Post Office inquiry: Execs and government ‘dragged their feet’ on compensation, ex-chair Henry Staunton says
The Post Office was a “mess” run by executives and government appointees who “dragged their feet” in efforts to compensate and exonerate sub-postmasters, the former chairman has told the public inquiry.
Henry Staunton, who was sacked after 14 months as chair by then business secretary Kemi Badenoch in January, also accused the organisation of having a “huge cultural problem” with a lack of ethnic and gender diversity – and of overseeing “vindictive” investigations into two sub-postmasters who served on the company board.
He also denied allegations that he made racist and misogynistic comments about Post Office colleagues, saying he had been “deeply stung” by an internal investigation he says was used as a pretext by Ms Badenoch to remove him.
A former chairman of WH Smith and director of ITV, Mr Staunton was appointed in December 2022 after being approached by headhunters who told him he would be “giving something back” if he took the job.
Money latest: Excessive? How UK maternity pay rates compare globally
He said he found a culture of chaos in senior management that immediately required more than the two days a week he had been told was required.
“The place was a mess that required more of my time,” he said. His view was that executives did not fully accept the findings of the High Court judgment that established the role of the Horizon computer system in hundreds of flawed prosecutions.
“My initial impression was that the Post Office and government were dragging their feet in terms of making payments for remediation – in the first place – and in the second place I thought that there was no appetite at all for exoneration,” he told the inquiry.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
New Post Office scandal: ‘It’s been horrific’
Mr Staunton said that initially a “ridiculous” amount of his time was taken up with requests for a pay rise from chief executive Nick Read, who he previously told a Parliamentary inquiry was unhappy and threatening to resign.
In November 2022, before he was formally in post, he was asked to sign a letter to the secretary of state recommending an increase from the maximum of £788,500 to £1.125m, a “massive” increase that Mr Staunton said the minister was right to reject.
He said the environment among senior staff was characterised by “risk aversion and paralysis” and “a culture of fear and worry”, in part because executives feared being called to give evidence to the public inquiry.
Read more from Sky News:
Mulberry rejects Mike Ashley’s takeover offer
Selling fees on eBay scrapped in boost to reselling
Post Office scandal report sparks call for ‘fast action’
Nick Read. Pic: House of Commons/PA
Referring to a letter he received from an anonymous whistleblower, that alleged a “disgusting culture” at the Post Office, Mr Staunton agreed the organisation “had a huge problem with culture”.
“Ethnicity was very poorly represented. We did have a problem with ethnicity. We did have a problem with gender.”
He also recognised claims that Mr Read had referred to, of those with a “public school education”, and that there was a perception of “jobs for the boys”.
Mr Staunton was also highly critical of an internal investigation launched into two sub-postmasters who had been appointed to the board as non-executive directors, alleging it was held open for months as a means of intimidating them.
Inquiry hears recording of chair’s sacking
The inquiry also heard details of Mr Staunton’s dismissal and was played a recording of the telephone call in which Ms Badenoch told him he was being removed because of “complaints that are so serious the government needs to intervene”.
Mr Staunton told the inquiry that her call came several hours after a journalist, understood to be Sky News’ Mark Kleinman, rang him to tell him he was likely to be fired.
He was not told on that call what the complaints were, but the previous month had learned his conduct was being examined as part of a Post Office investigation based initially on an 80-page complaint against Mr Read by the then chief people officer. In the complaint, Mr Staunton was mentioned only once and not by name.
Then Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch sacked Mr Staunton last year. Pic: James Manning/PA Wire
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
The allegation against him was that he made inappropriate comments about gender and race at a meeting about candidates to chair the Post Office remuneration committee. In his witness statement to the inquiry, he said: “I deny those allegations completely and feel deeply stung by them.”
He told the inquiry that three former Post Office colleagues – one Jewish, one Muslim and one black – had provided letters of support in his defence to questions from the Institute of Chartered Accountants.
“All three directors have said they thought there was not an ounce of racism in me and indeed I was a champion of greater diversity of ethnicity and gender on the board,” he said.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Sir Alan Bates threatens legal action
In his witness statement, he said details of the investigation and its findings against him, which have never been published, were leaked to the media by a government source who claimed they explained why he objected to being sacked by a minister who was “black and female.”
“I was deeply aggrieved at being made a fall guy for failings that I myself had been struggling to get the Post Office to address,” he said.
“This was a report into Nick Read, not about me, but because I had taken the side of the sub-postmasters it was weaponised against me.”
Gatwick Airport’s South Terminal has been heavily disrupted after a “suspected prohibited item” was discovered in luggage, leaving passengers in limbo.
Some passengers were reportedly left on planes that weren’t taking off, while others were stranded in the airport for hours after Gatwick made the announcement this morning.
Sussex Police said the explosive ordnance disposal team was being sent in “as a precaution” and a security cordon was put in place.
It now says the incident has been resolved and cleared – but warned there were still “some delays and cancellations”.
Gatwick Airport latest updates
The airport, which is the UK’s second busiest, was set to see off some 316 departing flights today, according to aviation analytics website Cirium.
But what are the rights of passengers if their flights are delayed or cancelled?
Your rights during delays
Your flight is covered by UK law if it departs from a UK airport, arrives at a UK airport on a UK or EU airline, or arrives at an EU airport on a UK airline.
When it comes to significant delays, UK law says airlines must provide you with care and assistance.
Significant delays are classed as:
- More than two hours for short-haul flights of under 1,500km (932 miles)
- More than three hours for medium-haul flights of 1,500km-3,500km (932-2,175 miles)
- More than four hours for long-haul flights of over 3,500km
Here’s what the law says the airline must provide you with until it is able to fly you to your destination:
- A reasonable amount of food and drink
- A means for you to communicate (often by refunding the cost of your calls)
- Accommodation, if you are re-routed the next day
- Transport to and from the accommodation (or your home, if you are able to return there)
It says this must be provided for you for however long delays last, irrespective of what has caused them.
Passengers facing delays have been handed blankets by staff at the airport
Airlines may not always be able to arrange care and assistance for all passengers during major disruptions directly, but the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) says you can organise the things listed for yourself and then claim the cost back from your airline later if you keep every receipt and do not spend more than is deemed reasonable.
In other words, don’t splash out on things like alcohol and luxury hotels during your wait and expect to claim your money back later.
What are your rights if your flight is cancelled?
If your flight is cancelled, the airline must either give you a refund or book you on an alternative flight.
You can get your money back for all parts of a ticket you haven’t used, the CAA says.
If you have booked a return flight and the outbound leg is cancelled, for example, you can get the full cost of the return ticket back from your airline.
“If you are a transfer passenger and you have already completed part of your journey, you are also entitled to a flight back to your original departure point when your connecting flight is cancelled and you decide not to continue your journey,” it adds.
If you still want to travel, your airline must find you an alternative flight – whether it is the next available one, or a flight at an alternative, later date.
If another airline is flying significantly sooner than yours is able to offer, you may have the right to be booked onto a rival airline’s flight, but this has to be negotiated with the company.
On last-minute cancellations, Naveen Dittakavi, founder and chief executive of Next Vacay, said: “If you’re already at the airport once the flight is cancelled, the best thing you can do is stay calm – you are protected against many things that might go wrong.
“Try calling the airline helpline rather than waiting to speak directly with the airport staff. The helpline is often more flexible and may provide you with an e-credit or voucher, or flexibility to change your travel dates quickly.”
Can you get compensation?
In some cases, airlines may have to provide compensation if your flight arrives at its destination more than three hours late – but that is only if the delay is deemed to be your airline’s fault.
Disruptions caused by things deemed “extraordinary circumstances” are not eligible for compensation, according to the CAA.
Downing Street has indicated Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would be arrested if he arrived on British soil following an international arrest warrant being issued for him.
On Thursday, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Israeli defence secretary Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity related to the war in Gaza.
The UK government was reluctant to commit to saying Netanyahu would be arrested if he came to the UK but Sir Keir Starmer’s spokesman said the government would “fulfil its legal obligations” in relation to the arrest warrant.
“The UK will always comply with its legal obligations as set out by domestic law, and indeed international law,” he said.
He added the domestic process linked to ICC arrest warrants has never been used to date by the UK because the country has never been visited by anyone wanted by the international court.
Earlier on Friday, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said it “wouldn’t be appropriate for me to comment” on the processes involved as the ICC is independent, although the UK is a member.
She told Sky News: “We’ve always respected the importance of international law, but in the majority of the cases that they pursue, they don’t become part of the British legal process.
“What I can say is that obviously, the UK government’s position remains that we believe the focus should be on getting a ceasefire in Gaza.”
However, Emily Thornberry, Labour chair of the foreign affairs committee in parliament, told Sky News: “If Netanyahu comes to Britain, our obligation under the Rome Convention would be to arrest him under the warrant from the ICC.
“Not really a question of should, we are required to because we are members of the ICC.”
After winning July’s election the government said it would not oppose the ICC’s right to issue the warrants.
Netanyahu and Gallant (right) have arrest warrants against them. File pic: Reuters
Ireland, France and Italy have signalled they would arrest Netanyahu if he came to their countries.
Asked if police would arrest the Israeli leader in Ireland, Irish Taoiseach Simon Harris said: “Yes, absolutely. We support international courts and we apply their warrants.”
Germany said it would make a decision if Netanyahu came to Germany but said it is one of the “biggest supporters of the ICC”, partly as a result of history.
A German government spokesman said: “At the same time, it is a consequence of German history that we share unique relations and a great responsibility with Israel.”
An ICC arrest warrant was also issued for Hamas leader Mohammed Diab Ibrahim al Masri, the mastermind behind the 7 October attacks in Israel, for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Israel claims Al Masri was killed earlier this year but the ICC said that has not been confirmed, so it was issuing the arrest warrant.
Netanyahu’s office said the warrants against him and Gallant were “antisemitic” and said Israel “rejects with disgust the absurd and false actions”.
Neither Israel nor the US are members of the ICC. Israel has rejected the court’s jurisdiction and denies committing war crimes in Gaza.
Read more:
What satellite images tell us about North Gaza
Hamas ready for Gaza ceasefire ‘immediately’
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Why have arrest warrants been issued?
US President Joe Biden described the warrants against Israeli leaders as “outrageous”, adding: “Whatever the ICC might imply, there is no equivalence – none – between Israel and Hamas.”
Former Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett said the warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant were a “mark of shame” for the ICC.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said the ICC’s decision sent a “terrible message”.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said on Friday he would invite Netanyahu to visit Hungary and he would guarantee the arrest warrant would “not be observed”.
The ICC originally said it was seeking arrest warrants for the three men in May for the alleged crimes and on Thursday announced that it had rejected challenges by Israel and issued warrants of arrest.
In its update, the ICC said it found “reasonable grounds to believe” that Netanyahu and Gallant “bear criminal responsibility” for alleged crimes.
These, the court said, include “the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts”.
It is the first time a sitting leader of a major Western ally has been accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity by a global court of justice.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports8 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business2 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway