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.

.

No comments: