BP appeals to Cameron over US crisis
By Anonymous on May 16, 2013 03:12 am 16 May 2013 Last updated at 00:09 ET 
BP has already agreed huge payouts in the wake of the spill
BP wants Prime Minister David Cameron to intervene over the escalating cost of compensating US companies for the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster in 2010.
BBC business editor Robert Peston has learned that BP feels its financial recovery is in jeopardy because the compensation system is being abused.
The financial burden of paying fictitious and inflated claims may even make BP a takeover target, it fears.
BP hopes Mr Cameron will raise the issue with the US government.
The Deepwater Horizon disaster killed 11 oil rig workers and released an estimated four million barrels of oil into the Gulf and along the coastline.
BP put aside $7.8bn (£5.2bn) when it agreed to pay compensation in 2012, but the company now expects the final figure to be much higher.
Our business editor said: "According to BP sources, the rate at which cash is leaking from the company could turn into a serious new financial crisis for the company, putting at risk its dividend and making it vulnerable to a takeover by another oil company.
"BP is so worried by the potential magnitude of alleged undeserved payments it is making to companies that it is planning to ask the UK prime minister and Chancellor for help in persuading the US government to intervene.
"It is hopeful that David Cameron will raise the issue at the G8 meeting of the government of the world's richest countries, which the UK is hosting next month."
Last year, BP agreed to pay compensation to around 100,000 people and companies, including fishermen and restaurant owners, who claimed their livelihoods and health had been affected.
However, BP feels that the court-approved rules under which "business economic loss" is assessed are being systematically abused.
In March, BP began legal action in the US to limit payments by the fund set up to compensate those affected by the disaster. However, our business editor says that BP executives believe that even if it wins the appeal, the final cost of compensating firms will still be "significantly" higher than the amount it has set aside.
Read in browser » 
BBC hears claims of Syria gas attack
By Anonymous on May 16, 2013 03:14 am 16 May 2013 Last updated at 00:01 ET 
There were deadly clashes in Saraqeb in November 2012
The BBC has been shown evidence claiming to corroborate reports of a chemical attack in Syria last month.
A BBC correspondent who visited the northern town of Saraqeb was told by eyewitnesses that government helicopters had dropped at least two devices containing poisonous gas.
The government has vehemently denied claims it has used chemical agents.
The US has warned that such a development would be a "red line" for possible intervention.
However, President Barack Obama said the current intelligence on possible chemical weapon usage did not constitute sufficient proof.
Testing samples In April, Saraqeb, a town south-west of Aleppo, came under artillery bombardment from government positions.
Doctors at the local hospital told the BBC they had admitted eight people suffered breathing problems. Some were vomiting and others had constricted pupils, they said. One woman later died.
A number of videos passed to the BBC appear to support these claims, but it is impossible to independently verify them.
A doctor who treated the dead woman said her symptoms corresponded to organophosphate poisoning and that samples had been sent for testing.
Both the US and UK have spoken of growing evidence that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons.
Rebel fighters have also been accused of using them. They also have denied this.
The UN says estimates that the two-year-old conflict has left at least 80,000 people dead.
Read in browser » HS2 rail benefits are 'unclear'
By Anonymous on May 15, 2013 07:03 pm 15 May 2013 Last updated at 19:03 ET 
The National Audit Office says that the government has "poorly articulated" the strategic need for the HS2 rail link
The benefits of the HS2 high speed rail project on the economy are unclear, the National Audit Office (NAO) has warned.
The NAO said in a report that it had "reservations" about how the London-to-Birmingham link would deliver growth, adding that the project had an estimated £3.3bn funding gap.
But Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin said the NAO's conclusions were based on old data.
Labour said the report was a "worrying wake-up call" for the government.
The NAO said it had "reservations about the business case" and said the timetable for the planning phase of the project - with work due to start in 2016-17 - was "challenging".
The report, published on Thursday, said: "In particular, in presenting its case for investment in the project, the Department of Transport (DfT) has poorly articulated the strategic need for a transformation in rail capacity and how High Speed 2 will help generate regional economic growth."
The department's "methodology for appraising the project puts a high emphasis on journey-time savings, from faster and more reliable journeys, but the relationship between these savings and the strategic reasons for doing the project, such as rebalancing regional economies, is unclear."
'Right thing to do' Continue reading the main story Analysis
Richard Westcott BBC transport correspondent
This report has certainly riled the government.
Critics are lining up to claim it as proof that there's little or no business case for spending £33bn of taxpayers' cash on a very fast train line.
And I'm not just talking about people whose homes will be affected. There are plenty of business people, economists and politicians who are against this scheme.
But ministers have come out fighting following the report's publication. They feel they've made a great deal of progress recently, announcing the full route up to Leeds and Manchester, seeing off a number of legal challenges against the project, and putting two Bills into the Queen's Speech.
They keep reminding me of other schemes that had a weak business case - bits of the M25 and the Jubilee line extension, for example - schemes that the UK couldn't now live without.
There's a lot of money at stake here, and people's homes and lives too. No one is going to catch one of these trains for another 13 years. There will be many, many more arguments before then.
The NAO also estimates a £3.3bn funding gap for the controversial project which "the government has yet to decide how to fill".
A new estimate based on a clearer route and more information was likely to be higher than an earlier cost estimate of £15.4bn-£17.3bn, it said.
Meanwhile, it also warned that the government's timetable to start phase one of the project was "overambitious".
Commenting on the report, House of Commons Public Accounts Committee chairwoman Margaret Hodge said: "The DfT has produced a business case that is clearly not up to scratch. Some of their (the DfT's) assumptions are just ludicrous."
Ms Hodge added: "There is virtually no evidence in this business case to support claims that HS2 will deliver regional economic growth, one of the key aims and justifications for this project.
"We have been told that it will deliver around 100,000 new jobs but there is no evidence that all these jobs would not have been created anyway. The department has also set an extremely ambitious timetable for the project, with no room for mistakes. Past experience does not fill us with confidence in this optimism," she said.
'Strong and prosperous' But Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin said he "did not accept the NAO's core conclusion".
The report depended "too much on out of date analysis and does not give due weight to the good progress that has been made since last year," he said.
"The case for HS2 is clear. Without it the key rail routes connecting London, the Midlands and the North will be overwhelmed."
Mr McLoughlin added: "We are not building HS2 simply because the computer says 'yes'. We are building it because it is the right thing to do to make Britain a stronger and more prosperous place."
But Shadow Transport Secretary Maria Eagle said the report was a "worrying wake-up call" for the government.
"A new high-speed line between north and south is vital to tackle the rapidly advancing capacity crunch on Britain's railways, yet the NAO is damning about the Department for Transport's ability to deliver it," she said.
The government's timetable for delivering the legislation necessary for the rail link was "hopelessly unrealistic," she claimed.
Cut in journey times HS2, runs through Tory heartlands, has faced bitter opposition. Stop HS2 campaign manager Joe Rukin said: "The project is out of control because the politicians involved have been seduced by the words 'high speed rail' and have been complicit in fabricating a case for their vanity project."
He said: "The NAO say everything the Stop HS2 campaign has been saying for three years. The government and MPs haven't wanted to listen to us, but the surely have a duty to listen to the NAO."
Last week new legislation paving the way for development of the HS2 was announced in the Queen's Speech.
The High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill would allow expenditure on construction and design on the HS2 project "quicker than otherwise possible".
It aims to provide the Parliamentary authority for ecological surveys and other preparatory work to take place and to pay compensation to property owners along the route.
It is hoped the first trains will run on the HS2 line around 2026.
The Department for Transport says phase one will cut London to Birmingham travel to 49 minutes, from the current one hour and 24 minutes.
The HS2 phase two would virtually halve journey times between Birmingham and Manchester - to 41 minutes - and between London and Manchester from two hours and eight minutes to one hour and eight minutes.
Speeds of up to 250mph on HS2 would reduce a Birmingham to Leeds journey from two hours to 57 minutes.
Read in browser » EU vote focus turns to MPs' ballot
By Anonymous on May 16, 2013 03:00 am 16 May 2013 Last updated at 01:02 ET 
MPs get a chance to introduce their own bills in the private member's ballot
Conservative MPs demanding legislation paving the way for a referendum on Europe may now turn their attention to the ballot for private member's bills.
Any Tories given parliamentary time are likely to be encouraged by colleagues to adopt a draft bill on a referendum.
On Wednesday night, more than 100 Tory MPs backed a motion criticising the government's failure to include a bill in the Queen's Speech.
The move was defeated by 277 votes to 131 as Lib Dems and Labour opposed it.
The proposed amendment "expressed regret" that a bill paving the way for a referendum in 2017, as pledged by David Cameron, was not being brought forward this year.
Backers of the amendment included 116 Tory MPs, representing half of all the party's backbenchers.
Conservative backbenchers were given a free vote - meaning they were allowed to vote whichever way they chose - although ministers were instructed to abstain.
Continue reading the main story Analysis
Carole Walker Political correspondent, BBC News
Conservative MPs who forced Wednesday's vote knew they were unlikely to win the backing of the House of Commons.
But they will be buoyed by getting more support than had been expected.
They also believe they have helped bring about a strengthening of the Tory commitment to a referendum on Europe after the election.
Yesterday the prime minister published a draft bill for an in-out referendum by 2017 and today the chancellor said the Conservative part of the coalition would do everything it could to help any MP who won a parliamentary slot in tomorrow's ballot and took up the cause.
Such reassurance appears to have made little difference to tonight's vote.
One of the backers of the motion Peter Bone denied it was a rebellion.
He said it showed the Conservatives were united behind the need for a referendum on Europe, whilst Labour and the Liberal Democrats were denying the public their say.
The prime minister will be hoping fervently that is how it will be seen by the public.
Senior Tories denied the result amounted to a rebellion and said they were united on the issue.
However, Labour said it was a big blow to Mr Cameron's authority.
Including tellers, MPs who count the votes, 133 MPs supported the amendment. They included 116 Conservatives - more than half of all Tory MPs who are not part of the government.
Also backing the amendment were 11 Labour MPs, four Democratic Unionists, Lib Dem MP John Hemming and Respect's George Galloway.
MPs - including the 116 Tories who backed the amendment - are now waiting to see if they will be among the 20 chosen in a ballot at 09:00 BST to introduce their own legislation.
Members at the top of the list are usually lobbied hard by campaigners who want their issue debated. Many do not announce their proposed topic for a few days.
Over the past week many Conservative MPs have been irritated that the prime minister's promise of an in-out referendum by the end of 2017 was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech, which sets out the government's plans for the year ahead.
The draft bill published by the Conservatives was an effort to calm tensions. But it cannot be introduced by the government as it is not supported by the Tories' coalition partners, the Lib Dems.
The leadership hopes that it will be taken on by a backbencher, with it being debated in the non-government time available for private member's bills.
Continue reading the main story Private member's bill ballot
- Backbench MPs put names into a ballot
- First seven drawn usually get allocated a day's debate
- Have to go through same stages as other bills
- But they are only debated on Fridays
- Needs 100 MPs support to clear first few hurdles
- Most, lacking government support, do not become law
- In 2012-13, 10 private member's bills became law
Given that the Conservatives do not have a Commons majority, and the limited parliamentary time available for private member's bills, it would be highly unlikely to enter law but would act as a signal to backbenchers of the prime minister's intent.
Private member's bills rarely become law although some have brought about significant changes to the law, such as the Murder (Abolition of the Death Penalty) Act 1965 and the Abortion Act 1967.
The last two ballots have, by chance, been topped by the Labour MP John McDonnell - but both his proposed bills failed to make it into law.
One failed to gather enough support and the other ran out of parliamentary time.
In the 2012-13 parliamentary session, 10 private member's bills made it into law - most of which were quite narrowly focused, such as Neil Carmichael's Antarctic Bill, Simon Kirby's Disabled Persons' Parking Badges Bill and Peter Aldous's Mobile Homes Bill.
Read in browser » Six killed in Kabul convoy blast
By Anonymous on May 16, 2013 03:26 am 16 May 2013 Last updated at 00:39 ET 
A suicide bomber has blown himself up near a convoy of foreign troops in Afghanistan's capital, Kabul, the provincial police chief says.
Gen Mohammad Ayub Salangi said the convoy contained two vehicles and that he feared there were casualties.
Smoke rose above the industrial district of Karta-e Naw, in the east of the city, after the powerful explosion.
It is the first major blast in Kabul since March, when a suicide bomber blew himself up near the defence ministry.
In Wednesday's attack, an explosives-filled Toyota Corolla was blown up beside two foreign military vehicles at around 08:00 (03:30 GMT), Gen Salangi said.
Sirens could be heard afterwards, as emergency services rushed to the scene.
The Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) said it was aware that there had been an explosion in Kabul, and was investigating reports of foreign casualties.
Read in browser » Arrest anonymity not simple - PM
By Anonymous on May 16, 2013 12:38 am 16 May 2013 Last updated at 00:38 ET 
The home secretary's intervention came in a letter to the College of Policing
There is no simple answer on the issue of whether anonymity should be granted to suspects who are arrested but not yet charged, David Cameron has said.
Home Secretary Theresa May has told police in a letter that names should not normally be revealed at that stage.
The prime minister said there was a "very difficult balance" between making things public in general and respecting the privacy of someone not charged.
The debate came amid concerns about inconsistent policy among forces.
Some newspapers have also claimed that not naming suspects until they are charged amounted to "secret justice".
'Long-standing debate' Speaking to reporters during his trip to the US, Mr Cameron said: "I know some people want to connect it specifically with Leveson.
"But actually it's a long-standing debate about how to get the balance right between making things public, which as Theresa has said should be the working assumption, but also respecting privacy where that is appropriate.
"It's a very difficult balance to get right. On the one hand, sometimes making public the details of the arrest can help to bring forward evidence and bring forward potential victims. Therefore it is completely in the public interest.
"Sometimes it is right to respect the privacy of the individual because the publicity around these sorts of arrests can be genuinely life-changing. There is no simple answer to this."
Mrs May's intervention came in a letter to professional standards body the College of Policing.
The home secretary said: "I am concerned that the refusal of some police forces to name suspects who have been charged undermines transparency in the criminal justice system and risks the possibility that witnesses and other victims might not come forward.
"I strongly believe that there should be no right to anonymity at charge apart from in extremely unusual circumstances.
"I believe there should be a right to anonymity at arrest, but I know that there will be circumstances in which the public interest means that an arrested suspect should be named."
'Force behaviour' Warwickshire Police was criticised for initially refusing to name a retired police officer charged with theft.
The force, which later revealed the suspect's name as Paul Greaves, said it had originally changed its guidance following the Leveson Inquiry into press standards.
Mr Greaves has been charged with the theft of £113,000 from the former Warwickshire Police headquarters at Leek Wootton.
He will appear before magistrates in Leamington Spa on 22 May.
Mrs May wrote: "I understand the Leveson Inquiry might have had an effect on the behaviour of police forces.
"In fact, Lord Leveson's report did not make any substantive recommendations in relation to anonymity so I would like police forces to be aware of this fact."
Read in browser » 
No comments:
Post a Comment