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

A year on from the Brexit vote it’s striking how little we know about where it will lead

So many questions, so few answers.

One year one. Anyone who hoped we’d know what Brexit might look like or even, heaven, forbid, that we’d be inhabiting a post-EU UK by now, must be thoroughly disappointed. Even those with more modest expectations are feeling slightly uncomfortable. Because, a year on, we don’t know that much more about what Brexit means  than we did on 23 June last year (well, we know it means Brexit, I suppose).  

We do know some things. First, that divorce talks are preceding trade talks, as the EU insisted – and David Davies denied – all along. Second what the European Union wants in the initial negotiations is crystal clear and indeed on their website, if you’re interested.

Third, the government, for the moment, remains committed to the kind of hard Brexit it has laid out since the Conservative Party conference. Nothing that has been said or done since the election indicates a softening of that position.

That’s it. That’s essentially all we have to show for the last year. This isn’t to say that stuff hasn’t been done. Both the European Commission and the British civil service have been beavering away on the Brexit issue. Papers have been written, careful, detailed analysis carried out. In fact Brexit has dominated the work of Whitehall since the fateful vote.

But for all this work, it’s striking how little we know about where this process will lead. The government’s commitment to a hard Brexit might not survive. Whether it does so or not will depend on what happens with the things we don’t know. The known unknowns, to coin (well, quote) a phrase.

First, we don’t know how long the prime minister will remain in post. This is obviously important, not least given Theresa May herself has seemingly singlehandedly been defining the kind of Brexit Britain should seek. Yet there is more to it than that. A leadership election would take time, and eat up yet more of the two years stipulated by the EU for the Article 50 process. It would also open the rift within the Conservative party over Brexit. Always a good spectator sport. Never a recipe for effective government.

Second, we don’t know how parliament will behave. Much has been made of the "soft Brexit majority" in the Palace of Westminster. But remember last June? When the significant majority of pro-remain MPs were expected to kick up a fight over Brexit? The same MPs who nodded the triggering of article 50 through with hardly a glance? We just do not know yet how MPs will behave.

And their behaviour will be shaped by both inter and intra-party dynamics. Both the large parties are internally divided over Brexit. The Labour leadership seems happy to leave the single market. Many Labour MPs, in contrast, are fundamentally, and publicly, opposed to the idea. Whether loyalty (not least given the prospect of another election) triumphs over opinions on the EU remains to be seen.

As it does for the Tories. I imagine the phrase "do you really want to risk a Corbyn government" will soon trip off the tongue of every government whip. Whether this threat will prove effective is anyone’s guess. Tory Remainers certainly seemed to rein in their criticism of the prime minister following the "chocolate trousers" affair. Maybe this was simply a case of keeping their powder dry until the legislation needed to make Brexit work hits parliament in the autumn. We’re about to find out. And it will matter much more now the Tories have lost their majority.  Indeed, I think this, more than anything else, is why the prime minister called the election in the first place.

One crucial determinant of how MPs behave will be what public opinion does. Regular polling by YouGov since the referendum has, until recently, shown virtually no movement in attitudes towards Brexit. Around 52 per cent think it was a good idea, and around 48 per cent a bad one. Sound familiar? There has in recent weeks been what could best be described as a slight wobble. What we don’t know is what will happen in the weeks to come. Should the polls show a swing away from Brexit, might politicians swing with it, increasing the pressure on the PM to modify and soften her stance?

Turning from Westminster to Whitehall, will a government with no majority adopt a different style to a government with a small one? This matters, particularly when it comes to business. The May Government before the election was notable for the way it put politics above economics, focusing on the need to ‘take back control’ even if this meant the potential for real economic damage. A number of business leaders report getting short shrift when they visited ministers to voice their concerns.

But can a weak government be so dismissive? We know what most businesses want – certainly the kinds of business that get to knock on ministerial doors. They want single market and customs union membership. They want, in other words, a soft Brexit. Chancellor Philip Hammond, it would seem, has been listening to them from the start. Will his colleagues now start to do so too?

And if government policy does start to shift, this in turn will open up a whole host of new unknowns. Most importantly, might the EU be open to some sort of deal whereby we limit free movement but get some kind of single market membership? That discussion has simply not happened, because of the way in which Theresa May closed it off by stipulating a hard Brexit.

Most EU observers think a compromise is unlikely in the extreme. Yet while the EU won’t be more generous to a non-member state than to a member state, there is no reason a non-member state should buy into all of core EU principles entirely, so there might be some room for compromise. Again, we don’t know. And we won’t unless we decide to ask.

So many questions, so few answers. That is the story of Brexit to date. One year on, and those answers are about to get clearer.

Anand Menon is the director of The UK in a Changing Europe. Read their report: EU referendum: one year on to find out more.

0800 7318496