Why is the right silent over Peter Lilley's links to the oil industry?

The Tory MP the right wants to replace Tim Yeo as chair of the energy and climate change committee has been paid £70,500 by oil company Tethys Petroleum since 2012.

After being caught allegedly offering to advise energy companies for cash, Conservative MP Tim Yeo has bowed to the inevitable and stepped down as chair of the energy and climate change committee. It's true, as Fraser Nelson argues, that his appointment was wrong to begin with. Yeo is a paid director of three renewable energy companies - AFC Energy, Eco City Vehicles and TMO Renewables - and has earned more than £400,000 from the sector since 2009. If that isn't a conflict of interest, then nothing is.

But if Yeo isn't fit to lead the committee then neither is the man the right wants to replace him: Tory MP Peter Lilley. After criticising Yeo's business interests, Nelson wrote: "It’s not yet clear who’ll replace him but Peter Lilley, who is more of a climate realist, is the likely candidate. And a recent Spectator cover boy", while Guido Fawkes tweeted: "I for one welcome Peter Lilley as our new Energy and Climate Change Select Committee Chairman. Thanks to Labour for getting rid of Yeo."

In the event, it was Lib Dem Robert Smith, rather than Lilley, who took the chair when the committee met this morning. As Guido points out, Smith his own interests, with registrable shareholdings in Shell and Rio Tinto. But they pale in comparison to those of Lilley. The former Tory social security secretary ("I have a little list") is a paid director of Cayman Islands-based oil and gas company Tethys Petroleum and has received £70,500 since January 2012 for 180 hours' work "attending meetings and advising on business developments". He has also received share options worth at least $400,000. Again, if that's not a conflict of interest, nothing is. 

But, strangely, none of Lilley's supporters thought it fit to mention any of this. One possible explanation is that Lilley, unlike the green Yeo, is a self-described "global lukewarmist" and one of just three MPs who voted against the Climate Change Act in 2008. Where parliamentary ethics are concerned, it seems it's one standard for a friend and another for a foe. 

Conservative MP Peter Lilley was one of just three MPs to vote against the Climate Change Act.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

PMQs review: Jeremy Corbyn prompts Tory outrage as he blames Grenfell Tower fire on austerity

To Conservative cries of "shame on you!", the Labour leader warned that "we all pay a price in public safety" for spending cuts.

A fortnight after the Grenfell Tower fire erupted, the tragedy continues to cast a shadow over British politics. Rather than probing Theresa May on the DUP deal, Jeremy Corbyn asked a series of forensic questions on the incident, in which at least 79 people are confirmed to have died.

In the first PMQs of the new parliament, May revealed that the number of buildings that had failed fire safety tests had risen to 120 (a 100 per cent failure rate) and that the cladding used on Grenfell Tower was "non-compliant" with building regulations (Corbyn had asked whether it was "legal").

After several factual questions, the Labour leader rose to his political argument. To cries of "shame on you!" from Tory MPs, he warned that local authority cuts of 40 per cent meant "we all pay a price in public safety". Corbyn added: “What the tragedy of Grenfell Tower has exposed is the disastrous effects of austerity. The disregard for working-class communities, the terrible consequences of deregulation and cutting corners." Corbyn noted that 11,000 firefighters had been cut and that the public sector pay cap (which Labour has tabled a Queen's Speech amendment against) was hindering recruitment. "This disaster must be a wake-up call," he concluded.

But May, who fared better than many expected, had a ready retort. "The cladding of tower blocks did not start under this government, it did not start under the previous coalition governments, the cladding of tower blocks began under the Blair government," she said. “In 2005 it was a Labour government that introduced the regulatory reform fire safety order which changed the requirements to inspect a building on fire safety from the local fire authority to a 'responsible person'." In this regard, however, Corbyn's lack of frontbench experience is a virtue – no action by the last Labour government can be pinned on him. 

Whether or not the Conservatives accept the link between Grenfell and austerity, their reluctance to defend continued cuts shows an awareness of how politically vulnerable they have become (No10 has announced that the public sector pay cap is under review).

Though Tory MP Philip Davies accused May of having an "aversion" to policies "that might be popular with the public" (he demanded the abolition of the 0.7 per cent foreign aid target), there was little dissent from the backbenches – reflecting the new consensus that the Prime Minister is safe (in the absence of an attractive alternative).

And May, whose jokes sometimes fall painfully flat, was able to accuse Corbyn of saying "one thing to the many and another thing to the few" in reference to his alleged Trident comments to Glastonbury festival founder Michael Eavis. But the Labour leader, no longer looking fearfully over his shoulder, displayed his increased authority today. Though the Conservatives may jeer him, the lingering fear in Tory minds is that they and the country are on divergent paths. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

0800 7318496