Friday, 11 April 2014

IAIN SCOTT, SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE, MISREPRESENTS FRAUD CASE

Mr E Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

11 April 2014







Mr Iain Scott

Chief Financial Officer and Company Secretary

Scottish Enterprise

Atrium Court

50 Waterloo Street

GLASGOW G2 6HQ





Dear Mr Scott,

COMPLAINTS

In his letter dated 5 November 2013 Mr Bob Doris MSP referred to the following statements issued by Scottish Enterprise in a letter to Ms Patricia Ferguson MSP dated 30 May 2012:

1. ‘the accounting requirements for Local Enterprise Companies were clarified.’

2. ‘no evidence of fraud or wrongdoing was found’

In the context of this new information Mr Doris asked several pertinent questions in the public interest, including why was it necessary to clarify the requirements and to add £187,069 to the accounts retrospectively if no wrongdoing had occurred?

In his letter to you dated 7 March 2014 Mr Doris asked how the complaints process had dealt with the questions raised in his previous letter.

In your responses you made no attempt to answer these questions.

Most importantly, you omitted to mention that documentary evidence available to you did indeed confirm that there was a note in the cash book recording an instruction not to enter into the accounts the £187,069 that had been received in the bank by electronic transfer on 25 June 1993, that the finance staff who routinely made such entries acted upon that instruction for almost two months, and that the entry was made retrospectively on 18 August 1993 only after I had put my concerns into writing.

The documentary evidence corroborates the contents of my email dated 17 August 1993 and contradicts the assertion by Scottish Enterprise issued on 30 May 2012 that no wrongdoing was found.

Is it wrong to instruct workers in a public agency to falsify a bank account? Of course it is.



You asserted that Scottish Enterprise considers the matter closed. However, where new evidence comes to light a reasonable and informed third party would conclude that it is fundamentally dishonest and misleading to refuse to have any regard for it.

You appear to be persisting in seriously misrepresenting this case to the point of bringing your integrity into question and discrediting the profession.

In the circumstances I want to add these points to my complaint against you. You ought to have carefully reviewed the evidence in the light of the new information provided by Scottish Enterprise in 2012.

I will also include these points in any complaint about you to ICAS.

The ICAS Code of Ethics contains the following relevant points:

100.5 A professional accountant shall comply with the following fundamental principles:



(e) Professional Behaviour



To comply with relevant laws and regulations and avoid any action that discredits the profession.



110.2 A professional accountant shall not knowingly be associated with reports, returns, communications or other information where the professional accountant believes that the information:



(a) Contains a materially false or misleading statement;



(b) Contains statements or information furnished recklessly; or



(c) Omits or obscures information required to be included where such omission or obscurity would be misleading.



Yours sincerely,

Eddie Cairns.



Thursday, 10 April 2014

FURTHER CONCERNS ABOUT IAIN SCOTT, SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Mr E Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

9 April 2014







Mr Iain Scott

Chief Financial Officer and Company Secretary

Scottish Enterprise

Atrium Court

50 Waterloo Street

GLASGOW G2 6HQ





Dear Mr Scott,

DATA PROTECTION AND COMPLAINTS

In your letters to Mr Bob Doris dated 27 November 2013 and 25 March 2014 you relied upon the Scottish Enterprise complaints and review processes apparently having been exhausted by me in respect of the concerns I raised in 1993.

Since you appear to have had access to such information at least during November 2013 I formally request subject access disclosures specifically in respect of these processes under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998.

I have already informed you that the results of any such processes were never communicated to me by Scottish Enterprise. A reasonable and informed third party would conclude that you have not been truthful in respect of this issue if you fail to produce these documents.

In any event new information was provided by Scottish Enterprise in 2012 upon which Mr Doris based his questions in the public interest. He was not going over the same grounds as before. Your reliance upon the results of processes that you hold to have been undertaken long before this new information was provided is therefore defective and could reasonably be regarded as evasive and misleading.

Ms Lena Wilson had included the following significant statement in her letter to Ms Patricia Ferguson MSP dated 30 May 2012:

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

Mr Doris quite properly requested information on what had been clarified and to whom. He highlighted the fact that this new information did not seem to accord with the statement in the same letter that ‘No evidence of fraud or wrongdoing was found’.

Consequently, I have written to Mr Doris to bring to his attention the fact that you are refusing to have regard to this important new evidence for reasons that are clearly not valid at all.

I want to raise a formal complaint against you for that refusal under Scottish Enterprise’s complaints procedure.



Separately, I intend including that refusal in any formal complaint I may raise against you with ICAS.



The ICAS Code of Ethics contains the following relevant points:



1.12 In the event of a complaint, the investigation and disciplinary committees shall be entitled to assess whether a reasonable and informed third party would conclude that compliance with the fundamental principles was compromised.





100.5 A professional accountant shall comply with the following fundamental principles:



(a) Integrity



To be straightforward and honest in all professional and business relationships.



(b) Objectivity



To not allow bias, conflict of interest or undue influence of others to override professional or business judgements.



SECTION 110: INTEGRITY



110.1 The principle of integrity imposes an obligation on all professional accountants to be straightforward and honest in all professional and business relationships. Integrity also implies fair dealing and truthfulness.



It follows that a professional accountant‟s advice and work must be uncorrupted by self-interest and not be influenced by the interests of other parties.



110.2 A professional accountant shall not knowingly be associated with reports, returns, communications or other information where the professional accountant believes that the information:



(a) Contains a materially false or misleading statement;



(b) Contains statements or information furnished recklessly; or



(c) Omits or obscures information required to be included where such omission or obscurity would be misleading.



Yours sincerely,

Eddie Cairns.



Tuesday, 8 April 2014

IAIN SCOTT CA, SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE, MAY FACE ICAS INVESTIGATION

Mr E Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

7 April 2014





Mr Iain Scott

Chief Financial Officer and Company Secretary

Scottish Enterprise

Atrium Court

50 Waterloo Street

GLASGOW G2 6HQ







Dear Mr Scott,

COMPLAINT

You sent a letter dated 27 November 2013 to Mr Bob Doris MSP which contained several important false statements as detailed below:



‘... Mr Cairns’ complaint dates back to 1993. Mr Cairns remains dissatisfied with the outcome of the original investigation ....’

Scottish Enterprise did not communicate the outcome of the original investigation to me at all.

There was simply no response to my complaint.



‘I understand that Mr Cairns has fully exhausted the complaints and review procedures of all the organisations that he has involved, including Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.’

In fact the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman decided not to investigate the case and I received no complaints response at all from Scottish Enterprise.

Instead they wrote over a year later and told me that the matter was closed then about nine years later that they rejected my accusations of unethical accounting and of receiving unfair treatment.

The outcome of their investigation was never provided to me by Scottish Enterprise.

Mr or Ms Ray Macfarlane, the Acting Chief Executive, wrote the following in a letter to me dated 14 October 1994:

‘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.’

In a letter to me dated 8 March 2002 the Chief Executive Mr Robert Crawford included the following statements which in the light of the available evidence confirm Scottish Enterprise’s persistently inappropriate conduct towards me over an extensive period of time:

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

Scottish Enterprise never did process this issue as a complaint nor did they ever provide a complaints response to me that could then be reviewed. It is simply false to pretend that I had exhausted the complaints and review procedures.



‘For a complaint to continue to be raised beyond all the review processes places Scottish Enterprise in a difficult, indeed, unprecedented position.’

This is just an extension of the false pretence that there was a complaints response to be reviewed at all. In reality none exists.



‘In our view, given the complaint has exhausted even the processes beyond Scottish Enterprise’s complaints procedure ....’

This is a restatement of the basic falsehood that I had exhausted the Scottish Enterprise and Scottish Public Services Ombudsman complaints procedures.



‘...the length of time since the original complaint and that staff involved at the time are no longer in the employment of Scottish Enterprise...’

It is Scottish Enterprise who avoided responding in a reasonable time. And Scottish Enterprise is responsible for the conduct of staff during their employment even if they are no longer in the employment of Scottish Enterprise.

In any event Lena Wilson is still in the employment of Scottish Enterprise.

The statements upon which Mr Doris based his valid questions in November 2013 were communicated by Lena Wilson to another MSP only in the previous year.

Lena Wilson’s assertion that ‘No evidence of fraud or wrongdoing was found’ when in fact the bank balance in the balance sheet was increased by £187,069 following my intervention is clearly an inconsistency requiring proper attention.



‘.... we do not believe that it is the public interest (sic) to dedicate any further public resource to re-addressing questions posed by Mr Cairns that were the subject of the original complaint.’

In fact my original email, dated 17 August 1993, posed no such questions. The contents are reproduced entirely below 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.’

Fundamentally I was concerned about being instructed to falsify a balance sheet.



You relied upon these falsehoods again in a letter to Mr Doris dated 25 March 2014.

I intend lodging a formal complaint against you with ICAS unless you retract these falsehoods within 28 days.

ICAS have confirmed to me that 28 days is a reasonable time to allow you to correct the alleged falsehoods before raising any formal complaint.

Yours sincerely,

Eddie Cairns.

.