Former Post Office chairman was racist and sexist, report finds

Henry Staunton, the former Post Office chairman, asked whether another female candidate would be a ‘pain in the arse’ – Toby Melville/REUTERS

The former chairman of the Post Office was racist and sexist, an independent report has found, as a government source suggested it explained why he was so upset to be sacked by Kemi Badenoch.

Henry Staunton was dismissed by the Business Secretary in January, and later went on to claim she had told him he had to go because someone had to take the blame for the sub-postmaster scandal.

An investigation into bullying at the organisation has found that during his brief tenure as chairman, Mr Staunton had made “discriminatory remarks” on the grounds of race and sex.

The report, seen by The Telegraph, revealed that during the recruitment process for a board member, he said: “She doesn’t look coloured, where does she come from?”

He described younger women as “girls” and older women as “ladies” and, in an attempt at humour, asked whether another female candidate would be a “pain in the arse”.

Mr Staunton said his comments had been taken out of context.

Kemi Badenoch, the Business Secretary, became involved in a row with Mr Staunton over his claims about compensation payments to Horizon scandal victims – UNPIXS

The external report, undertaken by an employment barrister at Devereux Chambers, found his remarks were “discriminatory on the grounds of race and gender”. It concluded: “Discriminatory jokes or banter can still amount to unacceptable behaviour.”

The investigation followed allegations of “potential wrongdoing, bullying and sexist behaviour” made by Jane Davies, a former chief people officer at the Post Office, against chief executive Nick Read and “to a lesser extent” against Mr Staunton.

The investigation exonerated Mr Read but upheld allegations against Mr Staunton and expressed concern about his “reliability and integrity”.

Last night, a government source said: “Reading the barrister’s report, it suddenly makes sense why Henry Staunton reacted so badly to being fired by a black, female business secretary.”

A row broke out between Mrs Badenoch and Mr Staunton after he told a Sunday newspaper that the Government had wanted to stall compensation payments for Horizon victims ahead of the next election.

More than 900 sub-postmasters and mistresses were wrongfully prosecuted as a result of the Horizon scandal – which saw the Post Office blame them for fictional shortfalls produced by faulty software.

Postmasters celebrate outside the High Court after their convictions were quashed – Mark Thomas/Alamy

He also claimed when he was sacked that Mrs Badenoch told him “someone’s got to take the rap” for the scandal.

She then branded Mr Staunton’s interview as being “full of lies”. He later told MPs he had been the victim of a smear campaign.

In the report, the barrister did not uphold allegations that Mr Read had been guilty of bullying and threatening to resign several times as he attempted to secure a big pay rise, although it concluded that “some self-reflection on his approach towards certain issues such as his pay may be welcome”.

However it went on: “I have upheld Allegation 2.7 concerning Mr Staunton’s conduct, namely that he made discriminatory remarks during a recruitment process.

“The behaviour demonstrated by Mr Staunton during this investigation, and to an extent by Ms Davies, has given me cause for concern about the reliability and integrity of their evidence, particularly the revised accounts they provided to me following Mr Staunton’s removal as chair.”

The report revealed that during a meeting on Jan 25 2023 to discuss candidates for a non-executive director role, Mr Staunton said words to the effect of “she doesn’t look coloured, where does she come from?”.

He also called younger female candidates “girls” and older female candidates “ladies”; and questioned whether a particular for the role would be a “pain in the arse”.

“When asked about this remark, he stated that a CEO he had worked with at a different organisation did not want to employ women because they were ‘pains in the arse’,” the report said.

“Mr Staunton’s remarks were discriminatory on grounds of race and sex, and therefore not in accordance with Dignity at Work policy. The remarks go well beyond his characterisation of them as potentially ‘politically incorrect’ statements.”

The barrister concluded: “The use of the word ‘coloured’ is offensive and outdated. Questions regarding an individual’s origins, particularly during a recruitment process, are inappropriate.

“I consider it unlikely Mr Staunton would have questioned the origin of a candidate with a British sounding name. Whilst his desire to increase diversity at board level was no doubt genuine and to be welcomed, his approach fell far short of acceptable standards.”

‘Girls and ladies’

The report went on: “As to describing younger-looking women as ‘girls’ and older-looking women as ‘ladies’, I consider it unlikely Mr Staunton would have referred to male candidates as ‘boys’ or ‘gentlemen’.

“I recognise that it is not uncommon for women to be referred to as ‘girls’ and/or ‘ladies’ in the workplace, but it can be viewed by many as infantilising or patronising. I find, however, that Mr Staunton intended no offence by using such terms.

“As to the remarks made questioning whether a female candidate would be a ‘pain in the arse’, I do not consider Mr Staunton would have posed such a question in respect of a male candidate.

“I accept that Mr Staunton may have made this remark and shared the story in respect of the CEO at a different organisation in an attempt at humour. Nevertheless, discriminatory jokes or banter can still amount to unacceptable behaviour.”

The report suggested that future chairs and non-executive directors should be given equality, diversity and inclusion training.

Staunton ‘unwilling to co-operate’

It also suggested that Mr Staunton had not been willing to co-operate with the inquiry into his conduct.

“I was also concerned by remarks made by Mr Staunton in respect of his outdated view of the Speak Up process and investigations (the latter of which he said, notably, were a ‘cancer’ in the organisation), and the impact such views can have on workplace culture,” the barrister said.

“It was very troubling that those remarks were made by the (then) chair of an organisation that is grappling with the most serious of institutional failings.

“In looking for a new chair, it should be a key consideration for Post Office Ltd and the Department for Business and Trade to assess whether prospective candidates have good experience of helping to foster a workplace culture in which any concerns relating to eg EDI [equality, diversity and inclusion], discrimination or whistleblowing can be raised openly without fear of intimidation or retribution.”

In a response, Mr Staunton said: “I have not been shown the report, so I cannot comment on the findings themselves” but added that his remarks, which were “never the subject of a complaint” had been taken “completely out of context”.

The former Post Office chair said his comments about “girls” being “pains in the arses” were made while quoting a woman in a senior management role whom he had had a previous conversation with while he was chair of another organisation.

Challenging the mistrust of postmasters

He added: “Similarly, the question I posed about the ethnicity of a candidate was seeking clarification in the context of our efforts to increase diversity.

“I understand that the term I used has now fallen out of favour and is one I will not use again.”

Mr Staunton went on to say that his “fate was sealed from the moment” he started “having doubts about [his] previous support for Nick Read and began challenging the deep-seated mistrust of the postmasters which still pervades the senior echelons of the Post Office”.

He added: “I leave it to others to decide to what extent the Post Office’s investigation can be judged to be truly independent, but from my perspective, there are serious questions about the way the investigation has been conducted, and, if the findings are as reported, not ones I can accept.”

Sign up to the Front Page newsletter for free: Your essential guide to the day’s agenda from The Telegraph – direct to your inbox seven days a week.