Peter Lilley

<youtube size="medium" align="right" caption="Peter Lilley speech to Tory conference 1992 - 'I have a little list'">FOx8q3eGq3g</Youtube> Peter Lilley is a Conservative Party MP for the Hitchin and Harpenden constituency.

Business background

• 1966-1972 Economic adviser in 'developing countries'
• 1972-1986 Greenwell Montagu Stockbrokers, oil investment department
• 1986-1987 Greenwell Montagu Stockbrokers, Director of oil investment
• 2002-2009 Advisory Board, Greenwell Montagu Stockbrokers

He is also a Non-executive Director of Melchior Japan Investment Trust plc, Tethys Petroleum Limited and IDOX plc.

Political career

• 1973-1975 Chairman of the Bow Group
• 1979-1983 Director of the Conservative Research Department
• 1983-1997 Member of Parliament for St Albans
• 1997-2012 Member of Parliament for Hitchin & Harpenden

• 1984-1987 Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson
• 1987-1989 Financial Secretary to the Treasury
• 1990-1992 Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
• 1992-1997 Secretary of State for Social Security

Affiliations

Bow Group | Conservative Party | Melchior Japan Investment Trust plc, Tethys Petroleum Limited and IDOX

Pro-fracking but not pro-tax breaks for fracking

No interests in fracking companies

In a House of Commons debate on shale gas in July 2013 Lilley said in response to Caroline Lucas:

The hon. Lady asked Members to draw attention to their interests. I invite everyone to look at my interests, as declared in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. They will find that I have no interest in fracking or in any oil and gas companies in this country. Over my lifetime, I have been — indeed, I still am — involved in an oil company in central Asia and I was involved in analysing oil companies and predicting energy prices for 20 years, when I had a proper job before coming to this place, so she may try to insinuate that that somehow makes me too well disposed to the oil and gas industry. She may therefore be surprised that, as the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) will confirm, I was the only member of the Energy and Climate Change Committee who criticised, as she does, the suggested special tax breaks for fracking. On the basis of my knowledge of the oil and gas industry, I think that they are probably unnecessary, and we should not give away unnecessary tax breaks; although if they are necessary, that would be fair enough.

I want to draw Members attention to one interest that is not declared in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I probably share this interest with all other Members, although too many ignore it. It is my interest in my 70,000 constituents who want their heating bills kept as low as possible, my interest in the people in this country getting jobs and my interest in reviving the manufacturing industry in this country and providing it with fuel that is as plentiful and cheap as possible.

I have great respect for the hon. Lady and those who, like her, simply want to keep fossil fuels in the ground, although if that was my objective, I would start by keeping coal in the ground rather than gas, which produces only half or less of the carbon dioxide emissions of coal. I do not support such a policy because, probably like her, I take as given the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change summary of the science, I also, unlike her, accept its summary of the economics of taking action to prevent global warming. It has concluded that, in relation to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, it could not identify “an emissions pathway or stabilisation level where benefits exceed costs.”

Unless and until we can find a pathway or a stabilisation level for CO2 that will produce greater benefits than its costs, we should not set about impoverishing this generation in the vague hope that we may make some generation in the future richer.

'Fabricated scares' on fracking akin to MMR scares

In all probability, we will see a shale gas revolution worldwide that will probably keep gas prices low. It is certainly likely to prevent them going up, and it may even bring them down as it has done in the States.

When pessimism about reserves and prices fail, some people resort to fabricated scares, which are as irresponsible and as unjustified as the MMR scares, which stopped people from taking advantage of vaccination. I hope that we will not allow similar scares to stop us taking advantage in this country of the potential resources that exist beneath our soil.

The letter from the people in Balcombe from which the hon. Lady quoted says that fracking is considered to be an uncertain and risky technology. It is far from being uncertain and risky. The first gas well was fracked on 17 March 1949. Since then 2 million wells have been fracked in the United States, and 200,000 in the last year, without anyone being poisoned from contaminated water, or any buildings or people suffering damage from minuscule seismic tremors.

As far as water scares are concerned, the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering dismissed fears about water contamination. They concluded that any health, safety and environmental risks associated with hydraulic fracturing can be managed effectively in the UK as long as operational best practices are implemented and enforced.

On 16 January 2014 Lilley once again raised the issue in another Commons debate on Shale Gas.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that nearly 200 wells in this country and over 2 million wells worldwide have used hydraulic fracturing technology and not a single person has been poisoned by contaminated sub-surface water supplies and not a single building has been damaged by the resultant minuscule earth tremors?

To which energy and business minister Michael Fallon carefully replied:

I can certainly confirm that hydraulic fracturing is a well-established technique. It has been used the world over. We also have experience of onshore drilling in this country for nearly 100 years now, since the end of the first world war, and hydraulic fracturing will be permitted only if it is safe not only for those involved but for the environment and the local community.