Kemi Badenoch: I’m Great

The Kemi Badenoch Show came to the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry today, along with significant media interest and attendance from a good number of Subpostmasters in the hearing room.

Badenoch, as leader of the Conservative Party, is a potential future Prime Minister. She was, until July this year, the Business Secretary. Badenoch had the advantage of becoming (on 7 Feb 2023) a senior minister with responsibility for the Post Office whilst the public inquiry was already up and running. That meant she knew she would be questioned on oath about every single email and pronouncement she made whilst in office. She also was aware that given the unpopularity of the Conservative administration, there was a very good chance that by the time her decisions might have begun to cause problems, she would no longer be in office.

This was, therefore, the closest thing to a free hit any politician was going to get at this Inquiry, and boy did she use it to her advantage. Quite early on in the exchanges with Jason Beer KC, Badenoch told us how desperate she and her Post Office minister Kevin Hollinrake were to get compensation to Subpostmasters.

“We had briefings on the issue with officials”, she said, “and it was quite clear to me that we were allowing bureaucracy to get in the way of much of the time. Kevin and I wanted to get the money out there, and we were always given a reason why we couldn’t.”

Badenoch says she tried everything to get redress to Subpostmasters quickly, including writing to the Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, in August 2023, to demand money to fund her ideas for minimum compensation levels for those who were part of the Bates v Post Office group litigation (GLO). Hunt replied that month, telling her:

“As you note, making fixed sum awards on the GLO would incur significant repercussive risk and cost, including to the Horizon Shortfall Scheme. Given the extent of this risk and its high likelihood of crystallisation, I would encourage you to explore the full breadth of other options to advance the ultimate objective of timely and successful delivery of full and fair compensation.”

Beer called this response a “rejection” of her proposal. Badenoch called it “initial resistance”.

Beer took us to an internal email circulated to civil servants at the Business department in which Badenoch’s Private Secretary told colleagues that her boss might provide a Ministerial Direction to give Subpostmasters applying to the GLO scheme a £100,000 flat offer of compensation:

Beer asked: “Can you explain the circumstances in which a Ministerial Direction that may be given?”

The former minister replied: “In government we have to make sure that we’re delivering value for money for the taxpayer and there are some times when an amount that’s being paid is not really value for money but there are other considerations which a minister might think make that worthwhile… The ministerial direction which I had wanted was to overrule the value for money because I was looking at a scenario where if you’re a Subpostmaster would you rather have compensation that might be £10,000 more or £10,000 less than what you would have done versus passing away and your family not getting the money, or you not getting the money. And in my view the worst risk was someone not getting money at all rather than them not getting the exact amount of money right down to the penny.”

Jason Beer KC

Badenoch admitted that a Ministerial Direction could not be made without funding from the Treasury, which at that stage had been refused. “This was also not just me trying to solve the problem,” said Badenoch “but showing willing to my officials so that they didn’t feel that they had to bear the responsibility. A Ministerial Direction is often a short way of saying, don’t worry about it, it’ll be my problem, not yours.”

Beer wondered if this exercise in “soft power” was mere “posturing”.

“It could be seen it could be seen that way”, replied Badenoch, “but I was very happy to to make the Direction, so it wasn’t just posturing but it was signalling the direction which I wanted to take and to make it very clear – and I am happy that we did this because now I can talk about it at the Inquiry – to make it very clear that we need to change the way that we do things in government.”

Quite. I suppose this is what accountability looks like. If everyone making an important decision in government knew it would be publicly and forensically examined less than two years after the event, we might get better decisions. Why can’t people just make better, quicker decisions? Badenoch thinks she knows the answer to that.

“There is an absence of common sense in a lot of Whitehall,” she told Beer, “because people are afraid to trust themselves and trust their judgments, follow principles and do the right thing. People want legal cover. They want to do things in a way that they can show a court or a lawyer that ‘well I followed the rules and I didn’t do anything wrong’, and that might work in a very simple system, but government is now too complex. The problems we’re trying to resolve are far too complex and I don’t think that works anymore. We need to simplify quite a few things.”

It’s worth noting Badenoch gave very little attention to the Post Office scandal before she became Business Secretary. This is something she shares with the current Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, whose engagement on the subject even after he became party leader has been minimal. Badenoch told the Inquiry until her appointment she knew “no more than a lay MP. I was aware that there had been an issue with the Horizon system, and I was also vaguely aware about the outcome of the court case, which was that an injustice had occurred and a lot of postmasters required redress. But the full detail of what had gone wrong with Horizon and what the postmasters had endured, I was not familiar with.”

Sacking Staunton

“She couldn’t run a bath”

Badenoch’s self-confidence seemed to wobble when it came to comments she made about officials at UK Government Investments (UKGI) whilst she was sacking the Post Office Chair, Henry Staunton, over the phone. We’ve heard the recording of the conversation at the Inquiry before. On this occasion, Jason Beer relied on the transcript and read it out to the Inquiry. We were taken back to January this year. Having been relieved of his duties, Staunton was (from memory in a rather earnest manner), telling Badenoch what she needed to do in terms of changing the Post Office culture. His first suggestion was to have a third Postmaster NED on the board, secondly start “this journey towards demutualisation”.

Then he referenced the recordings of the former Post Office Communications Director Richard Taylor in which Taylor appeared to insinuate Postmasters who had their convictions quashed were on the take. He used this alongside the letter Post Office CEO Nick Read sent to the Lord Chancellor as an example of the Post Office giving the impression it believed a significant number of now-exonerated Postmasters were “guilty as charged.”

During their call, Staunton told Badenoch: “it’s a mess… it’s got to change and we need a massive cultural shift in this organisation to do that. Most of the directors are onside [but] the UKGI director [Lorna Gratton] is not. She couldn’t run a bath, let alone a company. We’ve got a big problem there. We need to take some very tough business-like decisions in terms of culture to change it…. Lorna thinks it would just be a crusade for a female diversity. It’s not that. It goes to the heart of how we operate.”

Later on in the call, Badenoch says “I’ve noted what you said about UKGI. I do think they have been part of the problem.”

Beer wondered what problem UKGI were part of. Badenoch floundered. “I felt that my own interactions with UKGI were very limited, and I didn’t actually meet Lorna herself until the issues with Henry Staunton had come to light and we were in the process of sacking him… I was giving him the benefit of the doubt with what he had said earlier on in the conversation about issues with UKGI. If you remember, the views I have about Henry Staunton now are different from where I was at the time of this conversation… I took it in good faith that his complaints about UKGI were well meant and true from his perspective. Given everything that’s happened since then, I don’t think that his complaints about UKGI are well-founded.”
“So you were just saying ‘I think UKGI are part of the problem’ as a sop to him?” asked Beer.
“No, not so much as a sop,” replied Badenoch, “but if a Chair feels that way then UKGI should have been aware and should have made me aware as the sole shareholder, not just told Minister Hollinrake.”

Beer allowed Badenoch to finish her evidence on a soapbox. She told the Inquiry about the need for a change in the culture of public law to allow politicians to make decisions properly and take responsibility for their actions.

“If, as a minister, you make a decision,” she said “and every decision is open to challenge on the basis of judicial review, it is quite rational the civil servants will do every single thing they can to make sure that you don’t end up in jail… getting taken to court… all of those things which they do end up slowing down the process. It is just part-and-parcel of creating more accountability, that you add extra processes.”

Warming to her theme, the Tory leader said: “It is a trade-off that is baked in, it is a part of creating accountability… It means that things never happen instantly because you have to create an audit trail, you have to go through the checks and balances, you have to have more meetings, you need to consult, consultations can take months. All of those things slow down the pace. And it’s not about criticising accountability, it is about understanding where the opportunity costs are… the more government does, the bigger government gets, the more it has to do these things. The more requirements there are on the Treasury, the more likely it is that the Treasury is going to be saying no, or creating value for money arguments that mean that it’s salami slicing everything, and everybody’s just getting a little bit of what it needs rather than a big chunk to deliver and perhaps provide transformation.”

Beer waited for Badenoch to finish and said “To summarise that, it’s your view that the rule of law stands in the way of delivery of services by government to the people?”

“No, that’s not what I’m saying.” Badenoch replied. “This is not about the rule of law. This is about the burden of regulation. The burden of regulation is not the rule of law. You can have the rule of law without an excessive burden of regulation. But if you keep adding more and more rules, that will slow down. It doesn’t mean that you don’t want the rule of law, but the rule of law has a purpose and that is to create a fair system in which everybody is treated equally and where everyone can receive justice. If you keep creating more regulations and people aren’t getting justice, then something has gone wrong, and we should be able to look at that without assuming that this is a criticism of the entire system of the rule of law. It means that we should be able to look at how we can reform public law. The law is not above criticism. We should be able to say that actually this isn’t working well, what can we do to improve it? Rather than what is happening now where people say oh, it’s the rule of law, we can’t touch it, let’s not do anything and then there’s more and more injustice. We shouldn’t be afraid to challenge ourselves, we shouldn’t be afraid to challenge the system, we shouldn’t be able to be afraid to challenge government, and we shouldn’t be afraid to challenge the law if we think the law is not delivering for the people.”

Badenoch also made it quite clear that the Post Office should continue to exist as an organisation, which echoed the thoughts of the current Business Secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, who gave evidence before her.

“When the Conservatives were in government,” she told Beer, “we did believe that this is an entity that has not just operational significance, but also a cultural significance that should not be lost. How we maintain that going forwards, given how much it costs, is very difficult. We subsidise this organisation. How do we do so in a way that can keep it going, that can refresh it for the 21st century? It is a labour of love.”

A labour Badenoch seems to believe has virtue. “I think it is a cultural institution that’s absolutely essential for us to keep, and I support it wholeheartedly.”

At the end of his appointed time, Beer had a little dig.
“Ms Badenoch, those are my questions…” he started.
“Thank you!” she replied, quickly.
“… thank you very much for answering some of them,” he finished, leaving her looking a little foolish.

I’m sure she will cope.


The journalism on this blog is crowdfunded. If you would like to join the “secret email” newsletter, please consider making a one-off donation. The money is used to keep the contents of this website free. You will receive irregular, but informative email updates about the Post Office Horizon IT scandal.

28 responses to “Kemi Badenoch: I’m Great”

  1. Watched the whole session with Badenoch. She portrays herself as a grafter and a do-er. To be honest she wasn’t in post long enough to effect any change but at least she got rid of Mr Staunton who seems to be a proven liar. Felt that Mr Beer KC caught her out on who sets PO policy – she thought it was some part of government and predated her appointment and that things were decided long ago. Not correct – as Post Office decide there own policy with regards to day to day matters not civil servants ! Again showing her lack of knowledge there. Also news that all 115 Crown Post Offices to close or move into retailers as they are no longer viable according to BBC News 12/11/24. If Ministers claim the Post Office is of such national importance and part of the fabric of society … time to put your money where your mouth is Im afraid ….

  2. Anyone with an interest in the state of British journalism should read Tim Stanley’s take on this in the Telegraph. It’s a very unpleasant anti-woke piece about the Inquiry and in particular about Sir Wyn. It’s a long time since I read such third-rate drivel. To me the whole process has been exemplary.

    1. Kemi has friends in the right wing media due to her time at The Spectator when she was a protégé of their chairman, that windbag Andrew O’Neil. Understandably they’ve gone to bat for her as they know the problems with the compensation she allegedly helped cause are a point of attack.

  3. Mary in Southern California avatar
    Mary in Southern California

    Great again, Nick.
    Ms. Badenoch added to the list of “who to blame.” Really, someone should do a sit-com or musical on all the people/organizations blamed by POL and government people so they can escape any consequences. Then at the conclusion they can all take a group curtain call and the audience can pelt them with rotten fruit.
    She showed no empathy whatever, not even a token apology (without accepting any responsibility), as some of the others have, or shedding any Paula Vennells crocodile tears.
    Nick, I hope you do an analysis of what is being presented today (Tuesday), as I just heard some amazing criticism, implied, of POL behavior.
    Finally, what of Patterson yesterday? He walked back earlier promises, and showed no empathy at all with the three young people, from Lost Chances. Astonishing for me, as retired senior staff at one of the biggest museums in the U.S., is that he said he/Fujitsu wants to help but they don’t know how? Seriously!!? Go find most anyone from a non-profit and they will show you exactly what to do and how to set it up. Sheesh!

  4. “every new incoming PM can redecorate No. 10 to their taste – is that value for money? (Given we’re on our seventh PM since 2007, it’s doubtful.)” A bit harsh, Truss hardly made a start on the spare bedroom!

  5. As soon as they start waving their hands about, you know that they are talking a whole load of rubbish!!

  6. Utter waffle-meister tosh!
    To quote Alan Partridge “that was just a noise”
    Bottom line – she knew the tories were toast next GE & made the decision to shelve Horizon redress & allow their successors to take on responsibility
    Worse than that – we’ve since been made aware there was no actual provision made for the funding
    Convenient further salting of the earth for the incoming Labour party

    1. Hi Phil,

      Do you have a source on the no provision made for funding please?
      Thanks
      Carl

  7. This was the first time in the entire inquiry that I felt Beer made a mistake, when he made that dig at Badenoch at the end of her session by saying “Thanks for answering some of my questions”. Just thought it was unnecessary. She seemed to make a good attempt to answer all the questions as far as I could see.

    1. a good attempt in terms of self praise and attempting to ensure she looked relatively innocent.

      1. She has been one of the few representatives of the public sector to talk honestly about the problems of trying to run the public sector.

  8. It’s interesting this consideration in Govt decisions of ensuring “value for money” on behalf of tax-payers, isn’t it? On the one hand, every new incoming PM can redecorate No. 10 to their taste – is that value for money? (Given we’re on our seventh PM since 2007, it’s doubtful.) POL’s General Counsel, Ben Foat, can take a “step back” from his job for a year and spend £700,000 on legal advice to prepare for his HALF DAY evidence to the Inquiry last month – is that value for money? (Of course, POL might argue that that’s THEIR money, but it’s given to them by their sole shareholder -the Govt – which comes from ….. yup, the tax-payer.) Badenoch and Reynolds say that POL has cultural significance for the UK and so should be propped up (sorry, supported) by Govt, but is it value for money for tax-payers to be funding a failing business (and paying their Executive Board salaries that mere mortals can only dream of)? POL has spent – and continues to do so – vast sums of money on lawyers to circumvent their responsibility to wronged SPMs – is that value for money? Why is it that all these activities are deemed to be value for money, yet repaying and compensating horrendously wronged UK citizens – victims of various scandals (infected blood, Hillsborough, Grenfell, and Horizon) – are considered to be something that every bean counter in Govt, Whitehall and POL should be spending their (paid) time to do just that; counting beans?
    I agreed with just one thing Badenoch said today: Govt needs to change. It is meant to represent us and work for us and yet we couldn’t have had clearer illustrations throughout the Inquiry the huge amount of money they waste and that the overwhelming majority of “higher ups” involved in this scandal have only ever looked out for themselves. I can’t be the only (wo)man on the street who’s utterly sick of it and them.

    1. KayFJ, you’re not – me too.

    2. Don’t get me started on value for money – that is just a smokescreen and you have provided plenty of viable examples of this above.

    3. “every new incoming PM can redecorate No. 10 to their taste – is that value for money? (Given we’re on our seventh PM since 2007, it’s doubtful.)” Truss hardly made a start on the spare bedroom! Before…….

  9. Blimey Nick… feels a bit harsh. I didn’t see the evidence so only have your reporting to go on, but from what she actually says she seems to me to have had a fair stab at (a) doing something positive to help and (b) providing some reasonable suggestions as to how things might be improved in future. Is that so bad?

    1. I’m afraid I didn’t see it that way. the argument that they needed to be seen doing something rather than actually doing something is very weak – analogous to it’s okay to do something wrong as long as you don’t get caught out.

  10. Rather than making Badenoch look foolish, I thought it made Beer look petty.

    1. Agreed.

  11. Interesting how the normally tetchie Ms BadEnoch did not tell anyone off for mispronouncing her name as she did during her COVID Inquiry appearance. Not did she seem her usual combative self. Her demeanor and body language throughout her “testimony” smacked of I’m saying this but I don’t mean it. Also felt she got off with selling herself too much – Super Kemi – sorting out the situation like the Incredibles. something did not add up in the whole performance as Mr Beer wryly noted at the end.

  12. It’s clear that Badenoch’s hands were pretty full with other issues and that it was for Hollinrake to make the running and to come to her only when extra pressure was needed. But it seems she made little progress when attempting to apply that pressure. And she hardly gave the impression that achieving justice for the Subpostmasters was a personal priority.

    She presents herself as a doer, but her speech is actually quite florid. The written witness statement resembles a word salad with a few business buzzwords thrown in. There are the customary coded criticisms of the civil service and the call for solutions, but without any clue as to what those solutions might be.

    I do not hold a candle for any political party. But if I were a member of the Conservative Party, I would be troubled. I did not see someone today with the gravitas I would expect of a Leader of the Opposition. I would be most surprised if Ms Badenoch is still Leader of the Opposition at the next General Election.

  13. Interested Observer avatar
    Interested Observer

    “Thank you very much for answering some of them,” he finished, leaving her looking a little foolish.

    To which the classic Sir Humphrey reply would have been – slightly paraphrased….

    “I’m glad you though that I had answered some of them, Mr Beer”

  14. An excellent summary of her evidence today…
    As an ex Conservative voter I cannot believe that the party voted her in…!
    Absolute nonsense and spin today as she and her predecessors achieved nothing throughout…
    No wonder it’s a complete mess with all the bureaucracy and zero accountability costing the taxpayer billions..

    1. Alas, the more Ms. Badenoch spoke, the more I thought I was watching a Party Political broadcast on behalf of Reform.

      Is that really the Leader of the opposition?

  15. A cultural institution? A labour of love? The PO round here is a till in a Hardware Shop and another in a Co-Op! Plus a self-service machine.

    These people need to get real.

    1. absolutely!! 😀

    2. Quite.
      The waves of sub-Post Office closures since the 1990’s have ensured it lost its cultural significance and relevance.
      Closing Crown Post Office buildings and moving the function to the back of the nearest WHSmith finished off the job.

      Now, the remains of the network is propped up not only by the state but also, in many cases, by the profits of the business in which the branch is located. Even when the Horizon accounting system hasn’t got its hand in the till.

      1. Interested Observer avatar
        Interested Observer

        I’m afraid I don’t buy the cultural significance of Post Office anymore.

        It is just an increasingly irrelevant means of processing transactions many of which have defaulted to other means of processing.

        Trying to patch this over by giving PO responsibility for cash handling is about the worst joke possible given the history.

        Since PO separated from RM there are many better parcels service offerings.

        I’m afraid the whole thing feels like propping up a very decrepit and not much loved facade with enormous sums of taxpayers money.

        One of the most disgraceful things to come out at the enquiry was that PO’s accounting at corporate level never reconciled at all. So nobody knows to the nearest £10m (or maybe £100m) or so how badly PO ‘s books were out.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Archives

  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021


Subscribe For Latest Blog Updates

Tags

Alan Bates alice perkins Alwen Lyons Andy Dunks Andy Parsons angela van den bogerd Bates v Post Office BBC Bonusgate CCRC Chris Aujard Clarke Advice False Accounts Fujitsu Gareth Jenkins Grabiner HCAB Horizon Hugh Flemington Ian Henderson Inquiry Interim Report Janet Skinner Jarnail Singh Kevin Hollinrake Lee Castleton Lord Arbuthnot Mark Davies Nicki Arch Nick Read Noel Thomas Paula Vennells Paul Marshall Post Office Receipts and Payments mismatch bug Rob Wilson Rod Ismay Rodric Williams Second Sight Seema Misra ShEx Simon Clarke Susan Crichton Tracy Felstead UKGI

Categories