The row between Kemi Badenoch and the previous Submit Workplace chairman has deepened after he claimed he had been informed to delay payouts to postmasters affected by the Horizon scandal.
In a prolonged assertion to the Commons, the Enterprise Secretary mentioned allegations made by Henry Staunton on the weekend have been a “blatant try to hunt revenge” following his dismissal.
She issued a collection of counter-accusations, together with that he was being investigated over bullying allegations throughout his tenure.
Here’s a checklist of the claims made and responses given by Mr Staunton and Ms Badenoch:
– Weeks after being sacked as Submit Workplace chairman, Mr Staunton made a collection of allegations concerning the Authorities’s dealing with of each his dismissal and the Submit Workplace scandal.
– Declare: He mentioned Ms Badenoch had informed him “somebody’s received to take the rap” for Britain’s most widespread miscarriage of justice when she fired him.
– Response: In an announcement to MPs the next day, the Enterprise Secretary acknowledged that declare and mentioned “that wasn’t the rationale in any respect” for his dismissal. She cited “vital governance points”.
– Declare: Mr Staunton, who was solely appointed chairman of the corporate in December 2022, urged he had been informed by a senior civil servant to stall spending on compensation for Horizon victims to permit the Authorities to “limp into the election”.
He mentioned he had made a notice of the alleged comment on the time and emailed it to colleagues so it will be “traceable on the Submit Workplace server.”
– Response: Ms Badenoch informed MPs there was “no proof in any respect” that the method had been dragged out and mentioned it was a “shame” for Mr Staunton to recommend in any other case.
She mentioned she hoped readers would see the account within the Sunday Occasions “for what it was: a blatant try to hunt revenge following his dismissal”.
On Tuesday, Downing Road inspired the Submit Workplace to share the notice referred to by Mr Staunton “if such a notice exists” in order that it may be investigated.
– In a publish on X after the Sunday Occasions interview was revealed, the Enterprise Secretary accused the previous chairman of giving an account “filled with lies” and offering “made-up anecdotes and a collection of falsehoods” about their interplay.
She prolonged her assault in an announcement to the Commons on Monday, claiming there had been “critical issues about his behaviour”.
– Declare: Addressing MPs, Ms Badenoch mentioned Mr Staunton had been topic to a proper investigation over bullying allegations throughout his tenure.
She mentioned issues have been additionally raised about his “willingness to cooperate” with the probe.
Quantity 10 urged on Tuesday that “it was proper” for the Enterprise Secretary to make this assertion within the Commons however insisted it couldn’t “get into extra element about HR issues”.
Requested whether or not the Authorities would offer proof that an investigation had been launched, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman informed journalists he wouldn’t elaborate on the declare “past what the Enterprise Secretary mentioned”.
– Response: In an announcement given to reporters afterwards, a spokesperson for Mr Staunton mentioned: “That is the primary time the existence of such allegations have been talked about and Mr Staunton is just not conscious of any side of his conduct which may give rise to such allegations.
“They have been definitely not raised by the Secretary of State at any stage and definitely not in the course of the dialog which led to Mr Staunton’s dismissal. Such behaviour would in any case be completely out of character.”
Additionally they mentioned the previous chairman stands by his account of the interactions surrounding his departure and the Submit Workplace scandal.
– Declare: The Enterprise Secretary informed MPs that Mr Staunton had “apparently wished to bypass” the general public appointment course of for a brand new senior independence director on the Submit Workplace.
She mentioned he had “didn’t correctly seek the advice of” the board and “didn’t seek the advice of the Authorities as a shareholder – which the corporate was required to do.”
– Response: Mr Staunton’s spokesperson dismissed this declare as a “mischaracterisation”, saying an exterior candidate had been proposed however that the board finally voted 6-2 in favour of an inside candidate who was “of their view higher certified”.
