BP’s chair deserved a kick for his silly obstinacy over shareholder resolution
BP has fresh faces in the boardroom and a rigged strategy: it’s pivoting back to oil and gas and away from its low-carbon assets in an attempt to improve a weak share price.One can agree or disagree with the approach.But it was a silly act of overreach for a newish chair to try to stifle debate on such matters.That, in effect, was what Albert Manifold did when he excluded a resolution for Thursday’s annual meeting from Follow This, a Dutch investor group.The proposal itself cannot be described as explosive.
It was pitched in investor-friendly terms and would merely have obliged BP to describe how it would protect shareholder value if demand for oil and gas falls.Nor is Follow This some two-bob outfit within the ranks of climate groups.It was claiming support from investors with $1tn under management.BP’s reaction to the submission, however, was to speak to its lawyers.“The board, having taken legal advice, concluded that the proposal from Follow This was not valid and would be ineffective were it to pass,” Manifold declared without offering a reason for the supposed lack of validity.
Come on, if it was something to do with the proposal not being filed as a “special” resolution requiring 75% support, as has been suggested, just use common sense to get it on the agenda in some form,There’s always a bit of negotiation in these cases,Compare the approach of Shell when presented with a near-identical resolution from Follow This for its annual meeting next month,At the UK’s bigger oil and gas company, the chair, Andrew Mackenzie, allowed the motion to go forward without a fuss,The notice of Shell’s meeting devotes a full page to the proposers’ resolution and supporting statement and another page to the directors’ explanation of why they recommend a vote against.
That is the grown-up and confident style: address the points and let the owners have their say.Shell’s counter-arguments included: scenarios are not forecasts and are updated constantly; and the company already publishes enough information about break-even points, demand sensitivities and so forth to enable investors to make informed judgments about financial resilience.It is hard to see why BP couldn’t have done the same.Manifold’s obstinacy seems to have fuelled rebellions on some of the company’s own resolutions, notably one that would have abolished BP-specific requirements on climate impact reporting that were adopted in 2015 and 2019 and are now regarded by the board as duplicative.On that one, BP got support from only 47% of voting shareholders when it needed 75%.
On a plan to abolish in-person annual meetings, BP also lost.Most embarrassingly, 18% of votes were against the re-election of Manifold himself, which is a stinker of a result for a chair on his first outing.Legal & General Investment Management, a top-10 investor, was in the “no” camp and cited the non-admittance of the Follow This resolution as one reason why.The wonder is that BP’s boardroom still includes some heavyweight non-executives, including the Aviva boss, Amanda Blanc, and the former Barclays finance director Tushar Morzaria.They must surely have known a heavy-handed approach to shareholder democracy could backfire.
Did they warn the chair? Or is it true, as some say, that BP is now the Albert Manifold show?As it happens, his “simpler, stronger, more valuable” strategy for BP probably has broad majority shareholder support, just as a similar one at Shell does.The point, though, is that you’ve still got to let debate flow and set out arguments.Manifold deserved the kick he got.
Keir Starmer was wrong to sack Olly Robbins | Brief letters
Perhaps the most damaging consequence of the Mandelson affair is not the fate of the prime minister (Report, 22 April) but the breakdown in the relationship between the government and the civil service. This relationship is crucial for good government. The removal of a distinguished civil servant for trying to navigate the competing pressures on him when landed with the Mandelson problem sets a dangerous precedent. It was the wrong decision, and should be reversed before lasting damage is done.Tony WrightFormer Labour MP and chair of the public administration committee This is such a Westminster bubble story
Global Counsel, lobbying firm set up by Mandelson, went bust owing £4.5m just before his arrest – as it happened
The lobbying firm co-founded by Peter Mandelson collapsed owing £4.5m to creditors including over half a million pounds to HM Revenue and Customs, the Press Association reports. PA says:double quotation markGlobal Counsel went into administration in February amid the fallout from the scandal surrounding Mandelson’s historical links to paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.Figures filed on Companies House showed the firm owed £4.54m when it went bust – with only £2
Mandelson’s lobbying firm Global Counsel went bust owing £4.6m, report says
Peter Mandelson’s former consultancy firm Global Counsel went bust owing £4.6m – including more than £600,000 to the taxman – a report by the group’s administrators has revealed.The company, which provided advice to high-profile clients including Chinese-owned TikTok, US tech firm Palantir and UK pharmaceutical firm GSK, collapsed in February, after it lost a series of accounts over the peer’s relationship with the convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.Mandelson, who denies any wrongdoing, had resigned from the board in 2024 but continued to hold shares in the company.Global Counsel’s client list received fresh scrutiny this month after it emerged Mandelson failed the UK government’s enhanced vetting process before he was appointed as UK ambassador to Washington, with speculation about security concerns around his links to foreign states, including China
Olly Robbins refused to give Mandelson vetting summary to Cabinet Office, says Cat Little
The Foreign Office refused to hand over a summary of Peter Mandelson’s security vetting to the civil servant tasked with compiling documents detailing his appointment as ambassador to the US, she has told a Commons committee.Cat Little, the lead official in the Cabinet Office, had to instead get the document directly from UK Security Vetting (UKSV) after Olly Robbins, the subsequently-sacked Foreign Office head, refused to provide it.Giving evidence to the foreign affairs committee, Little also said she had not yet been able to track down a formal record of Keir Starmer approving Mandelson’s appointment as part of her department’s response to a Commons motion forcing the release of documents linked to the process. She said such a document would normally exist.But she supported the prime minister’s insistence that normal processes were followed in the appointment, despite UKSV initially refusing clearance for vetting, which was overruled by Robbins, who gave evidence to the same committee on Tuesday
Cat Little’s evidence to MPs is destined for civil service textbooks | John Crace
Here we go again. Some of the public may have had enough of the Peter Mandelson scandal by now, and would rather the focus returned to things such as the Iran war and the cost of living crisis. But Westminster has barely started on Mandy. Can’t get enough of him. This one will run and run
Former Labour MP calls for Starmer to face Commons committee over Mandelson vetting
A former Labour MP has joined opposition parties calling for Keir Starmer to face a Commons committee to examine whether the prime minister misled parliament as the government’s crisis surrounding the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to Washington continues.Karl Turner, who lost the Labour whip last month after making a series of interventions criticising Starmer and No 10, has written to the speaker of the Commons urging him to refer Starmer to the privileges committee, the same body that found Boris Johnson had lied in the Commons over the lockdown parties scandal.In a letter to the speaker posted on X, which has since been deleted, he wrote that he was raising a “matter of serious concern regarding the conduct” of Starmer during prime minister’s questions on Wednesday.Turner, who now sits as an independent MP, said it was “clear that the prime minister’s characterisation of that evidence is, at best, inaccurate and, at worst, misleading to the House”.In the X post accompanying the letter, Turner said: “Let me be clear, I’m not accusing the PM of deliberately misleading the House of Commons
The Preston model is not likely to unravel just yet | Letters
Doing a Mandelson when you’re caught short | Letter
Three men guilty of repeatedly raping woman on Brighton beach in ‘predatory, callous’ attack
‘On his own terms’: James Valentine chose assisted dying but barriers remain for Australians wanting to access it
Nine in 10 UK voters across parties support right to abortion, poll finds
Police and ombudsman investigate death of boy, 16, at young offender institution