Show original message
On Wednesday, 1 February 2017, 14:05, Karen Hannah
Dear Mr Cairns
We refer to your letter of 21 January 2017 and copy of your letter of 28 August 2016 relating to your request for information held on record by Scottish Enterprise to be corrected under Section 10 of the Data Protection Act 1998. 
There is no requirement under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) for authorities to alter historical records held which provide a record of events which took place at specific points in time. 
In accordance with Paragraph 7, Schedule 1 of the DPA, we will retain a copy of your objections on file.  We will not comply with any new requests to alter our historic records.  We will retain on file, but will not respond to, any further such requests. 
Team Leader, Corporate Support - Stakeholder, Communications & Networks
Scottish Enterprise | www.scottish-enterprise.com
Scottish Development International | www.sdi.co.uk
Direct dial +44 (0)141 228 2636
Head office and contact details:
50 Waterloo Street
Tel: +44(0)141 204 1111
Fax: +44(0)141 248 1600
Message is sent in confidence for the addressee only. It may contain legally privileged information. The contents are not to be disclosed to anyone other than the addressee. Unauthorised recipients are requested to preserve this confidentiality and to advise the sender immediately of any error in transmission.
2 February 2017
Today at 11:28
You already received my letter dated 28 August 2016 on 29 August 2016 and my section 10 notice incorporating that letter was dated 17 December 2016.
You are well beyond the time limit for responding to that notice.
My letter dated 28 August 2016 did not relate to your report. It was focussed upon your letters to my MSPs which contained false and very damaging statements about me, most egregious of which was Scottish Enterprise's blatant lie that I had supposedly exhausted your complaints and review processes. In fact Scottish Enterprise has never provided a response to any complaint from me that could be reviewed, even after I specifically requested any such response or review in subject access disclosures.
Your persistent dishonesty in this matter is disgraceful.
I fully intend publicising that in due course.
 Your email goes on to pretend falsely that my letter dated 28 August 2016 requested alterations to the original records in this case.
On the contrary my letter dated 28 August 2016 actually focussed upon the following later inaccuracies, reproduced here in italics for convenience:
‘Inspection of these communications would confirm the inaccuracy of the information held and processed by Scottish Enterprise to the effect that in 2013 I had already exhausted Scottish Enterprise’s complaints and review processes and to the effect that I was asking Scottish Enterprise to re-address questions that were the subject of the original complaint in 1993.’
‘Consequently, the inaccurate information about me held and processed by Scottish Enterprise needs to be corrected in order to accord with the available evidence.’
The available evidence would include the SE FINANCIAL MONITORING REPORT dated 20 August 1993. No alterations need to be made to that report to reveal Scottish Enterprise’s blatant misrepresentations of its contents ever since then.
Ms Lena Wilson’s letter to Ms Patricia Ferguson MSP dated 30 May 2012 misrepresented the findings of that report by falsely asserting that its outcome was that ‘the accounting requirements for Local Enterprise Companies were clarified’ and ‘no evidence of fraud or wrongdoing was found ‘.
In fact the original report contained no such findings.
Was it fraudulent and wrong to omit £187,069 from the balance sheet while simultaneously depositing it in a high interest bank account in the name of Mr Gary Tracey? Of course it was.
Mr Gary Tracey incited staff more junior to himself to falsify the accounts in respect of this money, including myself. I declined the invitation but other employees joined in the conspiracy to falsify the accounts.
Was it fraudulent and wrong of Mr Gary Tracey to incite more junior staff to falsify the accounts? Of course it was.
 There is no need to alter the original report in order to correct the many subsequent inaccuracies about that report being held and processed by Scottish Enterprise causing me substantial damage and distress.
The main requirement in respect of data management is for Scottish Enterprise to admit what the original historical records contain and to stop lying about them and about me.
In fact Scottish Enterprise never did report accurately what the historical records contain.
The SE FINANCIAL MONITORING REPORT dated 20 August 1993, prepared by Scottish Enterprise accountant Ms Mandy Dickson, contained the following very significant conclusion:
‘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 and exposes as inaccurate all Scottish Enterprise’s denials of having found any evidence of financial irregularities.
The report correctly identified this difference in the accounts as a cash receipt from the European Regional Development Fund for £187,069 on 25 June 1993 that was not entered into the accounts until 18 August 1993, the day after I objected in writing to the deliberate omission and exactly as I had alleged.
The report also correctly recorded in the following terms that this omission had been instructed by one of my supervisors, Mr Gary Tracey:
‘2) The receipt of the money was recorded in the cash book on the 25 June 1993. The following note was next to this entry:-‘
‘‘(No journal required as per G. Tracey)’’
Attached to the 1993 report were several documents one of which was a press release in the following terms:
‘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 and the public funds that were fraudulently claimed to be required to operate were reduced accordingly within hours of my written objections, plainly the press release was false.
This was an early misrepresentation of the historical records by Scottish Enterprise that has been perpetrated by several Scottish Enterprise directors and managers regularly to this day.
In reality this was a very significant correction to the accounts in response to my written objections to the financial irregularities which involved false accounting and the misappropriation of £187,069 of taxpayers’ money.
Scottish Enterprise’s press release stating that there had been no grounds for taking any action was a deliberate misrepresentation of the report.
Clearly the correction to the accounts was forced by my crucial email dated 17 August 1993 to my supervisors in Enterprise Ayrshire, Mr Gary Tracey and Ms Janie Maxwell 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.’
 Retaining a copy of my objections on file is not good enough. My objections concur with the original report.
Consequently I justifiably object to Scottish Enterprise’s continuing inaccurate statements about the original report and about me.
 Actually my requests included the correction of inaccurate statements about the original findings recorded in the report. Scottish Enterprise persistently misrepresented these at my expense.
There is no need to alter the historic records in order to correct the inaccurate and very damaging statements about me. Scottish Enterprise need only state accurately what the original report contains. It justifies my concerns about the accounts but Scottish Enterprise has consistently acted dishonestly in order to cover up the wrongdoing.