Mr Staunton said the Post Office boss “fell out” with the business’s [human resources] HR director and said that his own behaviour was only referenced once in an 80-page document about Mr Read.
The ex-chairman said there was one paragraph in the report on alleged politically incorrect remarks made by him and he “strenuously denied” the claim.
“This was a big investigation into Nick. And I didn’t realise you weren’t aware of that,” he told the MPs.
More on Post Office Scandal
Related Topics:
Asked if he was informed his behaviour was under investigation in November last year, Mr Staunton said: “What there is, actually, is Mr Read fell out with his HR director and she produced a ‘speak up’ document which was 80 pages thick.
“Within that, was one paragraph… about comments that I allegedly made. So this is an investigation, not into me, this is an investigation made into the chief executive Nick Read.
Advertisement
“That one paragraph you could say was about politically incorrect comments attributed to me which I strenuously deny.”
Image: Post Office chief executive Nick Read
Downing Street has said Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has confidence in Mr Read following Mr Staunton’s claims.
Also at the committee hearing, Mr Staunton reiterated claims he made in an interview with the Sunday Times that he was told by a senior civil servant, Sarah Munby, to go slow in processing sub-postmaster compensation claims over the Horizon IT scandal in the run-up to the general election.
In response to the note Ms Munby produced of the meeting, Mr Staunton said it wasn’t contemporaneous and that his email record, sent to Mr Read at the time and subsequently sent to journalists, was true.
“It is written a year and a month after my file note. So it’s not a contemporary file note by any means. It’s written with the purpose of answering this point.”
He also refuted claims made earlier in the hearing that he was disrupting an investigation and did not cooperate.
The focus of attention should be on justice for sub-postmasters, he added.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:57
Kemi Badenoch was asked in January – why sack Post Office chair after a year?
Mr Staunton said: “This should all be about the postmasters and their families and how their lives have been wrecked.
“That’s what all of this should be about and nothing else. The rest is just flimflam.”
The Horizon scandal saw more than 700 subpostmasters prosecuted by the Post Office and handed criminal convictions between 1999 and 2015 as Fujitsu’s faulty Horizon software system made it look as though money was missing from their branches.
Hundreds of subpostmasters are still awaiting compensation despite the government announcing those who have had convictions quashed are eligible for £600,000 payouts.
Earlier in the day, a senior official at the Department of Business and Trade, Carl Creswell, said he had been told that other Post Office board members would resign should Mr Staunton not be removed. “I was told that explicitly,” he said.
He said there were two main allegations which influenced Mr Staunton’s removal, first that he had tried to stop a whistleblowing investigation into his conduct and the second that he was “trying to stop” the process to recruit a new board member.
A growing rift has emerged in Washington, D.C., between the cryptocurrency industry and labor unions as lawmakers debate whether to ease rules allowing cryptocurrencies in 401(k) retirement accounts.
The dispute centers on proposed market structure legislation that would allow retirement accounts to gain exposure to crypto, a move labor groups say could expose workers to speculative risk. In a letter sent on Wednesday to the US Senate Banking Committee, the American Federation of Teachers argued that cryptocurrencies are too volatile for pension and retirement savings, warning that workers could face significant losses.
The letter drew immediate pushback from crypto investors and industry figures. “The American Federation of Teachers has somehow developed the most logically incoherent, least educated take one could possibly author on the matter of crypto market structure regulation,” a crypto investor said on X.
The AFT letter to Congress opposes regulatory changes that would allow 401(k) retirement accounts to hold alternative assets, including cryptocurrency. Source: CNBC
In response to the letter, Castle Island Ventures partner Sean Judge said the bill would improve oversight and reduce systemic risk, while enabling pension funds to access an asset class that has delivered strong long-term returns.
Consensys attorney Bill Hughes said the AFT’s opposition to the crypto market structure bill was politically motivated, accusing the group of acting as an extension of Democratic lawmakers.
Funds held in US retirement accounts by type of account plan. Source: ICI
Opposition to crypto in retirement and pension funds mounts
Proponents of allowing crypto in retirement portfolios, on the other hand, argue that it democratizes finance, while trade unions have voiced strong opposition to relaxing current regulations, claiming that crypto is too risky for traditional retirement plans.
“Unregulated, risky currencies and investments are not where we should put pensions and retirement savings. The wild, wild west is not what we need, whether it’s crypto, AI, or social media,” AFT president Randi Weingarten said on Thursday.
The AFT represents 1.8 million teachers and educational professionals in the US and is one of the largest teachers’ unions in the country.
According to Better Markets, a nonprofit and nonpartisan advocacy organization, cryptocurrencies are too volatile for traditional retirement portfolios, and their high volatility can create time-horizon mismatches for pension investors seeking a predictable, low-volatility retirement plan.
Bitcoin and Ether volatility compared to other asset classes and stock indexes. Source: US Federal Reserve
In October, the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) also wrote to Congress opposing provisions within the crypto market structure regulatory bill.
The AFL-CIO, the largest federation of trade unions in the US, wrote that cryptocurrencies are volatile and pose a systemic risk to pension funds and the broader financial system.
The US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has conditionally approved five national bank charter applications for companies tied to the digital assets industry.
In a Friday notice, the OCC said it had conditionally approved BitGo, Fidelity, and Paxos to convert their existing state-level trust companies into federally chartered national trust banks. In the same announcement, the regulator said it had conditionally approved new applications from Circle and Ripple for national trust bank charters.
“New entrants into the federal banking sector are good for consumers, the banking industry and the economy,” said Jonathan Gould, the Comptroller of the Currency, adding: “The OCC will continue to provide a path for both traditional and innovative approaches to financial services to ensure the federal banking system keeps pace with the evolution of finance and supports a modern economy.”
Europe’s crypto regulatory framework is entering a new phase of scrutiny as policymakers weigh whether enforcement of the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation should remain with national authorities or be centralized under the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA).
MiCA, which came largely into force at the beginning of 2025, was designed to create a unified rulebook for crypto-asset service providers across the European Union.
But as implementation progresses, disparities between member states are becoming harder to ignore. Some regulators have approved dozens of licenses, while others have issued only a handful, prompting concerns about inconsistent supervision and regulatory arbitrage.
In this week’s episode of Byte-Sized Insight, Cointelegraph explored what those growing pains mean for Europe’s crypto market with Lewin Boehnke, chief strategy officer at Crypto Finance Group — a Switzerland-based digital asset firm with operations across the EU.
Uneven enforcement fuels calls for oversight
According to Boehnke, the core challenge facing Europe isn’t the MiCA framework itself, but rather how it is being applied differently across jurisdictions.
“There is a very, very uneven application of the regulation,” he said, pointing to stark contrasts between member states. Germany, for example, has already granted around 30 crypto licenses, many to established banks, while Luxembourg has approved just three, all to major, well-known firms.
The ESMA released a peer review of the Malta Financial Services Authority’s authorization of a crypto service provider, finding that the regulator only “partially met expectations.”
Those disparities have helped fuel support among some regulators and policymakers for transferring supervisory powers to ESMA, which would create a more centralized enforcement model similar to the US Securities and Exchange Commission.
France, Austria and Italy have all signaled support for such a move, particularly amid criticism of more permissive regimes elsewhere in the bloc.
From Boehnke’s perspective, centralization could be less about control and more about efficiency.
“From just purely the practical point of view, I think it would be a good idea to have a unified… application of the regulation,” he said, adding that direct engagement with the ESMA could reduce delays caused by back-and-forth between national authorities.
MiCA’s design praised, but technical questions remain
Despite criticism from some corners of the crypto industry, Boehnke said MiCA’s overarching structure is sound, particularly its focus on regulating intermediaries rather than peer-to-peer activity.
“I do like MiCA regulation… the overarching approach of regulating not necessarily the assets, not the peer-to-peer use, but the custodians and the ones that offer services… that is the right approach.”
However, he also noted that unresolved technical questions are slowing adoption, especially for banks. One example is MiCA’s requirement that custodians be able to return client assets “immediately,” a phrase that remains open to interpretation.
“Does that mean withdrawal of the crypto? Or is it good enough to sell the crypto and withdraw the fiat immediately?” Boehnke asked, noting that such ambiguities are still being worked through and are awaiting clarity from ESMA.
To hear the complete conversation on Byte-Sized Insight, listen to the full episode on Cointelegraph’s Podcasts page, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And don’t forget to check out Cointelegraph’s full lineup of other shows!