Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
MR DAVID
GREEN QC
21 MAY 2008
Q20 Mr Bacon: Was there just no work
if it was October when the contract was originally let—presumably
during April, May and June 2006 there was no work, or was there?
Mr Green: Over that period she
continued to work and, at that time, I was actively discussing
the way forward for her with our non-executive directors and as
a result of talking to them we designed a new process whereby
the then temporary head of HR would take charge of the selection
process. She looked at four CVs for what remained of the task
and further tasks that needed to be done, and she reported to
me and, having considered those CVs, she recommended to me that
we further appoint Mrs Partridge for a period of three months.
Q21 Mr Bacon: So that would be the
July 2006 contract extension.
Mr Green: Exactly, yes.
Q22 Mr Bacon: When it says in the
accounts she was paid £27,000 excluding VAT, or it was restated
in the 2006-07 accounts as £32,000, there was a further £65,271—this
is in paragraph 18, page 35 of the 2006-07 accounts. When was
that £65,000 earned?
Mr Green: That was earned in the
financial year 2006-07.
Q23 Mr Bacon: Yes, but when?
Mr Green: That would have been—
Q24 Mr Bacon: From July 2006 onwards
or what?
Mr Green: That would have been
some of the first contract.
Q25 Mr Bacon: It was some of the
first contract.
Mr Green: Yes.
Q26 Mr Bacon: The contract did spill
over into 2006-07.
Mr Green: It did spill over, for
the reason that she had not completed her task and, indeed, the
policies that she was adapting—there were quite a few of
them as I am sure you can appreciate—she did not finish
those until at least after the start of the second contract.
Q27 Mr Bacon: And once again the
contract extension was with the approval of the Accounting Officer,
with your approval.
Mr Green: Yes, but obviously I
would hope you would accept that a more independent process was
adopted in that Mr Partridge was out of it.
Q28 Mr Bacon: It just seems a bit
rum that the Chief Operating Officer should be appointed in September
and almost his first act was to appoint his wife to what turned
to be £100,000 worth of consultancy work.
Mr Green: Yes.
Q29 Mr Bacon: And it was done with
your approval.
Mr Green: Yes.
Q30 Mr Bacon: And your knowledge.
Mr Green: Yes.
Q31 Mr Partridge was in the end sacked
for gross misconduct, was he not?
Mr Green: Yes.
Q32 Mr Bacon: The reason for that
was because you did not know that he was the company secretary
of the entity to which monies were paid.
Mr Green: That is right.
Q33 Mr Bacon: The fact that he was
paying his wife the money was not as it were "the problem"
it was the fact that he had the company secretaryship of the corporate
entity, the incorporated company to which the monies were being
paid that was the problem.
Mr Green: I think you would agree,
Mr Bacon, that that made the propriety aspect—
Q34 Mr Bacon: Even worse.
Mr Green: Very, very difficult
indeed and it was something that he had withheld from me, which
I regarded as serious, which is why I suspended him in February.
Q35 Mr Bacon: Why did not some basic
due diligence throw that up? Obviously you knew the money was
being paid to an entity rather than to an individual, Mr Partridge.
Mr Green: Yes.
Q36 Mr Bacon: Would not the most
basic bit of due diligence about that company, and indeed a search
of Companies House, have revealed who the officers of the company
were?
Mr Green: The problem was this,
that when she started she was a sole trader. The company was actually
incorporated, UK People Business Limited, in February, on 27 February
2006. He actually became company secretary in October 2006 but
retrospective to February. He became company secretary certainly
during the currency of the second contract.
Q37 Mr Bacon: Quite late on, a year
after he started as Chief Operating Officer he became company
secretary.
Mr Green: That is right, but it
became apparent from the investigation that the possibility of
him becoming company secretary had been at least mooted in January
2006; it had not been mentioned when the contract was renewed
in the summer of 2006, nor had it been mentioned when he had actually
taken up and signed the forms in October.
Q38 Mr Bacon: I can see that as a
point of form the propriety issue is very stark, it is clear that
he has become an executive, but as a point of substance there
was just as big a problem beforehand, he hired his wife to do
all this work.
Mr Green: For the reasons I gave
I absolutely agree it should not have happened and the process
was imperfect, but this was value for money, she did a good job.
Q39 Mr Bacon: Can you just remind
us which set of chambers you were in before you—
Mr Green: 18 Red Lion Court.
| 
