Saturday, 24 March 2018

CONCERNS ABOUT BLATANT DISHONESTY BY MR PAUL LEWIS, THE INTERIM CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE


Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

07501 346 490

24 March 2018

 

 

 

Mr Paul Lewis

Interim Chief Executive

Scottish Enterprise

Atrium Court

50 Waterloo Street

GLASGOW G2 6HQ

 

 

 

Dear Mr Lewis,

 

I refer to your email dated 22 March 2018.

This letter is based upon the following statement in your email, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

If you consider that your request for your personal data has not been handled appropriately, please get back in touch with us outlining your concerns.  

I have reproduced your email below, reproduced in italics for convenience, with my concerns detailed in footnotes:

To


22 Mar at 10:39 AM


 

Further to your letter of 11 February 2018, requesting a review of our decision notified to you on 9 February 2018, I confirm that a further search of our files was undertaken and, other than the correspondence released to you with our response, we hold no further correspondence within scope of your request. [1]  Given the passage of time, it is possible that some earlier correspondence with you has been destroyed in line with SE’s retention policy.  [2]

 

However, it is evident from the letter that you subsequently sent to us from Ray MacFarlane (14 Oct 1994) that your complaint was investigated and dealt with at that time and the matter considered to be closed. [3]  Furthermore, the matter was also investigated by other authorities, such as Audit Scotland  [4], and Police Scotland. [5] 

 

Your correspondence about this matter has spanned many years [6] and you have previously been advised that Scottish Enterprise will not continue to enter into communication with you in relation to your complaint [7]  which has clearly been dealt with. [8] Therefore, I do not consider that there is any merit in expending resources into further reviewing your complaint. [9]

 

Your Rights under DPA

 

If you consider that your request for your personal data has not been handled appropriately, please get back in touch with us outlining your concerns. [10]  

 

If you are still not satisfied you can contact the Information Commissioner who is responsible for administering the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 for the UK.    The contact details are below:

 

Customer Contact
Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
SK9 5AF
casework@ico.org.uk
Tel:  0303 123 1113

 

Or the Scottish Regional Office:

Information Commissioner's Office
45 Melville Street
Edinburgh
EH3 7HL
Tel: 0303 123 1115
Email: 
scotland@ico.org.uk

Yours sincerely

Paul Lewis

Interim Chief Executive

 

Separately, if you persist in misrepresenting the facts I may submit a formal complaint against you personally for dishonesty.

 

Yours sincerely,

Eddie Cairns 



[1]     The following important points, reproduced here in italics for convenience, were contained in my letter to you dated 12 February 2018:
 
With regard to my subject access request dated 6 February 2018, I submitted information and evidence to Scottish Enterprise in respect of alleged new evidence of financial irregularities arising since the completion of the last review of this case by Police Scotland on 31 May 2016 as detailed below.
 
The subject access disclosures requested on 6 February 2018 will include these documents, even although they were sent to Scottish Enterprise by me, and any related documents held by Scottish Enterprise.
 
I am concerned that you have disregarded your obligations under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 by failing to disclose any of these documents.
 
 
[2]     Firstly, I provided evidence to you on 11 February 2018 that Scottish Enterprise had decided not to destroy any documents in this case, as notified to the Information Commissioner by Ms Karen Hannah on 9 January 2017 and recorded by the Information Commissioner in the following terms, reproduced here in italics for convenience:
 
She explained that the history of the issue meant that SE could not dispose of the records as it needed to be able to handle any further complaints or communications about matters involving Mr Cairns – which has a long history. We agreed that the ongoing persistence of Mr Cairns demonstrates why the correspondence still needs to be held and there is therefore no reason to delete the information.
Secondly, Scottish Enterprise sent copies of documents dating from 17 August 1993 in this case to Police Scotland on 15 April 2016 and disclosed some of those documents to me on 7 July 2016.
 
You have unreasonably and unlawfully disregarded all this evidence by suggesting that important documents may already have been destroyed.
 
I am concerned that you have disregarded your obligations under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 by processing and communicating damaging inaccuracies about me.
 
[3]     The following statements in Ray MacFarlane’s letter to me dated 14 October 1994, reproduced here in italics for convenience, merit careful consideration:
 
Thank you for your letter of 4 October 1994 to Crawford Beveridge seeking comments on your departure from your contract post at Enterprise Ayrshire (EA). As Mr Beveridge is on leave at present, I have been asked to respond on his behalf.
I am confident that the officers in EA have dealt with this case in an extremely professional manner. I realise that this will be a disappointing response for you, but have to inform you that, so far as Scottish Enterprise is concerned, the matter is now closed.
Ray MacFarlane confirms that my request for information on 4 October 1994 was to Scottish Enterprise, not to Enterprise Ayrshire. However, the response only refers to the actions of officers in Enterprise Ayrshire. There is no reference at all to any complaints or review process having been carried out by Scottish Enterprise yet Scottish Enterprise unreasonably considered the matter closed.
 
Consequently, your assertion that it is evident that my complaint was investigated and dealt with at that time is contradicted by the available evidence.
 
In reality Scottish Enterprise never processed my original concerns detailed in my email dated 17 August 1993 as a complaint.
 
And the report produced by Scottish Enterprise on 20 August 1993 and sent to Police Scotland at that time and again on 15 April 2016 was clearly defective, having concealed material evidence, as detailed in my previous correspondence. 
 
In any event the Scottish Enterprise report dated 20 August 1993 was not sent to me by Scottish Enterprise until 7 July 2016 therefore it cannot be regarded as having been a response to my original complaint.    
 
I am concerned that you have disregarded your obligations under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 by processing and communicating damaging inaccuracies about me.
 
 
     
[4]     I provided evidence to you of Audit Scotland’s position. That evidence clearly included Audit Scotland’s conclusion that Scottish Enterprise’s responses in this case had been disingenuous. In addition, that evidence recorded that Audit Scotland did not want to get drawn in if I was seeking recompense for my dismissal.
 
In my letter to you dated 21 December 2017 I detailed that evidence and provided a copy of Audit Scotland’s Notes on this case dated 20 August 2004 which included the following statements, reproduced here in italics for convenience:
 
Mr Cairns is correct in his view that the ERDF monies should have been included in the EA June Management Accounts and it looks as though they might have been omitted from the July accounts but for his actions ....................... Speculation on why the monies were not disclosed in the management accounts is academic at this stage but it does seem odd that he was allegedly instructed to exclude them from the July accounts.
Responses to Mr Cairns (sic) complaints from Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Office Ministers dismiss the omission of the receipts as a technical accounting matter. That is disingenuous. Mr Cairns (sic) issue is about the deliberate misstatement of management accounts; there are governance issues here ................ The Board of EA were receiving these management accounts as was Scottish Enterprise, the principal funders. I see no reason why the ERDF monies should not have been shown in the first management accounts after their receipt. Scottish Enterprise should have been concerned that Mr Cairns was allegedly instructed to exclude them.
 
.............. If Mr Cairns is seeking recompense for his dismissal we should not get drawn in.
 
Your suggestion that Audit Scotland investigated this case properly and supported Scottish Enterprise’s position is simply another blatant inaccuracy.
 
I am concerned that you have disregarded your obligations under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 by processing and communicating damaging inaccuracies about me.
 
    
[5]     Firstly, available evidence, including important evidence arising in the last three years, proves that the police did not investigate this case in 1993. The report that was submitted to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal’s Office in 1993 was the Scottish Enterprise report dated 20 August 1993, already shown to be seriously defective in previous correspondence.
 
Secondly, Scottish Enterprise copied that same defective report to Police Scotland on 15 April 2016 along with incompatible documentary evidence further undermining the veracity of that report.
 
Since overwhelming documentary evidence now available shows that Scottish Enterprise misled the police in 1993 and again in 2016 your suggestion that Police Scotland investigated this case properly is absolutely false.
 
I am concerned that you have disregarded your obligations under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 by processing and communicating damaging inaccuracies about me.
 
[6]     The reason my correspondence about this matter has spanned many years is that Scottish Enterprise have been persistently uncooperative and evasive. This is a very grave situation in the context of alleged financial irregularities in a public agency that have yet to be properly addressed. 
 
I am concerned that you have disregarded your obligations under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 by processing and communicating damaging inaccuracies about me.
 
 
[7]     I already presented to you and detailed in my letter dated 21 December 2017 the following statements from Scottish Enterprise’s letter to Ms Patricia Ferguson MSP dated 30 May 2012, reproduced here in italics for convenience:
 
Mr Cairns continued to revisit this matter with Scottish Enterprise ..........and in 2011 I had reluctantly to inform him that unless he had new evidence, Scottish Enterprise would not continue to correspond with him on this matter .....
 
Important new evidence did arise thereafter but Scottish Enterprise culpably disregarded it.  
 
I am concerned that you have disregarded your obligations under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 by processing and communicating damaging inaccuracies about me.
 
 
[8]     My complaint has never been dealt with.
 
I am concerned that you have disregarded your obligations under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 by processing and communicating damaging inaccuracies about me.
 
 
[9]     Scottish Enterprise have never investigated my complaint therefore in reality Scottish Enterprise have expended no resources in processing my complaint.
 
Your pretence that Scottish Enterprise did so is a disgraceful falsehood which will be a matter of serious concern to the general public in due course.
 
I will be publishing this letter on my blog which has been viewed 50,000 times to date.
 
I am concerned that you have disregarded your obligations under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 by processing and communicating damaging inaccuracies about me.
 
 
[10]     My concerns are listed in this letter.
 
 

Monday, 12 February 2018

WARNING TO MR PAUL LEWIS, INTERIM SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, OF POTENTIALLY DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES OF COMMUNICATING FALSE INFORMATION KNOWINGLY


Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

 11 February 2018

 

 

Mr Paul Lewis

Interim Chief Executive

Scottish Enterprise

Atrium Court

50 Waterloo Street

Glasgow G2 6HQ

 


 

 

Dear Mr Lewis,

Yesterday I commented on Ms Hannah’s response on your behalf to my subject access request dated 21 December 2017 in the following terms, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

 

To


Today at 10:25

Dear Ms Hannah,

Thank you for your email. All the attachments are irrelevant.

You have confirmed that you do not have a copy of a response to my original complaint. In addition, your email confirms that you do not have copies of the outcomes of any reviews of a response to my original complaint.

The absence of these documents could be as a result of Scottish Enterprise having disposed of them or as a result of no response ever having been produced and no outcomes of any reviews ever having been produced.

Which of these main possibilities do you hold to be a true statement of the facts?

Available evidence proves the second main possibility to be a true statement of the facts on this issue.

I have a copy of the Information Commissioner's Mr Benedict Elliott's Note from January 2017 in which he records that you argued that no documents should be disposed of in this case. He does not record any statement from you that documents had already been disposed of.

Further proof that the second main possibility is a true statement of the facts on this issue is available in the form of several letters from Chief Executives of Scottish Enterprise that have already been drawn to Mr Lewis's attention in which there is no reference to any response to my original complaint and no reference to the outcome of any review.

Consequently, the evidence indicates that Scottish Enterprise never produced a response to my original complaint nor did they produce an outcome of any review.

This is of course a matter of grave concern that requires urgent attention.


Yours sincerely,

                                  Eddie Cairns

 

 

As my comments noted, Ms Hannah’s email confirms that Scottish Enterprise has no record of any response to my original complaint and no record of an outcome to any subsequent review.

 

I informed Ms Hannah that I have a copy of the Information Commissioner's Mr Benedict Elliott's Note from January 2017 in which he records that Ms Hannah argued that no documents should be disposed of in this case and that he does not record any statement from Ms Hannah that documents had already been disposed of.

The very damaging falsehoods about me supposedly having exhausted Scottish Enterprise’s complaints process were stated by Ms Lena Wilson in her letter to Ms Patricia Ferguson MSP on 30 May 2012 and by Mr Iain Scott in his letter to Mr Bob Doris MSP on 27 November 2013 amongst other instances. Such falsehoods resulted in these representatives ceasing to act on my behalf.

 

In letters dated 5 November 2013 and 7 March 2014 Mr Doris tried in vain to obtain relevant clarifications from Scottish Enterprise on the matter of the alleged financial irregularities and the purported complaints process.

 

Copies of all these documents are attached.

 

I formally request a review of the decision notified to me by Ms Hannah on your behalf.

 

I would remind you again of the potentially disastrous consequences of knowingly communicating false information in this case.

 

Yours sincerely,

                               Eddie Cairns

 

POSSIBLE ENFORCEMENT ACTION BY THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AGAINST SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE


Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

6 February 2018

 

 

Mr Paul Lewis

Interim Chief Executive

Scottish Enterprise

Atrium Court

50 Waterloo Street

Glasgow G2 6HQ

 


 

 

Dear Mr Lewis,

Under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 I formally request subject access disclosures in respect of alleged new evidence of financial irregularities arising since the completion of the last review by Police Scotland in this case on 31 May 2016.

 

Specific information notified to the COPFS by the Information Commissioner on 4 December 2009 as likely to form my personal data included the following:

(a)     all records of correspondence, documents, evidence, or other items sent to, or by me, irrespective of the sender (including external bodies)

(b)     any internal or external communications (including email) about me including:

     (i)     any speculation or expressions of opinion regarding my reasoning or motivation behind my complaints and requests for clarification.

     (ii)     any advice (including legal advice), comments, or reports on COPFS’s duties to respond to, or otherwise how to handle, my correspondence, requests for clarification, complaints, and information request(s).

     (iii)     any other expressions of opinion about me.

(c)     any information recording contact COPFS staff have had with me.

(d)     my witness statements and any other information provided by me, or records of evidence provided by me, in relation to ‘the fraud case’.

(e)     the records of any investigation into COPFS staff, or subsequent disciplinary action, in relation to their actions in relation to, or treatment of, me.

(f)     any comments about me and my complaints expressed by persons accused by me.

The disclosures to me from the COPFS on 6 April 2017 containing the letter from the Information Commissioner to the COPFS dated 4 December 2009 are attached. As a result of my responses to these disclosures the COPFS are currently reviewing my concerns in this case.

In accordance with this formal request under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 the same categories of information now require to be disclosed to me by Scottish Enterprise in respect of alleged new evidence of financial irregularities arising since the completion of the last review by Police Scotland in this case on 31 May 2016.

 

It is recorded in the attached disclosures that the Information Commissioner considered the COPFS to have contravened the Data Protection Act 1998 in my case. Several communications from the Information Commissioner were required in order to get the COPFS to act lawfully towards me, including the threat of issuing an Information Notice compelling the COPFS to comply and the threat of the case being considered for formal regulatory action.

 

I hope such action will not be required in Scottish Enterprise’s case.

 

Yours sincerely,

                                    Eddie Cairns

 

DISCLOSURES REQUESTED FROM THE INTERIM CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE MR PAUL LEWIS


Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

12 February 2018

 

 

Mr Paul Lewis

Interim Chief Executive

Scottish Enterprise

Atrium Court

50 Waterloo Street

Glasgow G2 6HQ

 


 

 

Dear Mr Lewis,

My letter to you dated 11 February 2018 erroneously referred to my subject access request dated 6 February 2018 instead of 21 December 2017.

 

An amended version is attached.

 

With regard to my subject access request dated 6 February 2018, I submitted information and evidence to Scottish Enterprise in respect of alleged new evidence of financial irregularities arising since the completion of the last review of this case by Police Scotland on 31 May 2016 as detailed below.

 

The subject access disclosures requested on 6 February 2018 will include these documents, even although they were sent to Scottish Enterprise by me, and any related documents held by Scottish Enterprise.

 

 

Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

21 July 2016

 

Ms Lena Wilson

Chief Executive

Scottish Enterprise

Atrium Court

50 Waterloo Street

GLASGOW G2 6HQ

 

 

Dear Ms Wilson,

Your failure to respond to my letter dated 26 January 2016 was not justified.

I am a former employee, whistleblower and complainant to whom Scottish Enterprise still owes a duty of care.

Scottish Enterprise has never responded to any complaint from me. The angle that I exhausted Scottish Enterprise’s complaints process is false.

So that there is no doubt that your current position is knowingly based upon a pack of lies I attach copies of letters I have recently sent to the authorities detailing several falsehoods emanating from Scottish Enterprise, including false information provided to Police Scotland on 15 April 2016, a criminal matter.

I have also recently met with an MP and provided details about Scottish Enterprise’s persistent dishonesty and intransigence in this case under your personal misdirection. The MP suggested providing details to the press.

Why did Scottish Enterprise issue the following false statements to the press at the time of the original investigation, thereby destroying my professional reputation without justification?

 

‘STATEMENT GIVEN TO KIRSTY SCOTT, THE HERALD regarding allegations of mis-accounting at Enterprise Ayrshire’

‘Scottish Enterprise National took these allegations seriously, and investigated them thoroughly on the day that they were made. There is no substance to any of the allegations made regarding the receipt of European funds by Enterprise Ayrshire. Our enquiries are complete and there are no grounds for taking any action.’

‘Issued by the Press Office of Scottish Enterprise’

‘September 1, 1993’

 

Since the accounts had been corrected by £187,069 within hours of my written objections to the financial irregularities, plainly the press release was false.

 

It is a matter of very grave concern that Mr Iain Scott, Scottish Enterprise’s Chief Financial Officer and Company Secretary, provided for Police Scotland a copy of this misleading press release without qualification, comment or explanation on 15 April 2016 in the context of a review.

Mr Scott also provided to the police on 15 April 2016 a copy of the original Scottish Enterprise report and other scanned documents that are rather obviously incompatible with that manifestly defective report, again without qualification, comment or explanation, indicating that important evidence had been concealed by Scottish Enterprise in 1993 and again in April 2016.

Therefore Mr Scott’s communication with Police Scotland in April 2016 amounts to new evidence of criminality that I have brought to the attention of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.  

Concealing material evidence in the context of an investigation into alleged financial irregularities in a public authority or in the context of a review is of course properly regarded as an attempt to pervert the course of justice. 

Yours sincerely,

                               Eddie Cairns.

 

 

Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

17 August 2016

 

 

Ms Lena Wilson

Chief Executive

Scottish Enterprise

Atrium Court

50 Waterloo Street

GLASGOW G2 6HQ

 

 

Dear Ms Wilson,

The information provided to me by Scottish Enterprise in July 2016 may reasonably be regarded as a belated response to my original complaint.

I have already detailed to you the proofs available showing that Scottish Enterprise has never previously responded to any complaint from me.

Accordingly, I formally request a review of Scottish Enterprise’s response on the following grounds:

Mr Scott’s inclusions of the Strathclyde Police report on Enterprise Ayrshire and other productions in the scanned documents he sent to Police Scotland on 15 April 2016, and which Scottish Enterprise copied to me in July 2016, which report Scottish Enterprise knows was in fact produced by one of their accountants Ms Mandy Dickson and not by the police at all, give rise to some important considerations:

 

 

     (a)     The police informed me that their copy of this report had been destroyed several years ago, around the year 2000.

 

Its provision to Police Scotland by Scottish Enterprise now permits perusal of its contents in the light of the available evidence.

 

     (b)     The first matter of concern is the amount of evidence concealed by Scottish Enterprise and the police, including in the recent review, as already detailed above and further detailed below.

 

Since Scottish Enterprise investigated itself clearly there was a strong motive to conceal material evidence and that is indeed what happened as detailed herein.

 

There was an unacceptable lack of independence and impartiality that breached my civil right to fair treatment.

 

     (c)     In his communication with DC Stewart Mr Scott included a scanned copy of my reconciliation showing the omission of the £187,069 in question from the company’s balance sheet as at 2 July 1993.

 

The report falsely stated that there was no evidence that this reconciliation had been carried out.

 

     (d)     In his communication with DC Stewart Mr Scott included a scanned copy of my email to Mr Gary Tracey and Ms Janie Maxwell dated 17 August 1993 which stated the following, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

‘For the record, as I said to you both today, I am not comfortable with your instruction to exclude from Enterprise Ayrshire’s balance sheet funds received from the EC.’

‘Your comment that the management accounts do not matter so much, being produced only for internal use, seems to underplay the potentially serious consequences of circulating figures that are incorrect.’

‘I stated to you both that I know this aspect of Scottish Enterprise’s finances is under investigation by the National Audit Office therefore you must accept my concern as genuine.’

‘I have been advised that such omissions from management accounts are in breach of the Institute’s ethical guidelines.’  

The report completely excluded this very important evidence.

 

     (e)     In his communication with DC Stewart Mr Scott included a scanned copy of the extract from the manual cash book showing the following words at the record of £187,069 received on 25 June 1993, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

‘NO JOURNAL REQUIRED AS PER G.TRACEY’

 

The report referred to a later version where the words ‘TO GO THROUGH JULY ACCOUNTS’ had been added.

 

The report offered no explanation for this note, which corroborated my allegation of having been instructed by Mr Gary Tracey to falsify the accounts in respect of this receipt from the European Regional Development Fund.

 

Further corroboration is provided by the actions of other finance staff who acted in accordance with Mr Tracey’s fraudulent instructions to falsify the accounts

 

     (f)     In his communication with DC Stewart Mr Scott included a scanned copy of the SE report which concluded the following, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

 

‘The receipt of ERDF money was brought into the July financial ledger on 18 August. The money was received in June 1993 and should therefore have been accounted for in this month.’

 

This conclusion justifies my concern about the Enterprise Ayrshire accounts as they stood when I wrote my email on 17 August 1993.

 

However, the report provided no plausible explanation for this irregularity.

 

Neither has Mr Scott provided a plausible explanation.

 

     (g)     In his communication with DC Stewart Mr Scott included a scanned copy of a press release in the following terms, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

‘STATEMENT GIVEN TO KIRSTY SCOTT, THE HERALD regarding allegations of mis-accounting at Enterprise Ayrshire’

‘Scottish Enterprise National took these allegations seriously, and investigated them thoroughly on the day that they were made. There is no substance to any of the allegations made regarding the receipt of European funds by Enterprise Ayrshire. Our enquiries are complete and there are no grounds for taking any action.’

‘Issued by the Press Office of Scottish Enterprise’

‘September 1, 1993’

Since the accounts had been corrected by £187,069 within hours of my written objections to the financial irregularities, plainly the press release was false.

 

The fact that Mr Scott included a scanned copy of this press release in his communication with DC Stewart indicates beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Scott is persisting in concealing material evidence and knowingly providing false information to the police to this day, a very grave matter.

 

     (h)     The report contained no witness statements whatsoever. This was beyond reasonable doubt an indication that the report writer concealed material evidence and Mr Scott has condoned this fundamental failure.

 

The last sentence ends the stated grounds for a review.

I request that this review is carried out by persons not previously involved in this case, which would properly exclude you and Mr Iain Scott.

Yours sincerely,

                                Eddie Cairns.

 

 

Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

18 December 2016

 

 

Ms Lena Wilson

Chief Executive

Scottish Enterprise

Atrium Court

50 Waterloo Street

GLASGOW G2 6HQ

 

 

Dear Ms Wilson,

SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL IRREGULARITIES

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS

Your complete disregard for my request for a review in the light of the very important points I helpfully brought to your attention in my letter dated 17 August 2016 is another major blunder on your part.

In a related report on the Scottish Police Authority’s handling of my complaint against a senior police officer involved in the Scottish Enterprise case, published by the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner in October 2016, it was concluded that as insufficient enquiry was carried out and as the SPA’s response was not adequately reasoned my complaint was not dealt with to a reasonable standard.

 

The PIRC also stated in the same report that the senior police officer in question had highlighted that Police Scotland are considering the new material I brought to them in respect of the fraud investigation and that should the material have any evidential value it will be reported to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

 

On 2 November 2016 the matter of police officers allegedly perverting the course of justice in the Scottish Enterprise case was referred by the PIRC’s Head of Review & Policy, Mr or Ms Iliya Zharov, to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

 

Police Scotland wrote to me on 11 and 30 November 2016 confirming that the COPFS have formally directed them to investigate this allegation.

 

As shown in the available documentary evidence you and Mr Iain Scott unashamedly deceived and misled by flattery a rather obviously young and inexperienced police officer who is now being formally investigated, along with higher ranking police officers, for allegedly perverting the course of justice in this case, namely Detective Constable Yuan-nee Stewart, Detective Sergeant Steven Adams and Detective Chief Inspector Kenneth Thomson.

 

In due course you will deservedly be required to answer for that deception and for your intransigence in the face of the blatant financial irregularities in Scottish Enterprise that you and your cronies have been determined to cover up repeatedly over several years regardless of how many careers you destroy in the process.

 

You personally have displayed nothing but persistent dishonesty and obduracy in this case, which is utterly disgraceful.

 

Yours sincerely,

                                Eddie Cairns.

 

Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

21 April 2017

 

Ms Lena Wilson

Chief Executive

Scottish Enterprise

Atrium Court

50 Waterloo Street

GLASGOW G2 6HQ

 

 

Dear Ms Wilson,

SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL IRREGULARITIES

I have written to Police Scotland to point out a specific item of evidence relevant in the above case.

Included in the documents disclosed to me by Scottish Enterprise in July 2016 was a bank statement dated 24 August 1993 in the name of Mr Gary Tracey.

 

By 3 August 1993 the interest on misappropriated Scottish Enterprise cash amounted to £919.31 which is shown in the disclosed document to have been paid into this account in the name of Mr Gary Tracey, confirming that on 3 August 1993 £187,919.31 of public money was at the disposal of Mr Tracey personally while it was completely excluded from the company’s balance sheet.

 

Yours sincerely,

                              Eddie Cairns

 

Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

17 October 2017

 

Ms Lena Wilson

Chief Executive

Scottish Enterprise

Atrium Court

50 Waterloo Street

GLASGOW G2 6HQ

 

 

Dear Ms Wilson,

SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL IRREGULARITIES

FRAUD BY KNOWINGLY COMMUNICATING FALSE INFORMATION

A copy of a letter I have written to Police Scotland is attached for your information.

Yours sincerely,

                              Eddie Cairns

 

Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

17 October 2017

Mr Alan Speirs

Chief Superintendent

Professional Standards Department

Police Scotland

 

 

Dear Mr Speirs,

 

SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE

 

FRAUD BY KNOWINGLY COMMUNICATING FALSE INFORMATION

 

The importance of establishing whether or not false information has been communicated in any case was highlighted in the press a few days ago.

An article published in the Daily Mail on 12 October 2017 with the headline Tram fiasco lawyer warned of possible fraud for passing on ‘false’ information included the following words, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

A leading lawyer who admitted passing inaccurate information to City of Edinburgh Council during the tram project fiasco was yesterday told that he may be guilty of fraud.

...... Mr Fitchie was asked by senior counsel Jonathan Lake, QC: ‘Going back to May 2008, you would have been aware that they were knowingly providing false information to the council?’

He replied: ‘You’ve used a strong word – false information. And you’ve said, I believe, ‘’knowingly providing false information to the council’’. And I would have been aware that they were ‘’knowingly providing false information’’. I would hesitate to go as strong as that agreeing with you. I agree that the information in those closed reports was deficient.’

Inquiry chairman Lord Hardie asked: ‘Well, it was more than deficient wasn’t it? It wasn’t accurate.’

Mr Fitchie responded: ‘Yes my lord, it was not accurate.’

Lord Hardie asked him: ‘So it wasn’t true?’

Mr Fitchie tersely responded, ’correct’ before Lord Hardie insisted: ‘So it’s false?’

Mr Fitchie confirmed this was the case.

Mr Lake asked: ‘You hesitate there because you know the legal significance of knowingly providing false information to someone don’t you?’

Mr Fitchie confirmed that he understood, before Mr Lake told him: ‘Because it amounts to fraud doesn’t it?’

Mr Fitchie replied: ‘It potentially is a criminal offence yes, and a civil one as well.’

 

 

In a letter to me dated 20 April 2017 Mr Iain Scott of Scottish Enterprise knowingly included the following false information, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

You were also advised that SE had investigated these allegations carefully and thoroughly and that our complaints handling process had been followed to its limits.

As we have written to you before to confirm, we will no longer respond to any further correspondence from you regarding these matters.

 

In fact perusal of the Scottish Enterprise report dated 20 August 1993 and several items of material documentary evidence that had been concealed from that report, which were all communicated to Police Scotland by Mr Scott on 15 April 2016, reveals that Scottish Enterprise had in fact not investigated these allegations carefully and thoroughly, nor had the Scottish Enterprise complaints handling process been followed to its limits.

Therefore the Scottish Enterprise report and the other items of documentary evidence contained false information that Mr Scott knowingly communicated to Police Scotland on 15 April 2016.

Two significant instances of false information knowingly communicated by Mr Scott are reproduced below in italics for convenience and my comments follow in normal type:

 

1.          A review of the bank reconciliation indicated that the bank statements had been reconciled only to the cash book. As the entry had been made in the cash book for the ERDF income, no discrepancy arose. Had the cash book balance been subsequently reconciled to the bank account in the financial ledger the difference would have been highlighted. There was no evidence that this reconciliation had been carried out.

 

Since Mr Scott emailed a copy of this reconciliation to the police on 15 April 2016 along with the Scottish Enterprise report, which falsely stated that there was no evidence that this reconciliation had been carried out, Mr Scott knew that the statements in respect of this reconciliation were false. 

Of course, I also was a witness to the fact that I had carried out this reconciliation but the report’s author, Ms Mandie Dickson of Scottish Enterprise made no attempt to obtain any information from me, which further rendered her investigation fundamentally defective with an unlawful appearance of bias against me.

 

2.          STATEMENT GIVEN TO KIRSTY SCOTT, THE HERALD regarding allegations of mis-accounting at Enterprise Ayrshire

Scottish Enterprise National took these allegations seriously, and investigated them thoroughly on the day that they were made. There is no substance to any of the allegations made regarding the receipt of European funds by Enterprise Ayrshire. Our enquiries are complete and there are no grounds for taking any action.

Issued by the Press Office of Scottish Enterprise

September 1, 1993

 

Mr Scott emailed a copy of this Scottish Enterprise press statement to the police on 15 April 2016 along with a copy of the Scottish Enterprise report therefore he knew that the Scottish Enterprise report contradicted it. 

The conclusion of the Scottish Enterprise report confirming that this public money should have been entered into the accounts in June 1993 whereas it had not been entered into the accounts until I formally expressed my concerns about the financial irregularities is reproduced below, in italics for convenience:

 

The receipt of ERDF money was brought into the July financial ledger on 18 August. The money was received in June 1993 and should therefore have been accounted for in this month.          

 

Consequently, Mr Scott knowingly communicated false information to the police on 15 April 2017 in respect of this matter. In reality Mr Scott knew that there was indeed substance to the allegations made regarding the receipt of European funds by Enterprise Ayrshire, that there were indeed grounds for taking action and that action had indeed been swiftly taken to correct the accounts before any investigation had been carried out, indicating that the managers already knew the accounts were wrong.

As for the assertions in the press statement that Scottish Enterprise National took these allegations seriously, and investigated them thoroughly on the day that they were made material evidence known to Mr Scott to be available but concealed from the Scottish Enterprise report reveals those assertions to be false information, knowingly communicated to the police by Mr Scott on 15 April 2016.

Material items concealed from the Scottish Enterprise report but copied to the police by Mr Scott on 15 April 2016 included my reconciliation to the financial ledger showing the £187,069 discrepancy and my important email to my supervisors in Enterprise Ayrshire expressing my concerns about being instructed to overlook the financial irregularities, effectively being incited to enter into the existing criminal conspiracy to falsify the accounts and misappropriate this cash.

In addition, there were copies of other relevant documents contained in the Scottish Enterprise report which were not properly addressed and explained in the text of that report.

For example there was a copy of a bank statement in the name of one of my supervisors, Mr Gary Tracey, containing the £187,000 that was simultaneously missing from the company’s balance sheet and financial accounts. That bank statement showed that interest of £919 had additionally been credited to Mr Tracey’s personal account in respect of the misappropriated public money.

The Scottish Enterprise report falsely stated that all the bank accounts involved were Enterprise Ayrshire bank accounts.

 

Did Mr Tracey tell the investigators that the money was, like in the case of Father Ted, just resting in his account before he moved it on? Actually, Mr Tracey would not have had to explain why he was caught red-handed with this substantial amount of taxpayers’ cash because according to the 1993 Scottish Enterprise report nobody was interviewed at all, not even the person who was found to have the missing money.

 

According to disclosures to me from Scottish Enterprise on 7 July 2016 Mr Scott was interviewed by the police in 2016 in the context of another review. What was his explanation for the cash found to be in an employee’s personal bank account, earning interest for him while the cash was missing from the company’s balance sheet and bank account? That remains a mystery because the COPFS already notified me that, again, no police report was submitted to them following that purported review. What a surprise. 

 

There was a copy of the Scottish Enterprise press statement in the Scottish Enterprise report but the false information contained therein was entirely overlooked in the text of that report.

 

The Scottish Enterprise report provided no plausible explanation for all these financial irregularities therefore Scottish Enterprise had not investigated the allegations carefully and thoroughly.

As for the assertion in Mr Scott’s letter to me dated 20 April 2017 that Scottish Enterprise’s complaints handling process had been followed to its limits in respect of the financial irregularities, in reality Scottish Enterprise has never provided a response to my original complaint. Consequently, there was never any response available that I could request to be reviewed.

New evidence disclosed to me by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service on 6 April 2017, as detailed in my letters to you dated 8 July 2017 and 10 July 2017, shows that the defective Scottish Enterprise report dated 20 August 1993 had also been communicated to the police and the COPFS in 1993, amounting to fraud by the persons who knowingly communicated false information at that time too and repeatedly thereafter.

For example, following my early request for information, Scottish Enterprise’s Mr or Ms Ray MacFarlane wrote to me on behalf of the Chief Executive of Scottish Enterprise on 14 October 1994 including the following, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

Thank you for your letter of 4 October 1994 to Crawford Beveridge seeking comments on your departure from your contract post at Enterprise Ayrshire (EA). As Mr Beveridge is on leave at present, I have been asked to respond on his behalf.

I am confident that the officers in EA have dealt with this case in an extremely professional manner. I realise that this will be a disappointing response for you, but have to inform you that, so far as Scottish Enterprise is concerned, the matter is now closed. 

 

As for the assertion that the officers in Enterprise Ayrshire had dealt with this case in an extremely professional manner, it was reported in the Herald on 2 September 1993, reproduced here in italics for convenience, that:

 

Enterprise Ayrshire has dismissed the allegations as utterly groundless ....

 

And:

Mr Gordon Brown, Enterprise Ayrshire’s director of business development, said it was aware of Mr Cairns’s allegations and rejected them totally. He said the European funds were handled absolutely correctly in legal and accounting ethical terms. The money was correctly received from Europe and correctly handled thereafter. Mr Cairns is incapable of accepting that. That’s why his contract was terminated. He was not sacked. His claims are without foundation.

 

Of course these statements are incompatible with Ms Lena Wilson’s later disclosure on 30 May 2012, reproduced here in italics for convenience, that:

 

The matter was immediately investigated at the time by Scottish Enterprise, its principal funder, and the accounting requirements for Local Enterprise Companies were clarified.

 

In a letter to me dated 8 March 2002 the Chief Executive of Scottish Enterprise Mr Robert Crawford included the following statements, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

We have, in previous correspondence, explained our clear position. We have rejected your accusations of unethical accounting and of unfair treatment towards you.

 

In May 2009 I wrote several letters to the Chief Executive of Scottish Enterprise at that time, Mr Jack Perry, detailing financial irregularities in Scottish Enterprise that clearly warranted his attention, as contained for example in my letter to Audit Scotland dated 10 May 2009 which was copied to Mr Perry.

Mr Perry completely ignored every letter from me. Mr Perry’s acts and omissions indicated his concurrence with the other participants in the conspiracy for the common purpose of covering up the alleged financial irregularities.

 

In a letter to me dated 31 January 2011 Ms Lena Wilson acknowledged my complaint about Mr Jack Perry but indicated that I would receive no response in the following terms, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

I can confirm that your complaint against Jack Perry was not directed to the Standards Commission for Scotland. It is not for Scottish Enterprise to do so.

Please note that, for the protection of individuals, any disciplinary processes carried out are strictly confidential and the findings would not be disclosed to anyone else whether employee or not.

 

Thereby Ms Wilson confirmed her concurrence with the other participants in the conspiracy to cover up the financial irregularities that had been alleged since my complaint had focussed upon Mr Perry’s failure to address those irregularities.

On 18 October 1993 an article appeared in the Herald including the following statement, reproduced here in italics for convenience, which is revealed to be false in the light of the new evidence:

 

Mr Andrew Downie, Enterprise Ayrshire company secretary, said yesterday that the police report on the case had been reviewed by the procurator fiscal’s office, which had confirmed that there was no substance to the allegations.

 

In fact there was no police report submitted to the COPFS in 1993 according to the new evidence.

On 30 May 2012 Ms Lena Wilson the Chief Executive of Scottish Enterprise wrote to Ms Patricia Ferguson MSP including the following statement, reproduced here in italics for convenience, which is also revealed to be false in the light of the new evidence:

 

Strathclyde Police also investigated the matter and a report was submitted to the Procurator Fiscal who decided to take no further action.

 

In that same letter Scottish Enterprise made the following important commitment, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

Mr Cairns continued to revisit this matter with Scottish Enterprise .......... and in 2011 I had reluctantly to inform him that unless he had new evidence, Scottish Enterprise would not continue to correspond with him on this matter .....

 

I want to add to the alleged deliberately false statements about this case the following words, reproduced here in italics for convenience, contained in the letter from Ms Lena Wilson, Chief Executive of Scottish Enterprise, to Ms Patricia Ferguson MSP dated 30 May 2012:

 

The subject matter of Mr Cairns’ complaint dates back to 1993 and relates to an accounting matter raised by Mr Cairns regarding when a credit should have been shown in the management accounts of Scottish Enterprise Ayrshire (SE Ayrshire) formerly named Enterprise Ayrshire.

The matter was immediately investigated at the time by Scottish Enterprise, its principal funder, and the accounting requirements for Local Enterprise Companies were clarified. No evidence of fraud or wrongdoing was found.

Following unauthorised disclosures relating to the above matter to the press and various other third parties, Mr Cairns’ position was untenable and his contract with Enterprise Ayrshire was terminated in August 1993.

 

These false statements about me and about this case by Scottish Enterprise’s Ms Lena Wilson, knowingly communicated to Ms Patricia Ferguson MSP falsely, included the stated consequences of my alleged conduct for my employment, which were that my position became untenable and my contract terminated.

Falsely stating that I had acted in a way that caused my dismissal was a serious fraud that merits proper investigation along with all the other serious false statements knowingly communicated in this case.

I am a qualified accountant therefore Ms Lena Wilson’s false statements about me and about this case, knowingly, in the context of alleged financial irregularities were particularly insulting and damaging.

Scottish Enterprise’s deliberately false statements about me, knowingly communicated by Ms Lena Wilson, resulted in Ms Patricia Ferguson MSP deciding to take no further action on my behalf.

Scottish Enterprise’s deliberately false words, knowingly communicated by Ms Lena Wilson to Ms Patricia Ferguson MSP, misleadingly indicated that I had raised concerns about a technical accounting matter, when there was nothing wrong, and that I had breached confidentiality.

In fact I had been concerned about being instructed by my supervisors to overlook in my reconciliation work the omission from the balance sheet of a cash grant from the European Regional Development Fund of £187,069 which had simultaneously been deposited into a high interest bank account in the name of Mr Gary Tracey personally.

Ms Lena Wilson’s deliberately inaccurate description of the matter can reasonably be suspected as designed to cover up its true nature, which in fact gave rise to a reasonable suspicion of the operation of a criminal conspiracy to commit fraud, not a minor accounting technicality at all.  

In that regard disclosures from Audit Scotland in May 2009 included the following statements in a document headed Notes from review of papers submitted by E Cairns, prepared by Audit Scotland’s Mr Jim Martin, dated 20 August 2004 and reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

Mr Cairns is correct in his view that the ERDF monies should have been included in the EA June Management Accounts and it looks as though they might have been omitted from the July accounts but for his actions ....................... Speculation on why the monies were not disclosed in the management accounts is academic at this stage but it does seem odd that he was allegedly instructed to exclude them from the July accounts.

Responses to Mr Cairns (sic) complaints from Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Office Ministers dismiss the omission of the receipts as a technical accounting matter. That is disingenuous. Mr Cairns (sic) issue is about the deliberate misstatement of management accounts; there are governance issues here ................ The Board of EA were receiving these management accounts as was Scottish Enterprise, the principal funders. I see no reason why the ERDF monies should not have been shown in the first management accounts after their receipt. Scottish Enterprise should have been concerned that Mr Cairns was allegedly instructed to exclude them.

 

.............. If Mr Cairns is seeking recompense for his dismissal we should not get drawn in.

 

My email to my supervisors in Enterprise Ayrshire, Mr Gary Tracey and Ms Janie Maxwell, dated 17 August 1993 had recorded my objection to their instructions to more junior workers, including me, to omit from the balance sheet funds received from the ERDF.

The correction to the balance sheet, made within less than a day of that email, was a significant increase in the bank balance and a corresponding decrease in the funding required from taxpayers.

Consequently, there was indeed evidence of wrongdoing.

Before this correction the accounts had been wrong by £187,069.

In fact I did not make any unauthorised disclosures relating to the above matter to the press and various other third parties before my contract was terminated.

Available evidence already provided to the police and to the COPFS confirms my position on these points to be correct.

In conclusion, the available documentary evidence arising since the last police investigation was concluded on 31 May 2016 shows that Mr Scott has knowingly communicated false information about this case repeatedly which, according to the very serious legal consequences highlighted by Lord Hardie and senior counsel Jonathan Lake QC quoted above, amount to additional instances of alleged fraud thereby that ought to be properly investigated by the police.

Recently disclosed evidence shows that false information was also knowingly communicated by Scottish Enterprise employees in 1993 and repeatedly since that time.

I have been in communication with my MP in recent days regarding these matters and he has requested further details from me which I am currently preparing.

In addition to the initial alleged fraud in respect of the missing £187,000 from a public agency, Scottish Enterprise, relevant extracts quoted above show that communications of false information, knowingly, separately constitute further instances of fraud.

The alleged communications of false information, knowingly, by senior finance workers in a public agency is of course a very serious matter of public interest that requires adequate attention.

I therefore formally request a police investigation into the alleged false information communicated knowingly by Mr Iain Scott, Scottish Enterprise’s Chief Financial Officer and Company Secretary, to the police on 15 April 2016 as disclosed to me by Scottish Enterprise in subject access disclosures on 7 July 2016, and I formally request a police investigation into the alleged false information communicated knowingly by Mr Iain Scott, Scottish Enterprise’s Chief Financial Officer and Company Secretary to me on 20 April 2017.

I also formally request a police investigation into the alleged false information communicated knowingly by Scottish Enterprise employees in 1993 and thereafter repeatedly, including by Ms Lena Wilson and other Chief Executives, as revealed in recent disclosures to me from Scottish Enterprise and the COPFS.

Copies of the disclosures containing new evidence and several other documents referred to above are attached and others will be forwarded shortly.

Yours sincerely,

                                  Eddie Cairns

 

Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

07501 346 490

21 December 2017

 

 

 

Mr Paul Lewis

Acting Chief Executive

Scottish Enterprise

Atrium Court

50 Waterloo Street

GLASGOW G2 6HQ

 

 

 

Dear Mr Lewis,

 

SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE

 

FRAUD BY KNOWINGLY COMMUNICATING FALSE INFORMATION

 

Mr Paul Sweeney MP has advised me to communicate with you directly.

The following extract from your letter to Mr Sweeney, reproduced here in italics for convenience, gives rise to serious concern:

‘Given the history of this case and the extensive amount of time and public money spent dealing with it over many years, we wrote to Mr Cairns on 11 April 2014 advising that we would no longer respond to any correspondence from him.  Therefore, we do not believe that it would be appropriate for us to respond to Mr Cairns as a result of his correspondence with you.’

Scottish Enterprise have in reality never provided a response to my complaint.

Your pretence that Scottish Enterprise have spent an extensive amount of time and public money dealing with it is simply false. 

 

When you communicated those words you did so in the full knowledge of their falsity, a very serious offence in the context of alleged financial irregularities.

 

Consequently, your statements quoted above appear to be dishonest and fraudulent.

 

You have relied upon Scottish Enterprise’s letter to me in 2014 to disregard completely my recent correspondence.

However that restriction was stated to apply unless I had new evidence.

You know that my recent correspondence did include important new evidence obtained since 2014 therefore by Scottish Enterprise’s own written stipulation and in accordance with legal obligations to investigate new evidence of significant financial irregularities in a public authority that new evidence requires to be carefully considered in the public interest, not culpably ignored.

 

Under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 I formally request a copy of the original complaints response and copies of any outcomes of reviews of this case.  

 

These disclosed documents should enlighten the general public as to the answers to the following relevant points of interest:

 

What was Scottish Enterprise's alleged explanation for £187,000 of taxpayers' cash being omitted from the company's financial accounts and bank accounts while it was simultaneously transferred into the personal bank account of one of my supervisors?

 

What was Scottish Enterprise's explanation for a further £919 interest being credited to the same employee's personal bank account instead of to one of the company’s bank accounts?

 

The importance of establishing whether or not false information has been communicated in any case was highlighted in the press.

An article published in the Daily Mail on 12 October 2017 with the headline Tram fiasco lawyer warned of possible fraud for passing on ‘false’ information included the following words, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

A leading lawyer who admitted passing inaccurate information to City of Edinburgh Council during the tram project fiasco was yesterday told that he may be guilty of fraud.

...... Mr Fitchie was asked by senior counsel Jonathan Lake, QC: ‘Going back to May 2008, you would have been aware that they were knowingly providing false information to the council?’

He replied: ‘You’ve used a strong word – false information. And you’ve said, I believe, ‘’knowingly providing false information to the council’’. And I would have been aware that they were ‘’knowingly providing false information’’. I would hesitate to go as strong as that agreeing with you. I agree that the information in those closed reports was deficient.’

Inquiry chairman Lord Hardie asked: ‘Well, it was more than deficient wasn’t it? It wasn’t accurate.’

Mr Fitchie responded: ‘Yes my lord, it was not accurate.’

Lord Hardie asked him: ‘So it wasn’t true?’

Mr Fitchie tersely responded, ’correct’ before Lord Hardie insisted: ‘So it’s false?’

Mr Fitchie confirmed this was the case.

Mr Lake asked: ‘You hesitate there because you know the legal significance of knowingly providing false information to someone don’t you?’

Mr Fitchie confirmed that he understood, before Mr Lake told him: ‘Because it amounts to fraud doesn’t it?’

Mr Fitchie replied: ‘It potentially is a criminal offence yes, and a civil one as well.’

 

In a letter to me dated 20 April 2017 Mr Iain Scott of Scottish Enterprise knowingly included the following false information, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

You were also advised that SE had investigated these allegations carefully and thoroughly and that our complaints handling process had been followed to its limits.

As we have written to you before to confirm, we will no longer respond to any further correspondence from you regarding these matters.

In fact perusal of the Scottish Enterprise report dated 20 August 1993 and several items of material documentary evidence that had been concealed from that report, which were all communicated to Police Scotland by Mr Scott on 15 April 2016, reveals that Scottish Enterprise had in fact not investigated these allegations carefully and thoroughly, nor had the Scottish Enterprise complaints handling process been followed to its limits.

Therefore the Scottish Enterprise report and the other items of documentary evidence contained false information that Mr Scott knowingly communicated to Police Scotland on 15 April 2016.

Two significant instances of false information knowingly communicated by Mr Scott are reproduced below in italics for convenience and my comments follow in normal type:

1.          A review of the bank reconciliation indicated that the bank statements had been reconciled only to the cash book. As the entry had been made in the cash book for the ERDF income, no discrepancy arose. Had the cash book balance been subsequently reconciled to the bank account in the financial ledger the difference would have been highlighted. There was no evidence that this reconciliation had been carried out.

Since Mr Scott emailed a copy of this reconciliation to the police on 15 April 2016 along with the Scottish Enterprise report, which falsely stated that there was no evidence that this reconciliation had been carried out, Mr Scott knew that the statements in respect of this reconciliation were false.

Of course, I also was a witness to the fact that I had carried out this reconciliation but the report’s author, Ms Mandie Dickson of Scottish Enterprise made no attempt to obtain any information from me, which further rendered her investigation fundamentally defective with an unlawful appearance of bias against me.

2.     STATEMENT GIVEN TO KIRSTY SCOTT, THE HERALD regarding allegations of mis-accounting at Enterprise Ayrshire

Scottish Enterprise National took these allegations seriously, and investigated them thoroughly on the day that they were made. There is no substance to any of the allegations made regarding the receipt of European funds by Enterprise Ayrshire. Our enquiries are complete and there are no grounds for taking any action.

Issued by the Press Office of Scottish Enterprise

September 1, 1993

Mr Scott emailed a copy of this Scottish Enterprise press statement to the police on 15 April 2016 along with a copy of the Scottish Enterprise report therefore he knew that the Scottish Enterprise report contradicted it. 

The conclusion of the Scottish Enterprise report confirming that this public money should have been entered into the accounts in June 1993 whereas it had not been entered into the accounts until I formally expressed my concerns about the financial irregularities is reproduced below, in italics for convenience:

The receipt of ERDF money was brought into the July financial ledger on 18 August. The money was received in June 1993 and should therefore have been accounted for in this month. 

Consequently, Mr Scott knowingly communicated false information to the police on 15 April 2016 in respect of this matter. In reality Mr Scott knew that there was indeed substance to the allegations made regarding the receipt of European funds by Enterprise Ayrshire, that there were indeed grounds for taking action and that action had indeed been swiftly taken to correct the accounts before any investigation had been carried out, indicating that the managers already knew the accounts were wrong.

As for the assertions in the press statement that Scottish Enterprise National took these allegations seriously, and investigated them thoroughly on the day that they were made material evidence known to Mr Scott to be available but concealed from the Scottish Enterprise report reveals those assertions to be false information, knowingly communicated to the police by Mr Scott on 15 April 2016.

Material items concealed from the Scottish Enterprise report but copied to the police by Mr Scott on 15 April 2016 included my reconciliation to the financial ledger showing the £187,069 discrepancy and my important email to my supervisors in Enterprise Ayrshire expressing my concerns about being instructed to overlook the financial irregularities, effectively being incited to enter into the existing criminal conspiracy to falsify the accounts and misappropriate this cash.

In addition, there were copies of other relevant documents contained in the Scottish Enterprise report which were not properly addressed and explained in the text of that report.

For example there was a copy of a bank statement in the name of one of my supervisors, Mr Gary Tracey, containing the £187,000 that was simultaneously missing from the company’s balance sheet and financial accounts. That bank statement showed that interest of £919 had additionally been credited to Mr Tracey’s personal account in respect of the misappropriated public money.

The Scottish Enterprise report falsely stated that all the bank accounts involved were Enterprise Ayrshire bank accounts.

 

Did Mr Tracey tell the investigators that the money was, like in the case of Father Ted, just resting in his account before he moved it on? Actually, Mr Tracey would not have had to explain why he was caught red-handed with this substantial amount of taxpayers’ cash because according to the 1993 Scottish Enterprise report nobody was interviewed at all, not even the person who was found to have the missing money.

 

According to disclosures to me from Scottish Enterprise on 7 July 2016 Mr Scott was interviewed by the police in 2016 in the context of another review. What was his explanation for the cash found to be in an employee’s personal bank account, earning interest for him while the cash was missing from the company’s balance sheet and bank account? That remains a mystery because the COPFS already notified me that, again, no police report was submitted to them following that purported review. What a surprise. 

 

There was a copy of the Scottish Enterprise press statement in the Scottish Enterprise report but the false information contained therein was entirely overlooked in the text of that report.

 

The Scottish Enterprise report provided no plausible explanation for all these financial irregularities therefore Scottish Enterprise had not investigated the allegations carefully and thoroughly.

As for the assertion in Mr Scott’s letter to me dated 20 April 2017 that Scottish Enterprise’s complaints handling process had been followed to its limits in respect of the financial irregularities, in reality Scottish Enterprise has never provided a response to my original complaint. Consequently, there was never any response available that I could request to be reviewed.

New evidence disclosed to me by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service on 6 April 2017, as detailed in my letters to you dated 8 July 2017 and 10 July 2017, shows that the defective Scottish Enterprise report dated 20 August 1993 had also been communicated to the police and the COPFS in 1993, amounting to fraud by the persons who knowingly communicated false information at that time too and repeatedly thereafter.

For example, following my early request for information, Scottish Enterprise’s Mr or Ms Ray MacFarlane wrote to me on behalf of the Chief Executive of Scottish Enterprise on 14 October 1994 including the following, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

Thank you for your letter of 4 October 1994 to Crawford Beveridge seeking comments on your departure from your contract post at Enterprise Ayrshire (EA). As Mr Beveridge is on leave at present, I have been asked to respond on his behalf.

I am confident that the officers in EA have dealt with this case in an extremely professional manner. I realise that this will be a disappointing response for you, but have to inform you that, so far as Scottish Enterprise is concerned, the matter is now closed.

As for the assertion that the officers in Enterprise Ayrshire had dealt with this case in an extremely professional manner, it was reported in the Herald on 2 September 1993, reproduced here in italics for convenience, that:

Enterprise Ayrshire has dismissed the allegations as utterly groundless ....

And:

Mr Gordon Brown, Enterprise Ayrshire’s director of business development, said it was aware of Mr Cairns’s allegations and rejected them totally. He said the European funds were handled absolutely correctly in legal and accounting ethical terms. The money was correctly received from Europe and correctly handled thereafter. Mr Cairns is incapable of accepting that. That’s why his contract was terminated. He was not sacked. His claims are without foundation.

Of course these statements are incompatible with Ms Lena Wilson’s later disclosure on 30 May 2012, reproduced here in italics for convenience, that:

The matter was immediately investigated at the time by Scottish Enterprise, its principal funder, and the accounting requirements for Local Enterprise Companies were clarified.

In a letter to me dated 8 March 2002 the Chief Executive of Scottish Enterprise Mr Robert Crawford included the following statements, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

We have, in previous correspondence, explained our clear position. We have rejected your accusations of unethical accounting and of unfair treatment towards you.

In May 2009 I wrote several letters to the Chief Executive of Scottish Enterprise at that time, Mr Jack Perry, detailing financial irregularities in Scottish Enterprise that clearly warranted his attention, as contained for example in my letter to Audit Scotland dated 10 May 2009 which was copied to Mr Perry.

Mr Perry completely ignored every letter from me. Mr Perry’s acts and omissions indicated his concurrence with the other participants in the conspiracy for the common purpose of covering up the alleged financial irregularities.

 

In a letter to me dated 31 January 2011 Ms Lena Wilson acknowledged my complaint about Mr Jack Perry but indicated that I would receive no response in the following terms, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

I can confirm that your complaint against Jack Perry was not directed to the Standards Commission for Scotland. It is not for Scottish Enterprise to do so.

Please note that, for the protection of individuals, any disciplinary processes carried out are strictly confidential and the findings would not be disclosed to anyone else whether employee or not.

Thereby Ms Wilson confirmed her concurrence with the other participants in the conspiracy to cover up the financial irregularities that had been alleged since my complaint had focussed upon Mr Perry’s failure to address those irregularities.

On 18 October 1993 an article appeared in the Herald including the following statement, reproduced here in italics for convenience, which is revealed to be false in the light of the new evidence:

Mr Andrew Downie, Enterprise Ayrshire company secretary, said yesterday that the police report on the case had been reviewed by the procurator fiscal’s office, which had confirmed that there was no substance to the allegations.

In fact there was no police report submitted to the COPFS in 1993 according to the new evidence.

On 30 May 2012 Ms Lena Wilson the Chief Executive of Scottish Enterprise wrote to Ms Patricia Ferguson MSP including the following statement, reproduced here in italics for convenience, which is also revealed to be false in the light of the new evidence:

Strathclyde Police also investigated the matter and a report was submitted to the Procurator Fiscal who decided to take no further action.

In that same letter Scottish Enterprise made the following important commitment, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

Mr Cairns continued to revisit this matter with Scottish Enterprise ..........and in 2011 I had reluctantly to inform him that unless he had new evidence, Scottish Enterprise would not continue to correspond with him on this matter .....

The following words, reproduced here in italics for convenience, contained in the letter from Ms Lena Wilson, Chief Executive of Scottish Enterprise, to Ms Patricia Ferguson MSP dated 30 May 2012 were also fraudulent:

The subject matter of Mr Cairns’ complaint dates back to 1993 and relates to an accounting matter raised by Mr Cairns regarding when a credit should have been shown in the management accounts of Scottish Enterprise Ayrshire (SE Ayrshire) formerly named Enterprise Ayrshire.

The matter was immediately investigated at the time by Scottish Enterprise, its principal funder, and the accounting requirements for Local Enterprise Companies were clarified. No evidence of fraud or wrongdoing was found.

Following unauthorised disclosures relating to the above matter to the press and various other third parties, Mr Cairns’ position was untenable and his contract with Enterprise Ayrshire was terminated in August 1993.

These false statements about me and about this case by Scottish Enterprise’s Ms Lena Wilson, knowingly communicated to Ms Patricia Ferguson MSP falsely, included the stated consequences of my alleged conduct for my employment, which were that my position became untenable and my contract terminated.

Falsely stating that I had acted in a way that caused my dismissal was a serious fraud that merits proper investigation along with all the other serious false statements knowingly communicated in this case.

I am a qualified accountant therefore Ms Lena Wilson’s false statements about me and about this case, knowingly, in the context of alleged financial irregularities were particularly insulting and damaging.

Scottish Enterprise’s deliberately false statements about me, knowingly communicated by Ms Lena Wilson, resulted in Ms Patricia Ferguson MSP deciding to take no further action on my behalf.

Scottish Enterprise’s deliberately false words, knowingly communicated by Ms Lena Wilson to Ms Patricia Ferguson MSP, misleadingly indicated that I had raised concerns about a technical accounting matter, when there was nothing wrong, and that I had breached confidentiality.

In fact I had been concerned about being instructed by my supervisors to overlook in my reconciliation work the omission from the balance sheet of a cash grant from the European Regional Development Fund of £187,069 which had simultaneously been deposited into a high interest bank account in the name of Mr Gary Tracey personally.

Ms Lena Wilson’s deliberately inaccurate description of the matter can reasonably be suspected as designed to cover up its true nature, which in fact gave rise to a reasonable suspicion of the operation of a criminal conspiracy to commit fraud, not a minor accounting technicality at all.  

In that regard disclosures from Audit Scotland in May 2009 included the following statements in a document headed Notes from review of papers submitted by E Cairns, prepared by Audit Scotland’s Mr Jim Martin, dated 20 August 2004 and reproduced here in italics for convenience:

Mr Cairns is correct in his view that the ERDF monies should have been included in the EA June Management Accounts and it looks as though they might have been omitted from the July accounts but for his actions ....................... Speculation on why the monies were not disclosed in the management accounts is academic at this stage but it does seem odd that he was allegedly instructed to exclude them from the July accounts.

Responses to Mr Cairns (sic) complaints from Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Office Ministers dismiss the omission of the receipts as a technical accounting matter. That is disingenuous. Mr Cairns (sic) issue is about the deliberate misstatement of management accounts; there are governance issues here ................ The Board of EA were receiving these management accounts as was Scottish Enterprise, the principal funders. I see no reason why the ERDF monies should not have been shown in the first management accounts after their receipt. Scottish Enterprise should have been concerned that Mr Cairns was allegedly instructed to exclude them.

 

.............. If Mr Cairns is seeking recompense for his dismissal we should not get drawn in.

 

My email to my supervisors in Enterprise Ayrshire, Mr Gary Tracey and Ms Janie Maxwell, dated 17 August 1993 had recorded my objection to their instructions to more junior workers, including me, to omit from the balance sheet funds received from the ERDF.

The correction to the balance sheet, made within less than a day of that email, was a significant increase in the bank balance and a corresponding decrease in the funding required from taxpayers.

Consequently, there was indeed evidence of wrongdoing.

Before this correction the accounts had been wrong by £187,069.

In fact I did not make any unauthorised disclosures relating to the above matter to the press and various other third parties before my contract was terminated.

Available evidence already provided to the police and to the COPFS confirms my position on these points to be correct.

In conclusion, the available documentary evidence arising since the last police investigation was concluded on 31 May 2016 shows that Mr Scott has knowingly communicated false information about this case repeatedly which, according to the very serious legal consequences highlighted by Lord Hardie and senior counsel Jonathan Lake QC quoted above, amount to additional instances of alleged fraud thereby that ought to be properly investigated.

Recently disclosed evidence shows that false information was also knowingly communicated by Scottish Enterprise employees in 1993 and repeatedly since that time.

In addition to the initial alleged fraud in respect of the missing £187,000 from a public agency, Scottish Enterprise, relevant extracts quoted above show that communications of false information, knowingly, separately constitute further instances of fraud.

The alleged communications of false information, knowingly, by senior finance workers in a public agency is of course a very serious matter of public interest that requires adequate attention.

Your decision to participate in the criminal conspiracy to cover up financial irregularities in Scottish Enterprise is shameful.

You ought to consider the potentially disastrous consequences of lying about such matters.

Yours sincerely,

                                 Eddie Cairns

 

Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

18 January 2018

 

 

Mr Paul Lewis

Interim Chief Executive

Scottish Enterprise

Atrium Court,

50 Waterloo Street,

GlasgowG2 6HQ


 

Dear Mr Lewis,

I refer to your response to my Freedom of Information request sent to me by Ms Karen Hannah on 16 January 2018.

The following extracts from that response, reproduced here in italics for convenience, give rise to very serious concerns:

 

Further to your request for information under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA), I am writing to advise that SE considers that this request is vexatious.   S14(1)(1) does not oblige a Scottish public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious. 

 In coming to this decision, the following conditions have been taken into consideration:

it does not have a serious purpose or value

We consider that this request is an attempt to re-open issues which have previously been dealt with through other processes.    It also represents the continuation of a pattern of behaviour which has been deemed vexatious in another context and relates to a matter which has been previously investigated and concluded.

it is designed to cause disruption or annoyance to the public authority; and

it has the effect of harassing to the public authority

Taking into consideration previous correspondence and the current communications from you, we consider that these are a continuation of your original complaint and have the effect of prolonging correspondence on matters which have been exhaustively addressed.   The Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act, 2002 is not intended as a vehicle for extending grievances that a person may have with a public authority.    

 

In reality my request was not at all vexatious, it did have a serious purpose, it was not an attempt to re-open issues which had previously been dealt with through other processes, it did not represent the continuation of a pattern of behaviour which had been deemed vexatious in another context, it did not relate to a matter which had been previously investigated and concluded, it was not designed to cause disruption or annoyance to the public authority and any effect it had of being harassing to the public authority was justified in the circumstances.

Taking into consideration previous correspondence and the current communications from me, Scottish Enterprise’s angle that these were a continuation of my original complaint and had the effect of prolonging correspondence on matters which had been exhaustively addressed is false.  

I did not intend using the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act, 2002 as a vehicle for extending grievances that I had with a public authority.    

 

My request to you for information was stated in the following terms:

 

Dear Mr Lewis,

Under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 I formally request the following information:

1.     What arrangements does Scottish Enterprise have to address new evidence of financial irregularities?

2.    Has Scottish Enterprise recently addressed any such new evidence?

Yours sincerely,

Eddie Cairns

 

Since the focus of my request was clearly new evidence Ms Hannah’s response is evasive and dishonest having completely disregarded that new evidence and having misrepresented the facts.

My letter to you dated 21 December 2017 went into considerable detail about new evidence in this case and warned you about the very serious consequences of deliberately communicating false information. That letter is reproduced below in its entirety because of its importance:

 

Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

07501 346 490

21 December 2017

 

 

Mr Paul Lewis

Acting Chief Executive

Scottish Enterprise

Atrium Court

50 Waterloo Street

GLASGOW G2 6HQ

 

 

Dear Mr Lewis,

 

SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE

 

FRAUD BY KNOWINGLY COMMUNICATING FALSE INFORMATION

 

Mr Paul Sweeney MP has advised me to communicate with you directly.

The following extract from your letter to Mr Sweeney, reproduced here in italics for convenience, gives rise to serious concern:

‘Given the history of this case and the extensive amount of time and public money spent dealing with it over many years, we wrote to Mr Cairns on 11 April 2014 advising that we would no longer respond to any correspondence from him.  Therefore, we do not believe that it would be appropriate for us to respond to Mr Cairns as a result of his correspondence with you.’

Scottish Enterprise have in reality never provided a response to my complaint.

Your pretence that Scottish Enterprise have spent an extensive amount of time and public money dealing with it is simply false. 

 

When you communicated those words you did so in the full knowledge of their falsity, a very serious offence in the context of alleged financial irregularities.

 

Consequently, your statements quoted above appear to be dishonest and fraudulent.

 

You have relied upon Scottish Enterprise’s letter to me in 2014 to disregard completely my recent correspondence.

However that restriction was stated to apply unless I had new evidence.

You know that my recent correspondence did include important new evidence obtained since 2014 therefore by Scottish Enterprise’s own written stipulation and in accordance with legal obligations to investigate new evidence of significant financial irregularities in a public authority that new evidence requires to be carefully considered in the public interest, not culpably ignored.

 

Under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 I formally request a copy of the original complaints response and copies of any outcomes of reviews of this case.  

 

These disclosed documents should enlighten the general public as to the answers to the following relevant points of interest:

 

What was Scottish Enterprise's alleged explanation for £187,000 of taxpayers' cash being omitted from the company's financial accounts and bank accounts while it was simultaneously transferred into the personal bank account of one of my supervisors?

 

What was Scottish Enterprise's explanation for a further £919 interest being credited to the same employee's personal bank account instead of to one of the company’s bank accounts?

 

The importance of establishing whether or not false information has been communicated in any case was highlighted in the press.

An article published in the Daily Mail on 12 October 2017 with the headline Tram fiasco lawyer warned of possible fraud for passing on ‘false’ information included the following words, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

A leading lawyer who admitted passing inaccurate information to City of Edinburgh Council during the tram project fiasco was yesterday told that he may be guilty of fraud.

...... Mr Fitchie was asked by senior counsel Jonathan Lake, QC: ‘Going back to May 2008, you would have been aware that they were knowingly providing false information to the council?’

He replied: ‘You’ve used a strong word – false information. And you’ve said, I believe, ‘’knowingly providing false information to the council’’. And I would have been aware that they were ‘’knowingly providing false information’’. I would hesitate to go as strong as that agreeing with you. I agree that the information in those closed reports was deficient.’

Inquiry chairman Lord Hardie asked: ‘Well, it was more than deficient wasn’t it? It wasn’t accurate.’

Mr Fitchie responded: ‘Yes my lord, it was not accurate.’

Lord Hardie asked him: ‘So it wasn’t true?’

Mr Fitchie tersely responded, ’correct’ before Lord Hardie insisted: ‘So it’s false?’

Mr Fitchie confirmed this was the case.

Mr Lake asked: ‘You hesitate there because you know the legal significance of knowingly providing false information to someone don’t you?’

Mr Fitchie confirmed that he understood, before Mr Lake told him: ‘Because it amounts to fraud doesn’t it?’

Mr Fitchie replied: ‘It potentially is a criminal offence yes, and a civil one as well.’

 

In a letter to me dated 20 April 2017 Mr Iain Scott of Scottish Enterprise knowingly included the following false information, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

You were also advised that SE had investigated these allegations carefully and thoroughly and that our complaints handling process had been followed to its limits.

As we have written to you before to confirm, we will no longer respond to any further correspondence from you regarding these matters.

In fact perusal of the Scottish Enterprise report dated 20 August 1993 and several items of material documentary evidence that had been concealed from that report, which were all communicated to Police Scotland by Mr Scott on 15 April 2016, reveals that Scottish Enterprise had in fact not investigated these allegations carefully and thoroughly, nor had the Scottish Enterprise complaints handling process been followed to its limits.

Therefore the Scottish Enterprise report and the other items of documentary evidence contained false information that Mr Scott knowingly communicated to Police Scotland on 15 April 2016.

Two significant instances of false information knowingly communicated by Mr Scott are reproduced below in italics for convenience and my comments follow in normal type:

1.          A review of the bank reconciliation indicated that the bank statements had been reconciled only to the cash book. As the entry had been made in the cash book for the ERDF income, no discrepancy arose. Had the cash book balance been subsequently reconciled to the bank account in the financial ledger the difference would have been highlighted. There was no evidence that this reconciliation had been carried out.

Since Mr Scott emailed a copy of this reconciliation to the police on 15 April 2016 along with the Scottish Enterprise report, which falsely stated that there was no evidence that this reconciliation had been carried out, Mr Scott knew that the statements in respect of this reconciliation were false.

Of course, I also was a witness to the fact that I had carried out this reconciliation but the report’s author, Ms Mandie Dickson of Scottish Enterprise made no attempt to obtain any information from me, which further rendered her investigation fundamentally defective with an unlawful appearance of bias against me.

2.     STATEMENT GIVEN TO KIRSTY SCOTT, THE HERALD regarding allegations of mis-accounting at Enterprise Ayrshire

Scottish Enterprise National took these allegations seriously, and investigated them thoroughly on the day that they were made. There is no substance to any of the allegations made regarding the receipt of European funds by Enterprise Ayrshire. Our enquiries are complete and there are no grounds for taking any action.

Issued by the Press Office of Scottish Enterprise

September 1, 1993

Mr Scott emailed a copy of this Scottish Enterprise press statement to the police on 15 April 2016 along with a copy of the Scottish Enterprise report therefore he knew that the Scottish Enterprise report contradicted it. 

The conclusion of the Scottish Enterprise report confirming that this public money should have been entered into the accounts in June 1993 whereas it had not been entered into the accounts until I formally expressed my concerns about the financial irregularities is reproduced below, in italics for convenience:

The receipt of ERDF money was brought into the July financial ledger on 18 August. The money was received in June 1993 and should therefore have been accounted for in this month. 

Consequently, Mr Scott knowingly communicated false information to the police on 15 April 2016 in respect of this matter. In reality Mr Scott knew that there was indeed substance to the allegations made regarding the receipt of European funds by Enterprise Ayrshire, that there were indeed grounds for taking action and that action had indeed been swiftly taken to correct the accounts before any investigation had been carried out, indicating that the managers already knew the accounts were wrong.

As for the assertions in the press statement that Scottish Enterprise National took these allegations seriously, and investigated them thoroughly on the day that they were made material evidence known to Mr Scott to be available but concealed from the Scottish Enterprise report reveals those assertions to be false information, knowingly communicated to the police by Mr Scott on 15 April 2016.

Material items concealed from the Scottish Enterprise report but copied to the police by Mr Scott on 15 April 2016 included my reconciliation to the financial ledger showing the £187,069 discrepancy and my important email to my supervisors in Enterprise Ayrshire expressing my concerns about being instructed to overlook the financial irregularities, effectively being incited to enter into the existing criminal conspiracy to falsify the accounts and misappropriate this cash.

In addition, there were copies of other relevant documents contained in the Scottish Enterprise report which were not properly addressed and explained in the text of that report.

For example there was a copy of a bank statement in the name of one of my supervisors, Mr Gary Tracey, containing the £187,000 that was simultaneously missing from the company’s balance sheet and financial accounts. That bank statement showed that interest of £919 had additionally been credited to Mr Tracey’s personal account in respect of the misappropriated public money.

The Scottish Enterprise report falsely stated that all the bank accounts involved were Enterprise Ayrshire bank accounts.

 

Did Mr Tracey tell the investigators that the money was, like in the case of Father Ted, just resting in his account before he moved it on? Actually, Mr Tracey would not have had to explain why he was caught red-handed with this substantial amount of taxpayers’ cash because according to the 1993 Scottish Enterprise report nobody was interviewed at all, not even the person who was found to have the missing money.

 

According to disclosures to me from Scottish Enterprise on 7 July 2016 Mr Scott was interviewed by the police in 2016 in the context of another review. What was his explanation for the cash found to be in an employee’s personal bank account, earning interest for him while the cash was missing from the company’s balance sheet and bank account? That remains a mystery because the COPFS already notified me that, again, no police report was submitted to them following that purported review. What a surprise. 

 

There was a copy of the Scottish Enterprise press statement in the Scottish Enterprise report but the false information contained therein was entirely overlooked in the text of that report.

 

The Scottish Enterprise report provided no plausible explanation for all these financial irregularities therefore Scottish Enterprise had not investigated the allegations carefully and thoroughly.

As for the assertion in Mr Scott’s letter to me dated 20 April 2017 that Scottish Enterprise’s complaints handling process had been followed to its limits in respect of the financial irregularities, in reality Scottish Enterprise has never provided a response to my original complaint. Consequently, there was never any response available that I could request to be reviewed.

New evidence disclosed to me by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service on 6 April 2017, as detailed in my letters to you dated 8 July 2017 and 10 July 2017, shows that the defective Scottish Enterprise report dated 20 August 1993 had also been communicated to the police and the COPFS in 1993, amounting to fraud by the persons who knowingly communicated false information at that time too and repeatedly thereafter.

For example, following my early request for information, Scottish Enterprise’s Mr or Ms Ray MacFarlane wrote to me on behalf of the Chief Executive of Scottish Enterprise on 14 October 1994 including the following, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

Thank you for your letter of 4 October 1994 to Crawford Beveridge seeking comments on your departure from your contract post at Enterprise Ayrshire (EA). As Mr Beveridge is on leave at present, I have been asked to respond on his behalf.

I am confident that the officers in EA have dealt with this case in an extremely professional manner. I realise that this will be a disappointing response for you, but have to inform you that, so far as Scottish Enterprise is concerned, the matter is now closed.

As for the assertion that the officers in Enterprise Ayrshire had dealt with this case in an extremely professional manner, it was reported in the Herald on 2 September 1993, reproduced here in italics for convenience, that:

Enterprise Ayrshire has dismissed the allegations as utterly groundless ....

And:

Mr Gordon Brown, Enterprise Ayrshire’s director of business development, said it was aware of Mr Cairns’s allegations and rejected them totally. He said the European funds were handled absolutely correctly in legal and accounting ethical terms. The money was correctly received from Europe and correctly handled thereafter. Mr Cairns is incapable of accepting that. That’s why his contract was terminated. He was not sacked. His claims are without foundation.

Of course these statements are incompatible with Ms Lena Wilson’s later disclosure on 30 May 2012, reproduced here in italics for convenience, that:

The matter was immediately investigated at the time by Scottish Enterprise, its principal funder, and the accounting requirements for Local Enterprise Companies were clarified.

In a letter to me dated 8 March 2002 the Chief Executive of Scottish Enterprise Mr Robert Crawford included the following statements, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

We have, in previous correspondence, explained our clear position. We have rejected your accusations of unethical accounting and of unfair treatment towards you.

In May 2009 I wrote several letters to the Chief Executive of Scottish Enterprise at that time, Mr Jack Perry, detailing financial irregularities in Scottish Enterprise that clearly warranted his attention, as contained for example in my letter to Audit Scotland dated 10 May 2009 which was copied to Mr Perry.

Mr Perry completely ignored every letter from me. Mr Perry’s acts and omissions indicated his concurrence with the other participants in the conspiracy for the common purpose of covering up the alleged financial irregularities.

 

In a letter to me dated 31 January 2011 Ms Lena Wilson acknowledged my complaint about Mr Jack Perry but indicated that I would receive no response in the following terms, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

I can confirm that your complaint against Jack Perry was not directed to the Standards Commission for Scotland. It is not for Scottish Enterprise to do so.

Please note that, for the protection of individuals, any disciplinary processes carried out are strictly confidential and the findings would not be disclosed to anyone else whether employee or not.

Thereby Ms Wilson confirmed her concurrence with the other participants in the conspiracy to cover up the financial irregularities that had been alleged since my complaint had focussed upon Mr Perry’s failure to address those irregularities.

On 18 October 1993 an article appeared in the Herald including the following statement, reproduced here in italics for convenience, which is revealed to be false in the light of the new evidence:

Mr Andrew Downie, Enterprise Ayrshire company secretary, said yesterday that the police report on the case had been reviewed by the procurator fiscal’s office, which had confirmed that there was no substance to the allegations.

In fact there was no police report submitted to the COPFS in 1993 according to the new evidence.

On 30 May 2012 Ms Lena Wilson the Chief Executive of Scottish Enterprise wrote to Ms Patricia Ferguson MSP including the following statement, reproduced here in italics for convenience, which is also revealed to be false in the light of the new evidence:

Strathclyde Police also investigated the matter and a report was submitted to the Procurator Fiscal who decided to take no further action.

In that same letter Scottish Enterprise made the following important commitment, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

Mr Cairns continued to revisit this matter with Scottish Enterprise ..........and in 2011 I had reluctantly to inform him that unless he had new evidence, Scottish Enterprise would not continue to correspond with him on this matter .....

The following words, reproduced here in italics for convenience, contained in the letter from Ms Lena Wilson, Chief Executive of Scottish Enterprise, to Ms Patricia Ferguson MSP dated 30 May 2012 were also fraudulent:

The subject matter of Mr Cairns’ complaint dates back to 1993 and relates to an accounting matter raised by Mr Cairns regarding when a credit should have been shown in the management accounts of Scottish Enterprise Ayrshire (SE Ayrshire) formerly named Enterprise Ayrshire.

The matter was immediately investigated at the time by Scottish Enterprise, its principal funder, and the accounting requirements for Local Enterprise Companies were clarified. No evidence of fraud or wrongdoing was found.

Following unauthorised disclosures relating to the above matter to the press and various other third parties, Mr Cairns’ position was untenable and his contract with Enterprise Ayrshire was terminated in August 1993.

These false statements about me and about this case by Scottish Enterprise’s Ms Lena Wilson, knowingly communicated to Ms Patricia Ferguson MSP falsely, included the stated consequences of my alleged conduct for my employment, which were that my position became untenable and my contract terminated.

Falsely stating that I had acted in a way that caused my dismissal was a serious fraud that merits proper investigation along with all the other serious false statements knowingly communicated in this case.

I am a qualified accountant therefore Ms Lena Wilson’s false statements about me and about this case, knowingly, in the context of alleged financial irregularities were particularly insulting and damaging.

Scottish Enterprise’s deliberately false statements about me, knowingly communicated by Ms Lena Wilson, resulted in Ms Patricia Ferguson MSP deciding to take no further action on my behalf.

Scottish Enterprise’s deliberately false words, knowingly communicated by Ms Lena Wilson to Ms Patricia Ferguson MSP, misleadingly indicated that I had raised concerns about a technical accounting matter, when there was nothing wrong, and that I had breached confidentiality.

In fact I had been concerned about being instructed by my supervisors to overlook in my reconciliation work the omission from the balance sheet of a cash grant from the European Regional Development Fund of £187,069 which had simultaneously been deposited into a high interest bank account in the name of Mr Gary Tracey personally.

Ms Lena Wilson’s deliberately inaccurate description of the matter can reasonably be suspected as designed to cover up its true nature, which in fact gave rise to a reasonable suspicion of the operation of a criminal conspiracy to commit fraud, not a minor accounting technicality at all.  

In that regard disclosures from Audit Scotland in May 2009 included the following statements in a document headed Notes from review of papers submitted by E Cairns, prepared by Audit Scotland’s Mr Jim Martin, dated 20 August 2004 and reproduced here in italics for convenience:

Mr Cairns is correct in his view that the ERDF monies should have been included in the EA June Management Accounts and it looks as though they might have been omitted from the July accounts but for his actions ....................... Speculation on why the monies were not disclosed in the management accounts is academic at this stage but it does seem odd that he was allegedly instructed to exclude them from the July accounts.

Responses to Mr Cairns (sic) complaints from Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Office Ministers dismiss the omission of the receipts as a technical accounting matter. That is disingenuous. Mr Cairns (sic) issue is about the deliberate misstatement of management accounts; there are governance issues here ................ The Board of EA were receiving these management accounts as was Scottish Enterprise, the principal funders. I see no reason why the ERDF monies should not have been shown in the first management accounts after their receipt. Scottish Enterprise should have been concerned that Mr Cairns was allegedly instructed to exclude them.

 

.............. If Mr Cairns is seeking recompense for his dismissal we should not get drawn in.

 

My email to my supervisors in Enterprise Ayrshire, Mr Gary Tracey and Ms Janie Maxwell, dated 17 August 1993 had recorded my objection to their instructions to more junior workers, including me, to omit from the balance sheet funds received from the ERDF.

The correction to the balance sheet, made within less than a day of that email, was a significant increase in the bank balance and a corresponding decrease in the funding required from taxpayers.

Consequently, there was indeed evidence of wrongdoing.

Before this correction the accounts had been wrong by £187,069.

In fact I did not make any unauthorised disclosures relating to the above matter to the press and various other third parties before my contract was terminated.

Available evidence already provided to the police and to the COPFS confirms my position on these points to be correct.

In conclusion, the available documentary evidence arising since the last police investigation was concluded on 31 May 2016 shows that Mr Scott has knowingly communicated false information about this case repeatedly which, according to the very serious legal consequences highlighted by Lord Hardie and senior counsel Jonathan Lake QC quoted above, amount to additional instances of alleged fraud thereby that ought to be properly investigated.

Recently disclosed evidence shows that false information was also knowingly communicated by Scottish Enterprise employees in 1993 and repeatedly since that time.

In addition to the initial alleged fraud in respect of the missing £187,000 from a public agency, Scottish Enterprise, relevant extracts quoted above show that communications of false information, knowingly, separately constitute further instances of fraud.

The alleged communications of false information, knowingly, by senior finance workers in a public agency is of course a very serious matter of public interest that requires adequate attention.

Your decision to participate in the criminal conspiracy to cover up financial irregularities in Scottish Enterprise is shameful.

You ought to consider the potentially disastrous consequences of lying about such matters.

Yours sincerely,

                                  Eddie Cairns

 

The following statements in Ms Hannah’s email to me, reproduced here in italics for convenience, are false and in the light of information available to her were plainly communicated in the full knowledge of their falsity, a criminal matter:

 

We consider that this request is an attempt to re-open issues which have previously been dealt with through other processes.   

Taking into consideration previous correspondence and the current communications from you, we consider that these are a continuation of your original complaint and have the effect of prolonging correspondence on matters which have been exhaustively addressed. 

 

Consequently, I have reported to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service Ms Hannah’s and your deliberate communications of false information to me.

Separately, I formally request a review of the decision in response to my Freedom of Information request dated 13 December 2017 because it has been based upon deliberate falsehoods as detailed above and in the light of all the available information including the important new evidence supporting my allegations.

Yours sincerely,

                                  Eddie Cairns

 

 

Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

2 February 2018

 

 

Mr Paul Lewis

Interim Chief Executive

Scottish Enterprise

Atrium Court,

50 Waterloo Street

Glasgow G2 6HQ


 

 

Dear Mr Lewis,

In my letter to you dated 21 December 2017 I included the following formal request for disclosures, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

Under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 I formally request a copy of the original complaints response and copies of any outcomes of reviews of this case.  

 

The deadline for providing disclosures was 30 January 2018.

I have written to the Information Commissioner for an assessment of Scottish Enterprise’s compliance or non-compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998.

Yours sincerely,

                                    Eddie Cairns

 

Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

6 February 2018

Mr Paul Lewis

Interim Chief Executive

Scottish Enterprise

Atrium Court

50 Waterloo Street

Glasgow G2 6HQ

 


 

Dear Mr Lewis,

Under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 I formally request subject access disclosures in respect of alleged new evidence of financial irregularities arising since the completion of the last review by Police Scotland in this case on 31 May 2016.

 

Specific information notified to the COPFS by the Information Commissioner on 4 December 2009 as likely to form my personal data included the following:

(a)     all records of correspondence, documents, evidence, or other items sent to, or by me, irrespective of the sender (including external bodies)

(b)     any internal or external communications (including email) about me including:

     (i)     any speculation or expressions of opinion regarding my reasoning or motivation behind my complaints and requests for clarification.

     (ii)     any advice (including legal advice), comments, or reports on COPFS’s duties to respond to, or otherwise how to handle, my correspondence, requests for clarification, complaints, and information request(s).

     (iii)     any other expressions of opinion about me.

(c)     any information recording contact COPFS staff have had with me.

(d)     my witness statements and any other information provided by me, or records of evidence provided by me, in relation to ‘the fraud case’.

(e)     the records of any investigation into COPFS staff, or subsequent disciplinary action, in relation to their actions in relation to, or treatment of, me.

(f)     any comments about me and my complaints expressed by persons accused by me.

The disclosures to me from the COPFS on 6 April 2017 containing the letter from the Information Commissioner to the COPFS dated 4 December 2009 are attached. As a result of my responses to these disclosures the COPFS are currently reviewing my concerns in this case.

In accordance with this formal request under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 the same categories of information now require to be disclosed to me by Scottish Enterprise in respect of alleged new evidence of financial irregularities arising since the completion of the last review by Police Scotland in this case on 31 May 2016.

 

It is recorded in the attached disclosures that the Information Commissioner considered the COPFS to have contravened the Data Protection Act 1998 in my case. Several communications from the Information Commissioner were required in order to get the COPFS to act lawfully towards me, including the threat of issuing an Information Notice compelling the COPFS to comply and the threat of the case being considered for formal regulatory action.

 

I hope such action will not be required in Scottish Enterprise’s case.

 

Yours sincerely,

                                    Eddie Cairns

 

 

I have attached a copy of a letter to me from Ms Patricia Ferguson MSP on 12 June 2012 confirming the assertion in my last letter to you that she ceased acting on my behalf because she believed Scottish Enterprise’s damaging falsehoods about me supposedly having exhausted all available processes.

 

In these circumstances I have forwarded to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service the new evidence of Scottish Enterprise’s communication of false information in this case, knowingly, amounting to fraud.

 

Yours sincerely,

                                Eddie Cairns