic well-being. They don’t fit with what he says when he’s wearing his constituency hat. They don’t fit with his own government’s frequently declared climate aims. They don’t even fit with the law!
It seems peculiar, and peculiarly hazardous, to us.
The way Robert votes often seems to us to work directly against our net zero 2050 and 78% 2035 targets, which are so necessary to our children’s future – to what is increasingly being called ‘sustainable life’ itself. These targets are also, of course, legal goals set into law by Robert’s own government and loudly proclaimed by him.
Here are four examples of the way Robert votes on climate issues:
25 June 2019: The Value Added Tax (Reduced Rate) (Energy Saving Materials) Order 2019.
On 25th June 2019, Robert voted with his party NOT to allow a reduced rate of VAT on wind and water turbines applying to the supply and installation of energy-saving materials in residential accommodation.
6 February 2020: Transport – Eliminate Substantial Majority of Emissions by 2030.
On 6th February 2020, Robert voted with his party NOT to call upon the government to develop and implement a plan to eliminate the substantial majority of transport emissions by 2030.
29 September 2020: United Kingdom Internal Market Bill – new clause 6 – Climate and Nature Emergency Impact Statement as Prerequisite for Financial Assistance.
On 29th September 2020, Robert voted with his party NOT to require a climate and nature emergency statement as part of any proposal for financial assistance under a United Kingdom Internal Market Bill.
12 October 2020: Agriculture Bill – new clause after clause 42 – Contribution of Agriculture and Associated Land Use to Climate Change Targets.
On 12th October 2020, Robert voted with his party NOT to require ministers to have due regard to the target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 when taking actions involving setting up agricultural subsidy schemes.
The first two of these votes seem to be counter-productive. At a time when our government has declared a climate emergency, why vote against offering material help for brilliant private initiatives (such as the various Archimedes Screw water-powered electricity generators dotted around Oxfordshire)?
And why turn away from addressing the emissions generated by transport? Transport really matters! It produces over a quarter of all our carbon emissions. We need to address it, urgently. Robert was a transport minister. He knows this better than most.
The last two votes are not simply counterproductive. We think they may be illegal. Our government is bound, by their own law, to assess ministerial decisions for their likely climate impact - especially when these decisions involve spending public money. Ministers must ‘have due regard’ to the effect of such decisions on climate change and our net zero ambitions. Anything less makes no sense, legal or otherwise, in a climate emergency.
Source: theyworkforyou July 2022.