Axed Post Office boss ‘faced bullying probe’
Kemi hits back after he claims Horizon scandal payouts were held up
KEMI Badenoch has revealed that the former chairman of the Post Office was under investigation for bullying before he was sacked.
The Business Secretary yesterday accused him of ‘seeking revenge’ after he had suggested the Government was trying to stall compensation payments to sub-postmasters caught up in the Horizon scandal.
She branded Henry Staunton’s claims, made in a Sunday newspaper interview, ‘lies’, ‘misinformation’ and ‘wild baseless’ accusations in a blistering counter-attack in the Commons.
She also told MPs that he was being investigated over alleged bullying before she sacked him last month and that ‘serious concerns’ were raised about his ‘willingness to cooperate’ with the investigation.
She insisted ministers were ‘putting our money where our mouth is and shoulders to the wheel’ by paying compensation as quickly as possible and accused some Labour MPs of trying to score political points by jumping on Mr Staunton’s claims.
She pointed out that the Government is bringing forward new laws to exonerate sub-postmasters wrongly convicted of stealing Post Office funds.
Her furious dispatch box denial came after Mr Staunton used an interview with the Sunday Times to claim that he was told by a senior civil servant to slow down the payment of compensation for sub-postmasters.
He said he was told this to allow the Tories to ‘limp into’ the next election with less financial pressure on the Treasury.
Mrs Badenoch also dismissed the claim that when she sacked Mr Staunton she told him it was because ‘ someone’s got to take the rap for this’.
She told MPs: ‘ My department found significant governance issues, for example, with the recruitment of a new senior independence director to the Post Office board. A public appointment process was under way but Mr Staunton apparently wanted to bypass it, appointing someone from within the existing board without due process.
‘He failed to properly consult the Post Office board on the proposal, he failed to hold the required nominations committee, most importantly he failed to consult the Government as a shareholder – which the company was required to do. ‘Such a cavalier approach to governance was the last thing we needed in the Post Office given its historic failings.
‘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.’
Regarding his claims about the stalling of compensation payments, Ms Badenoch added: ‘We have no evidence whatsoever that any official said this. If such a thing was said, it’s for Mr Staunton himself to bring the evidence.
‘There would be no benefit whatsoever of us delaying compensation. This does not have any significant impact on revenues. She said all of the payments under the scheme had been made so ‘clearly no instruction was given.’
While Mrs Badenoch said the Government would not publish all correspondence between the Government and Post Office due to the ongoing public inquiry, she did say that ministers would ‘consider publishing correspondence between departments and Mr Staunton in accordance with Freedom of Information rules’.
The Government has so far committed £1billion to compensate wronged sub-postmasters, MPs were told. However, several MPs said that they had constituents still waiting for payouts.
Mr Staunton last night branded Mrs Badenoch’s claims ‘astonishing’ and stood by his account that he was asked to stall compensation payments. He said he recorded a note of it and it would be ‘traceable on the Post Office server’.
He said the alleged failure to observe ‘due process’ over the appointment of an independent director was ‘mischaracterised’. On the bullying claims, he said it was the first time their existence had been mentioned.
Mrs Badenoch released a note recorded by civil servants of her telephone call with him last month sacking him, which backed up her claims in the Commons.
‘A cavalier approach to governance’