Government vs ex-Post Office boss ‘compensation stall’ row continues

Print

Secretary of State for Business and Trade Kemi Badenoch has responded angrily to allegations about the government’s management of the Post Office and treatment of victims of the Horizon scandal.

GGm-yqSW8AAXXeD.jpg

In an interview with the Sunday Times former Post Office chairman Harry Staunton said he was told to ‘stall compensation’ to help the Tories ahead of the general election.

Staunton claimed he received this direction from a senior figure in Whitehall.

Today, in the House of Commons, Badenoch further addressed the issue. In response to Staunton’s comments about stalling compensation, she said: “There is no evidence whatsoever that this is true.”

She referred to letter sent to Staunton when he was appointed in December 2022 saying it made it “crystal clear that successfully reaching settlements with victims of the Post Office scandal should be one of his highest priorities.”

“Mr Staunton claimed I told him that someone’s got to take the rap for the Horizon scandal and that was the reason for his dismissal. That was not the reason at all. I dismissed him because there were serious concerns about his behaviour at chair, including those raised from other directors on the board.

“My department found significant governance issues, for example with the recruitment of a new senior independent director to the Post Office board, a public appointment process was underway but Mr Staunton apparently wanted to bypass it,, appointing someone from within the existing board without due process.

He failed to consult the government as a shareholder which the company is required to do.

“I should also inform the house that while he was in post, a formal investigation was launched into allegations made regarding Mr Staunton’s conduct. This included serious matters such as bullying.”

On Sunday, in a series of tweets on X, Badenoch wrote: “The Henry Staunton Sunday Times interview is a disgraceful misrepresentation of my conversation with him and the reasons for his dismissal. This was all explained to the journalist who chose to ignore the facts and run with Staunton’s words. Here are the facts:

“Far from ‘taking the rap’, I dismissed Staunton due to very serious allegations about his conduct while chair of the Post Office, including blocking an investigation into that conduct. My department is responsible for whistleblowers and I wouldn’t ignore the allegations.

“My call with Staunton was with officials. They took a complete record. He has given an interview full of lies about our conversation during his dismissal. The details will emerge soon enough as I won’t let the matter rest here but will be discussing with govt lawyers.

“Henry Staunton had a lack of grip getting justice for postmasters. The serious concerns over his conduct were the reasons I asked him to step down. That he chose to run to the media with made up anecdotes and a series of falsehoods, confirms I made the correct decision.”

Staunton subsequently stuck to his version of events, saying: “It is “pretty obvious what was really going on.”

In a letter to Badenoch this morning (19 February), shadow business secretary Jonathon Reynolds said in order to “truly ascertain the veracity” of Mr Staunton’s allegations, she should publish all correspondence and minutes of meetings between her department and the Post Office since the High Court’s 2019 ruling.

Badenoch told the house today that she would be depositing of a read out in both libraries of the House.

Responding to allegations that the government has only seriously acted on the issue due to the public outrage following ITV’s drama Mr Bates vs the Post Office, Badenoch said: “The reality is that my department has done everything it can to speed up compensation for victims. British people should know that a dedicated team of ministers and civil servants have been working around the clock for many months to hasten the pursuit of justice and bring swift, fair redress to all those affected.”

She called Staunton’s comments “A blatant attempt to seek revenge following dismissal.”