Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-99)
MR DAVID
GREEN QC
21 MAY 2008
Q80 Nigel Griffiths: You have given
certain corrective statements such as the job was well done, it
was cost-effective, so I am just wondering what in the scale of
horrors this is and was it one of a lack of propriety and information
or was it something closer to corruption?
Mr Green: Certainly there was
no corruption. I can tell you we had an independent disciplinary
investigation and an independent disciplinary tribunal as it were
by a retired senior civil servant, as you have read, and she specifically
acquitted Mr Partridge of any suggestion of dishonesty. It is
very important to say that.
Q81 Nigel Griffiths: Let me move
to Butterfield J's 2003 review. I am concerned that a proper internal
audit was not established until three years later, perhaps two
years after you discovered all this.
Mr Green: Our internal audit capability
was established in June 2006. We took on HMRC as our internal
auditors.
Q82 Nigel Griffiths: It says July
but I am not going to quibble about that.
Mr Green: I am sorry, I think
it was June.
Q83 Nigel Griffiths: Why did it require
that length of time, what was happening in 2004 and 2005?
Mr Green: I did not come into
office until December 2004. Perhaps I can explain, by the end
of January I realised I needed some help on the corporate side
and I had someone who was seconded from the Home Office. She gradually
put in place rudimentary procedures.
Q84 Nigel Griffiths: Perhaps I could
ask the Treasury as to why they put up with non-rudimentary procedures
and then rudimentary procedures? Why did the Treasury not have
a good look at this?
Ms Diggle: First of all we do
not scrutinise the absolute details of every single department,
we expect Accounting Officers to take a reasonable view of what
needs to be done and as far as I can make out Mr Green was doing
that, he was setting in place processes and it takes time to get
them right.
Q85 Nigel Griffiths: I am not criticising
Mr Green but I am critical of whoever was there in 2004-05 and
then until June or July 2006, why the Treasury let them away with
it.
Ms Diggle: We do not scrutinise
in great detail precisely what every single department has by
way of officers and processes, we expect Accounting Officers to
organise themselves so as to deliver the principles that are set
down in the guidance that we have. At that time it was called
Government Accounting and I am sure that Mr Green was in
the process of doing that; it does take time.
Q86 Nigel Griffiths: If you will
excuse the vernacular that must mean that a heck of a lot of money
is slipping through your and government's fingers because of that
lack of scrutiny. Why does not the Treasury focus on making sure
some of that money is better spent?
Ms Diggle: I do not believe that
does happen in fact because Accounting Officers generally do have
all the processes in place, they take all the steps necessary,
but when you set up a new organisation it always takes time to
get all the processes in place, especially when you do not get
the staff in the right mix that you need at the very beginning.
That as far as I can see is what happened here.
Mr Green: Mr Griffiths, having
just checked my notes it was 1 June 2006 that HMRC were appointed
our internal auditors, but just going back if I may to the point
you were making to Ms Diggle just now, I really cannot emphasise
enough the importance of the priority I mentioned to the Chairman
right at the beginning. We started off on the floor; we had a
completely demoralised staff—
Q87 Nigel Griffiths: I was impressed
by that, you do not have to repeat it.
Mr Green: You are very kind. We
now have an organisation which works on a 92% conviction rate.
Q88 Nigel Griffiths: You got that
in.
Mr Green: There is more as well.
Q89 Nigel Griffiths: If I then turn
to my third and final point, that is how you are securing compliance
with your requirement now of the end of month estimates being
submitted, counsel fees being submitted. The report says that
this stands at 85% compliance.
Mr Green: Yes.
Q90 Nigel Griffiths: What is the
penalty for non-compliance?
Mr Green: The penalty within the
office is that any persistent offender will feel the edge of my
wrath and certainly any barrister who is late in submitting fee
notes, I personally have arranged for them to know that I am displeased.
Q91 Nigel Griffiths: What, would
you do this over a drink in your club or what?
Mr Green: Certainly not.
Q92 Nigel Griffiths: In terms of
the 85% figure have you got a target?
Mr Green: The target is always
going to be 100% but in any human-run system it is never going
to be perfect. We are getting there and one has to keep bashing
away with the same message that bills are required every month
and that our prosecutors have to negotiate the hours to be done
by counsel the following month.
Q93 Nigel Griffiths: I am not as
sympathetic as I sound. It seems to me that in this day and age
professional people should be able to comply with when they submit
their fee notes even though they come from a history of that being
a lot looser. If there is a requirement to do that then I am interested
to know what sanctions there are if they do not. You have mentioned
your displeasure and I would not like to incur your displeasure
at any stage.
Mr Green: Ultimately, as I said,
if someone is a serial offender on this, however good they are
we will stop using them, but I have not come across that yet.
Q94 Mr Davidson: Can I start by apologising
for being slightly late, I was at another select committee, but
I wonder if I could just come back to this question of the fee
notes coming in late which I quite frankly find astonishing. How
can people manage to survive being out, as it were, £991,000
for three years or so? They must have a fair amount of money;
they might almost have forgotten to put it in.
Mr Green: Presumably, Mr Davidson,
after that case was completed that counsel went on and did other
work and he had money coming in from cases before then. The Bar
has always worked like that unfortunately; I never liked it.
Q95 Mr Davidson: You always put your
bills in right away did you?
Mr Green: I did, yes, and I always
asked for payment; I did not always get it on time.
Q96 Mr Davidson: At least you did
your bit then. The point arising from that is the point that one
of my colleagues might have mentioned but I want to pursue it
a bit, the challenging. If something is several years late how
can you have any meaningful challenge to it in those circumstances?
Mr Green: I absolutely agree
and that is why I changed the system.
Q97 Mr Davidson: I know that, so
what happened, you did not have challenges in the past then.
Mr Green: In the past what one
had was a pretty effective though rather crude challenge function
which was, as I say, pretty experienced members of staff looking
at a fee note received from counsel and saying that seems a bit
excessive.
Q98 Mr Davidson: What, hmm, hmm?
Mr Green: Frankly, yes, it was
very much like that and there was toing and froing and negotiation.
Q99 Chairman: How that is going to
appear in the record, I do not know, with Mr Davidson going hmm
hmm.
Mr Green: This goes on throughout
the Temple; clerks negotiate with instructing solicitors on private
cases and they used to do so certainly with our work.
| 
