Bishop Hill A slimy article
Nov 20, 2012 Climate: Parliament Leo Hickman has done a rather slimy article looking at Peter Lilley and making much of his interests in an oil company called Tethys.
As a new member of the Commons energy and climate change select committee, Lilley is expected to declare any relevant interests to the committee's clerk upon his first appearance, which took place last week. Next Tuesday, the committee will recommence its inquiry into shale gas. The minutes of any interests or information declared by Lilley to the clerk is not expected to be published for at least a month, but the Guardian understands that, as a committee member, he is not obliged to declare anything beyond that required in the MPs' register of financial interests.
The problem is that although it is headquartered here, Tethys doesn't even operate in the UK. I'm therefore not sure that this represents a conflict of interest. What do readers here think?
Reader Comments (82)
I think Hickman's slimy. Does that count?
I reckon keep the high ground. Declare the interest.
Now, when can we look forward to Leo's coverage of Tim Yeo?
I think we know the answer to that.
Yes indeed Geckko, I'm wondering when Hickman will do similar hit jobs on the catastrophiliacs who actually control our head long rush in to national suicide?
Sadly though, I think we all know the answer to that. Never!
Mailman
Generally, those who challenge orthodoxy are held to higher standards of accountability than are defenders of the faith. Complaints about unfairness are either ignored or treated as indications that the complainant must have something to hide.
If it is possible to hang even a suspicion of conflict of interest around Peter Lilley's neck, he is best advised to declare his interests. His opponents' interests in green enterprises merely serve to indicate their humanitarian beneficence and are of no concern to decent people.
Secondly it's just too convenient to smear someone for the crime of owning shares in oil companies. Do these idiots not realise that oil companies stand to make hundreds of billions of dollars in profit thanks to Mann Made Global Warming (tm)?
Mailman
Agree with Geckko that Lilley should come totally clean on his financial interests. I am willing to wager however that Lilley will not be trying to influence the DECC towards using more oil in power generation ^.^
Interesting to note that all the members of the committee are constantly in breach of the rules governing any declaration of interest.
Yeo always sanctimoniously declares that he has a finacial interest in companies A,B and C etc but the rules are quite clear that he should declare exactly what those interests are.
I wonder why the Green Party MP is quoted. She has the audacity to say "anti-science forces are gaining ground." The Green Party's knowledge of science could be written on the perforation of a postage stamp. Is Hickman a member of the Green Party?
" The problem is that although it is headquartered here, Tethys doesn't even operate in the UK". One never knows what the future may bring. Mr. Lilley should declare out of self-defence.
Slimy articles seems to be Hickman's forté, while fact-checking is not - as became quite obvious from his involvement in Gleickgate. Consider, also, his role in l'affaire Tallbloke, last December:
Of Climategate, constabularies, Hickman and l’affaire Tallbloke: a timeline to consider
Then there's his more recent - and far too much ado about nothing - "investigation" which revealed (horror of horrors) that a UKIP MEP used (and <gasp> paid for) the services of a researcher by the name of Ben Pile.
Frankly, I wouldn't take Hickman's yarns with anything but a very hefty grain of salt until and unless confirmed by more reliable sources and scribes.
Peter Lilley looks increasingly like the sort of Englishman who can lead Britain away from the precipice. Since when were legitimate business interests a disqualification for public office? Declare by all means, but no conflict of interest I can see with UK shale gas development. Unless being pro fossil fuel of any type is now considered shameful in itself.
Seems to me like too many Environmental Journalists in one office with not enough to do...
This is obviously in contrast to the huge number of articles Leo as written complaining about Tim Yeo, Jeremy Grantham, and Al Gore's big green interests.
Oh. Right.
[Snip]
In contemporary British journalism it is increasingly difficult to tell the hypocrite from the plain dumb. I give up.
ps funny that we find something amiss at The Guardian at the same time. Coincidence? I think not.
The main role of The Guardian is to provide the thinking class something to feel enraged about (the Guardian's articles, that is). The Daily Mail fulfils the same role for the pseudothinking types. 8)
OTOH...is it really so difficult to find somebody that could deal with energy policy without having an energy-related interest? Perhaps it is.
He should declare. Better to be squeaky clean, especially when the slime mongers like Leo are on the case.
@Omnologos
I disagree. The key selling point of the Guradian is to provide the "caring class" something to feel superior about.
Geckko - I don't think they read the Guardian as much as we do..
ps or even care about the Guardian's opinion on any topic...
The questions of whether Liley is required to declare the interest and whether he should declare the interest are quite separate, and of course he should declare the interest.
As should all those with interests in renewable energy of course. I'm not sure that I would describe Hickman's article as "slimy"; instead I would concentrate on his obvious double standards.
'Leo Hickman has done a rather slimy article...' Just as a snail's progress is marked by slime, so Hickman's sluggish mental progress leave secretions over everything he writes about, revealing much more about himself than the subject of his articles. At least he gave (he claims) Lilley the right to reply -- a courtesy he doesn't always extend.
A more interesting question than Hickman can summon up than 'is this a conflict of interest', is 'when and why did conflict of interest become such a preoccupation?'
The fact that environmentalists set high standards for their critics that do not apply to the green sector is well understood. This has been harder to resist in recent times, even for the likes of Hickman. Consequently the concept of 'conflict of interest' has expanded. Now a conflict of interest arises (on the green view) out of having only the scantiest of interest -- it may have been employment, even decades ago -- while having an opinion, to undermine that opinion, whereas a more tangible concept of CoI would be having an immediate interest while having some influence over policy-making processes that could further those interests.
But really, this is much more about signposting goodies and baddies than it is about an argument for transparent democratic processes -- a symptom of the 'journalism' Hickman epitomises. To this mode of journalism, what counts are symbolic connections to already determined institutions of good and evil. It doesn't matter whether Lilley's interests do conflict with his position of influence, nor does it matter how robust his criticism of climate politics or Stern is; what is of concern is that he is merely associated. There is not even an attempt to explain what the substance of such an association is and why it matters -- innuendo suffices.
This occurs, I believe, because of a hollowing out of journalism in general, but epitomised in environmental journalism because of the coincident development of environmental politics. In the past, it may have taken a second-rate geography degree to report on environmental issues, and some personal convictions to actually want to. The door to newspapers was opened to a cohort of mediocre brains. Then, environmental issues took on global significance. Correspondents who could tell you about water and nitrogen cycles, but who had no understanding of history, politics, philosophy, much less of economics and business -- disciplines in which many contemporary green preoccupations were considered, hundreds and perhaps even thousands of years earlier -- began writing about matters of geopolitics. As the significance of environmental issues expanded, and politics and science became increasingly confused and conflated, so the already limited perspective of environmental correspondents narrowed, hollowed, and shallowed, unchallenged by fellow journalists, mesmerised by scientific authority and the glamour of emerging supranational political institutions. What we're left with is a join-the-dots, follow-the-money form of hectoring, speculation, rumour-mongering and innuendo, passed off, in this case, as 'investigative journalism'.
The starting point for such investigations -- the prerequisites -- are a complete failure to develop a sense of proportion and a total incapacity for self-reflection. Eschewing these things that made journalism vital guarantees that a non-story will become a story. The only skill that a journalist needs these days is the ability to bury his head up his own backside.
Putting the question - "Does a minister who has shares in an oil company operating in Kazakhstan adversely influence his domestic policy?" could be interesting, if shown, but it isn't.
It is just a trawl through public records with a querulous eyebrow raised at the end. Seems to be Hickman's level of ability.
If some investigative concern was applied to ministers who had shares and influence in "renewable" technologies in our domestic market was shown then it would make more sense to me. But that is never done at the Guardian. Hickman is just being a dull Guardian journalist appealing to the rather dumb Tory hating crowd at the CiF amphitheatre.
Well, my corporate superannuation fund holds (among many others) shares in fossil fuel companies. Is that a conflict of interest if I am advising on energy policy?
As Ben Pile pointed out, it has got to the stage where the term 'conflict of interest', like 'racist' and 'sexist', has been thrown around so indiscriminately that it is almost meaningless. It is an exercise in hot-button pushing, not an evaluation of the circumstances of an individual case.
Conflicts of interest only seem to occur if the alleged source is identified as evil by the accuser. Funds or perks from the good guys are merely part of the rich tapestry of life for those whose mission it is to save us from ourselves.
All such interests should be declared....oh, wait a minute , the article seems to acknowledge that they have been.
My previous (low) estimation of Peter Lilley went up several notches when I discovered he was one of the few opponents of the Climate Change Act.
But.....he is after all just a politician. One's enemies enemy is not always one's friend. It is a stretch of the imagination that his present crusade is motivated solely by altruism.
We should not be surprised that someone with an agenda like Hickman's would not point this out at every opportunity, just as I would with Tim Yeo. All is fair in love and the Climate Change War.
I do not think the two cases are comparable in scale, but that is just my opinion.
@Philip Bratby
Quite. In fact Caroline Lucas' knowledge of climate science, wind energy, etc. could be written on a microdot, as she demonstrates every time she opens her mouth on these subjects. That's because for her it is idelogy as her comments reported in the Gaurdian piece ably demonstrate.
If we criticise Yeo and Gummer we shouldnt distinguish. All financial interests of all committee members in Parliament should be disclosed in detail. The fact that Lilley gains financially from this interest is relevant, but not an automatic bar to him voicing an opinion.
I think it a great shame that politicians across the board appear not to get that basic requirement of integrity that applies to them - to be seen to be honest and open. This failure is present in everything from financial interests to expenses to their often lawyerly manoeuvering through and interpretations of "the rules". Integrity would mean that it wouldnt matter if the rules were inadequate and we would be content that decent people were running the show. As it now stands there is the stink of corruption all over Westminster.
Best way to be slime proof is to be open and honest then there are no come-backs and you are trusted in the future.
@ Geckko
I think the key selling point of the Guardian is to provide the "truly smug" something to feel desperately worried about.
I have a complaint. There was no health warning with your link that you were about to dumpo me in a pile of obnoxious, foetid slime. Now I shall have to take some tablets and will be grumpy for the rest of the day.
meanwhile in the real world: (UK <2% of emissions, and the EU per capita emissions en par with China)
More than 1,000 new coal plants planned worldwide, figures show
World Resources Institute identifies 1,200 coal plants in planning across 59 countries, with about three-quarters in China and India
1400GW!!
Coal plants are the most polluting of all power stations and the World Resources Institute (WRI) identified 1,200 coal plants in planning across 59 countries, with about three-quarters in China and India. The capacity of the new plants add up to 1,400GW to global greenhouse gas emissions, the equivalent of adding another China – the world's biggest emitter. India is planning 455 new plants compared to 363 in China
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/20/coal-plants-world-resources-institute?intcmp=122
--------------------
replacing a dozen old UK coal stations with shiny new ones woulf keep our lights on (cheaply)
A number of commentators here have it wrong. On the basis of Hickman's report, Mr Lilley does not own shares in Tethys. He has options to purchase shares. My limited understanding of share options is that the ownership confers the right to buy shares at a particular price. The price at which the options can be exercised is set at a higher price than the share price when options are granted. Tethys share price now stands at 0.45$ and the exercise price of the options issued in 2012 is 0.64$. I doubt if Mr Lilley owns any Tethys shares on the basis of these options. He may never own any Tethys shares. Conflict of interest?
its just a smear and part of the ongoing campaign to paint those that don't fully commit themselves to 'the cause ' has bad or mad . That the same author ignores Yeo's and other politicians connections with 'green industry ' is to be expected . After all the Guardian is happy to hand itself over to Bob 'fat fingers ' Ward and his pay master amongst other suitable advocacy groups without even basic questioning of what they claim , often enough.
Hickman works on the principle that oil, like mud, sticks.
I think Mr Hickman's salary is paid for - in part - by support from AutoTrader car magazine. Those awful guzzlers of fossil fuels..........
Ironic how the ever green Guardian relies on a car magazine for survival
Sam, my understanding of share options is also limited but concurs with yours, maybe we are both wrong?
However having raised the point it begs the question why was he granted the options? Must still be a vested interest. I agree with many who have commented above, make it clear, declare any possible vested interest.
I also note Ben Pile's final sentence, on this issue the fourth estate seems to have a somewhat restricted range of vision and the location that Ben suggests could well explain why.
David G - Best way to be slime proof is to be open and honest...
Sadly that is not the case. By presenting a superficially 'investigative' report, the effect of having revealed something that was hidden. Imagine the most routine, mundane, everyday action -- of washing socks, perhaps -- told in the style of a 1950s private eye movie... The pastiche of something with gravity draws people into the conceit through anticipation, in spite of its hollowness. As Sam's point demonstrates, there may well be very little indeed to Hickman's pastiche of investigative reporting, yet that hasn't stopped hundreds of comments below the line, spitting venom, as though Lilley made £millions out of acts of Parliament he had personally instigated. Never mind the fact that, on the vote for the climate change act 2008, he was in a minority of several hundred to five (from memory), and thus clearly not able to move the entire house at all, much less single-handed.
I wrote: By presenting a superficially 'investigative' report, the effect of having revealed something that was hidden.
Should have been: By presenting a superficially 'investigative' report, the effect of having revealed something that was hidden is achieved .
Full disclosure of all financial interests is the price that must be paid by all elected representatives or those appointed / inherited to the Lords.
Anything less is completely unsatisfactory.
I am certain Peter Lilley is a man of integrity but so many others are patently not.
I concur with most here, Mr Lilley should declare all interests, but as a proviso, it would be propper for him to request fo all others on the committee, old friends/colleagues et al, to declare ALL their interests on a regular basis the moment theor circumstances change, without needing to be prompted to do so!
As for Hickman, he is yet A.N.Other well intentioned (perhaps), well meaning (perhaps), left-wing ecofantasist, who of course expect everyone to to as he says, but not necessarily as he does! Can nobody put two & two together out their? Greenalism = Socialism = Neo Fuedalism, the elites in bed with the eco-socialists to achieve on grand aim, Global Guvment, control of the worlds resources, control of the wolrd food supply, to be rationed out as they see fit.
I seem to recall after Kyoto was pushed through all those years ago, Francois Mitterand saying to some journos that this was a first step towards global guvment! Nobody batted an eyelid! OTOH, without wishing to sound too jingoistic, this was the same guy who after England won the 2003 Rugby World Cup in Downunderland, declared that it was not just a victory for England, it was "a victory for Europe"! My son & I responded in unison in a pure Anglo-Saxon negative, yet eloquently toned phrase, followed by "Get your own trophy!!!
> MP Peter Lilley has received more than $400,000 in oil company share options
> A Tethys spokeswoman said: "We have no comment except that all of the options are currently out of the money and none have been exercised to date." The term "out of the money" means the company's stock price is currently lower than the share option's "strike price" and would, therefore, result in a loss if exercised now.
Anybody (even Leo Hickman) could go out tomorrow and buy $400,000 worth of Tethys shares for $400,000. Peter Lilley has been given the option to buy $400,000 worth of Tethys shares for *more* than $400,000 (and not surprisingly he's not exercised any of his options). Looks like people spitting bile in the Guardian comments are too thick to understand that and think that he's just been handed $400,000 cash on a plate. And I think the headline was designed to fool them that way too.
Looks like Lilley is probably better qualified than most to sit on the select committee although, in the minds of some, that means he is not well qualified.
Bizarre
There are some misunderstandings of The Rules of The House in this thread;
Nov 20, 2012 at 9:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterBen Pile
Association is all that is needed, if a reasonable person could conclude that there might be a conflict of interests then MPs must declare them.
Nov 20, 2012 at 10:29 AM | Unregistered Commentersam
Firstly I do not know the terms of Lilley's options but Yeo has a similar number of shares in his bio-fuels company; yes he can not sell them until and unless the share price reaches a certain level but they were issued to him FOC.
Secondly in terms of whether or not the shares need to be registered or declared, the rules do incorporate the idea of a reasonable estimate of future value (even if there is no value today).
Even out of the money options have a value, based on the 45/64 numbers above those options aren't worthless. Whether you could get that value for them tomorrow depends on things like the option style, whether they're tradeable, share price volatility, time left to expiry etc.
It's still a vested interest and should be declared.
Share options are subtle things. If the share price is currently below the strike price then the value of these options is likely to be low, but not necessarily zero. The option conveys a right to buy at the strike price on one or more dates, and if you believe the price will rise sharply in the future then you might buy the options now (assuming they are tradable) as a cheap way of buying shares should that happen. (Of course if the share price doesn't rise then you have wasted your money, but such is life.)
Owning the options gives Lilley an interest in a sharp rise in the share price of Tethys, an interest which should be declared.
As Green Sand asks, there is also an interesting question as to why he was granted the options. This usually means either that he worked for them, and this is a form of payment, or that he used to own shares in Tethys and received the options as a form of dividend. The article notes that he was a non-executive director and payment in options seems to be reasonably common for non-execs these days, so I don't think there's any huge mystery there.
Leo Hickman is very cagey about his education
Is he another English graduate?
Given that (amongst others):
Jonathon Porritt - "Despite training as a barrister, he decided to become an English teacher" (wikipedia)
Caroline Lucas - English graduate
Roger Harrabin - English graduate
Mark Thompson -English graduate
Is it just me or does having a qualification in English reduce your ability to think!
It gives you the right to buy shares at a later date but at the price they had at the date the option was awarded. It has two benefits for the company:
- It enables the company to reward contributors but it costs the company nothing until some future date, enabling it to invest that money in itself the meantime.
- If the company does badly, the stock price will fall, so it will have nothing to pay out.
- If the company does well, paying out will not be a problem for it.
- It motivates good staff to stay with the company and to work for its success.
In this case, it seems that the options are currently not worth much, as the company's shares are now worth less than when the options were granted. Their current value will depend on the company's future prospects and also on any conditions that were attached to the grant of the options.
Since the options, presumably, motivate Lilley to work for the company's benefit, complete openness would require their declaration whether or not Parliamentary rules require it. However, unless the rules require it, I don't see why they should be declared unless he wishes to.
"Even out of the money options have a value, based on the 45/64 numbers above those options aren't worthless."
I doubt if the options can be traded. What facility is there for trading Tethys options? The options have no value unless they are exercised in my opinion. They are unlikely to be exercised unless the share price rises to 0.64$ or above. That may never happen. Tethys is a small, high risk company operating in an area of considerable political risk.
As His Grace said, Tethys doesn't even operate here. The company prospects do not depend to any degree, as far as I can see, on any policy decision by the UK government. What conflict of interest, now or in the future, can others see that I am failing to see? Perhaps His Grace might email Hickman and ask him where the conflict of interest lies?
ConfusedPhoton: Leo Hickman studied ENGAM (English and American Studies) at Sussex: see his entry in their 2006 alumni magazine.
It is a shame we end up discussing Lilley because at least as far as I can see the real slime trail leads to Yeo.
Facts:
UK Government announces Trade Mission to China
(To encourage China to be green and to inform them of UK technology in that area)
Tim Yeo's company TMO Renewables invites Government representatives to see their technology.
Time Yeo states that he knew nothing about the visit and said his employees had arranged it without telling him.
Tim Yeo states that he deliberately did not attent the visit.
UK government invites TMO Renewables to join the Trade Mission to China.
TMO Renewables signs Memorandum of Understanding to build bio-fuel plants in China.
Stock options are usually given to an employee at a value $X per share. The employee can then sell them at any time after the anniversery of the grant. When the employee wants to exercise the stock options they have to buy them at $X and re-sell them at $Y per share.
So two points, when the options are not in the money there would be a loss for an employee if they exercised the stock options, so the options Mr. Lilley has are currently worthless. If at some point in the future the stock rises to $Y per share Mr. Lilley will have to buy the stock at $X per share and will make a profit of $Y minus $X per share. This will be treated by the revenue as a capital gain, and will be taxed as such.
Those options are not totally worthless. They have negative exercise value, still it would be madness for Lilley to throw them in the bin as "worthless".
If there were such a market as an exchange for out-of-the-money options, he could even sell them at an appropriate value (far below their nominal's). If.
@confusedphoton
James Delingpole MA Oxon, English Language and Literature. The exception that proves the rule.