Former Post Office chairman Henry Staunton said it is “pretty obvious what was really going on” after the government refuted his claims that he was told to stall compensation to Horizon scandal victims.
In a new statement issued to Sky News, Mr Staunton insisted there was “no real movement” on the payouts until after the airing of ITV drama Mr Bates Vs the Post Office earlier this year.
He said: “It was in the interests of the business as well as being fair for the postmasters that there was faster progress on exoneration and that compensation was more generous, but we didn’t see any real movement until after the Mr Bates programme.
“I think it is pretty obvious to everyone what was really going on.”
It comes as the government is facing demands to release all documents relating to Mr Staunton’s sacking to provide clarity on the allegations.
A war of words broke out on Sunday after Mr Staunton claimed that when he was sacked last month, Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch had told him “someone’s got to take the rap” for the Post Office scandal.
Speaking to The Sunday Times, he also claimed he was told to delay pay-outs to subpostmasters ahead of the next general election due to concerns about costs.
The government denied the compensation claims, while Ms Badenoch wrote on X that Mr Staunton’s comments were a “disgraceful misrepresentation” of their conversation when he was sacked.
Advertisement
The business department also published a letter sent to Mr Staunton after his appointment which said one of his priorities should be to resolve historic litigation issues relating to the Horizon software.
However, Labour said the allegations were “truly shocking” and there are “clear discrepancies” in the accounts of Mr Staunton’s short time as chairman.
Mr Staunton only became chairman of the Post Office in December 2022, but he was ousted last month as the government reeled from the backlash of its handling of the Horizon scandal.
Image: Henry Staunton
This saw hundreds of subpostmasters prosecuted because of discrepancies in the Horizon IT system between 1999 and 2015, in what has been called the biggest miscarriage of justice in UK history.
The airing of Mr Bates Vs the Post Office last month led to widespread outrage and promises from the government to introduce a new law to exonerate all victims and speed up the compensation process.
In a letter to Ms Badenoch on Monday, 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 that there had been bugs and errors in the IT system.
He also asked Ms Badenoch to explicitly confirm whether any civil servant told Mr Staunton to stall on compensation payments so the government could “limp into the election” with the lowest possible financial liability.
Mr Staunton claimed he received this direction from a senior figure in Whitehall, but a spokesman for the government said on Sunday it “utterly” refuted the claim and Mr Staunton was in fact given “concrete objectives” to focus on reaching settlements.
Image: Kemi Badenoch
Government ‘focused on compensation’
Post Office minister Kevin Hollinrake has also told Sky News he “does not recognise” claims of trying to slow down compensation.
He said: “We’ve been very focused on getting that compensation out the door as quickly as possible.
“We’ve done much to try and accelerate those payments over the time Henry Staunton was in office so I don’t recognise what he’s saying and I’m bit confused why he’s saying it.”
He added that he was not on the call when Mr Staunton was sacked but Ms Badenoch has been “very clear that the version of events that she read in the paper was nothing like the version that she had from the notes that were taken on that call”.
“Clearly, Henry Staunton sees it differently. You’d have to ask him why he’s saying those things. It doesn’t accord with the situation as I see it.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:57
Why sack Post Office chair after a year?
In his interview, Mr Staunton also alleged that Post Office chief executive Nick Read wrote to the government with legal opinion from the Post Office’s solicitors, Peters & Peters, that in more than 300 cases convictions were supported by evidence not related to the Horizon software.
In his letter Mr Reynolds said:“Prior to yesterday, it was my profound belief that every MP and everyone in Westminster was working on the commons goals to exonerate all remaining wrongful convictions and deliver fair compensation to all those affected as quickly as possible. If true, these revelations completely undermine that notion.
“If there is even the slightest truth to accusations that justice has been obfuscated for political reasons, there must be consequences. I hope that you will do everything in your gift to provide subpostmasters with the confidences they need to know that this was not the case.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:00
Post Office scandal explained
The call was echoed by the Liberal Democrats, who said the government “must be fully transparent and publish any documents relating to these extremely serious allegations”.
Treasury spokesperson Sarah Olney said: “Ministers have been dragging their feet over getting victims swift and fair compensation for far too long. Political game playing should have absolutely no role in trying to right this wrong, we need to get the victims of this scandal the justice and compensation they deserve.”
Prospective bidders for Claire’s British arm, including the Lakeland owner Hilco Capital, backed away from making offers in recent weeks as the scale of the chain’s challenges became clear, a senior insolvency practitioner said.
Claire’s has now filed a formal notice to administrators from advisory firm Interpath.
Administrators are set to seek a potential rescue deal for the chain, which has seen sales tumble in the face of recent weak consumer demand.
More from Money
Claire’s UK branches will remain open as usual and store staff will stay in their positions once administrators are appointed, the company said.
Will Wright, UK chief executive at Interpath, said: “Claire’s has long been a popular brand across the UK, known not only for its trend-led accessories but also as the go-to destination for ear piercing.
“Over the coming weeks, we will endeavour to continue to operate all stores as a going concern for as long as we can, while we assess options for the company.
“This includes exploring the possibility of a sale which would secure a future for this well-loved brand.”
The development comes after the Claire’s group filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in a court in Delaware last week.
It is the second time the group has declared bankruptcy, after first filing for the process in 2018.
Chris Cramer, chief executive of Claire’s, said: “This decision, while difficult, is part of our broader effort to protect the long-term value of Claire’s across all markets.
“In the UK, taking this step will allow us to continue to trade the business while we explore the best possible path forward. We are deeply grateful to our employees, partners and our customers during this challenging period.”
Susannah Streeter, head of money and markets at Hargreaves Lansdown, said: “Claire’s attraction has waned, with its high street stores failing to pull in the business they used to.
“While they may still be a beacon for younger girls, families aren’t heading out on so many shopping trips, with footfall in retail centres falling.
“The chain is now faced with stiff competition from TikTok and Insta shops, and by cheap accessories sold by fast fashion giants like Shein and Temu.”
Claire’s has been a fixture in British shopping centres and on high streets for decades, and is particularly popular among teenage shoppers.
Founded in 1961, it is reported to trade from 2,750 stores globally.
The company is owned by former creditors Elliott Management and Monarch Alternative Capital following a previous financial restructuring.
Not since September 2022 has the average been at this level, before former prime minister Liz Truss announced her so-called mini-budget.
The programme of unfunded spending and tax cuts, done without the commentary of independent watchdog the Office for Budget Responsibility, led to a steep rise in the cost of government borrowing and necessitated an intervention by monetary regulator the Bank of England to prevent a collapse of pension funds.
It was also a key reason mortgage costs rose as high as they did – up to 6% for a typical two-year deal in the weeks after the mini-budget.
More on Interest Rates
Related Topics:
Why?
The mortgage borrowing rate dropped on Wednesday as the base interest rate – set by the Bank of England – was cut last week to 4%. The reduction made borrowing less expensive, as signs of a struggling economy were evident to the rate-setting central bankers and despite inflation forecast to rise further.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:47
Bank of England cuts interest rate
It’s that expectation of elevated price rises that has stopped mortgage rates from falling further. The Bank had raised interest rates and has kept them comparatively high as inflation is anticipated to rise faster due to poor harvests and increased employer costs, making goods more expensive.
The group behind the figures, Moneyfacts, said “While the cost of borrowing is still well above the rock-bottom rates of the years immediately preceding that fiscal event, this milestone shows lenders are competing more aggressively for business.”
In turn, mortgage providers are reluctant to offer cheaper products.
A further cut to the base interest rate is expected before the end of 2025, according to London Stock Exchange Group (LSEG) data. Traders currently bet the rate will be brought to 3.75% in December.
This expectation can influence what rates lenders offer.
For around 700,000 teenagers on the treadmill that is the English education system, the A and T-level results that drop this week may be the most important step of all.
They matter because they open the door to higher education, and a crucial life decision based on an unwritten contract that has stood since the 1960s: the better the marks, the greater the choice of institution and course available to applicants, and in due course, the value of the degree at the end of it.
A quarter of a century after Tony Blair set a target of 50% of school-leavers going to university, however, the fundamentals of that deal have been transformed.
Today’s prospective undergraduates face rising costs of tuition and debt, new labour market dynamics, and the uncertainties of the looming AI revolution.
Together, they pose a different question: Is going to university still worth it?
Image: Students at Plantsbrook School in Sutton Coldfield, Birmingham, look at their A-level results in 2024. File pic: PA
Huge financial costs
Of course, the value of the university experience and the degree that comes with it cannot be measured by finances alone, but the costs are unignorable.
For today’s students, the universal free tuition and student grants enjoyed by their parents’ generation have been replaced by annual fees that increase to £9,500 this year.
Living costs meanwhile will run to at least £61,000 over three years, according to new research.
Together, they will leave graduates saddled with average debts of £53,000, which, under new arrangements, they repay via a “graduate tax” of 9% on their earnings above £25,000 for up to 40 years.
A squeezed salary gap
As well as rising fees and costs of finance, graduates will enter a labour market in which the financial benefits of a degree are less immediately obvious.
Graduates do still enjoy a premium on starting salaries, but it may be shrinking thanks to advances in the minimum wage.
The Institute of Student Employers says the average graduate starting salary was £32,000 last year, though there is a wide variation depending on career.
Image: File pic: PA
With the minimum wage rising 6% to more than £26,000 this April, however, the gap to non-degree earners may have reduced.
A reduction in earning power may be compounded by the phenomenon of wage compression, which sees employers having less room to increase salaries across the pay scale because the lowest, compulsory minimum level has risen fast.
Taken over a career, however, the graduate premium remains unarguable.
Government data shows a median salary for all graduates aged 16-64 in 2024 of £42,000 and £47,000 for post-graduates, compared to £30,500 for non-graduates.
Graduates are also more likely to be in employment and in highly skilled jobs.
There is also little sign of buyer’s remorse.
A University of Bristol survey of more than 2,000 graduates this year found that, given a second chance, almost half would do the same course at the same institution.
And while a quarter would change course or university, only 3% said they would have skipped higher education.
Image: Students receive their A-level results at Ark Globe Academy in London last year. File pic: PA
No surprise then that industry body Universities UK believes the answer to the question is an unequivocal “yes”, even if the future of graduate employment remains unclear.
“This is a decision every individual needs to take for themselves; it is not necessarily the right decision for everybody. More than half the 18-year-old population doesn’t progress to university,” says chief executive Vivienne Stern.
“But if you look at it from a purely statistical point of view, there is absolutely no question that the majority who go to university benefit not only in terms of earnings.”
‘Roll with the punches’
She is confident that graduates will continue to enjoy the benefits of an extended education even if the future of work is profoundly uncertain.
“I think now more than ever you need to have the resilience that you acquire from studying at degree level to roll with the punches.
“If the labour market changes under you, you might need to reinvent yourself several times during your career in order to be able to ride out changes that are difficult to predict. That resilience will hold its value.”
The greatest change is likely to come from AI, the emerging technology whose potential to eat entry-level white collar jobs may be fulfilled even faster than predicted.
The recruitment industry is already reporting a decline in graduate-level posts.
Image: A maths exam in progress at Pittville High School, Cheltenham.
File pic: PA
Anecdotally, companies are already banking cuts to legal, professional, and marketing spend because an AI can produce the basic output almost instantly, and for free.
That might suggest a premium returning to non-graduate jobs that remain beyond the bots. An AI might be able to pull together client research or write an ad, but as yet, it can’t change a washer or a catheter.
It does not, however, mean the degree is dead, or that university is worthless, though the sector will remain under scrutiny for the quality and type of courses that are offered.
The government is in the process of developing a new skills agenda with higher education at its heart, but second-guessing what the economy will require in a year, never mind 10, has seldom been harder.
Universities will be crucial to producing the skilled workers the UK needs to thrive, from life sciences to technology, but reducing students to economic units optimised by “high value” courses ignores the unquantifiable social, personal, and professional benefits going to university can bring.
In a time when culture wars are played out on campus, it is also fashionable to dismiss attendance at all but the elite institutions on proven professional courses as a waste of time and money. (A personal recent favourite came from a columnist with an Oxford degree in PPE and a career as an economics lecturer.)
The reality of university today means that no student can afford to ignore a cost-benefit analysis of their decision, but there is far more to the experience than the job you end up with. Even AI agrees.
Ask ChatGPT if university is still worth it, and it will tell you: “That depends on what you mean by worth – financially, personally, professionally – because each angle tells a different story.”