That this House notes the appointment of Peter Hancock as Chief Executive of Maryport Developments Ltd in late 1993 and his subsequent resignation for so-called personal reasons in April 1994; notes that Peter Hancock was asked to leave by Maryport Developments Ltd's Board for failing to reveal in his curriculum vitae and original application for this important job in Maryport the details of his business background; notes his failure to reveal his connection with numerous companies, a number of which went into receivership or liquidation; notes that he further failed to reveal that he was Managing Director of Mainport Training Company and its associate Swelldale, a failed company and beneficiary of taxpayers' money through training contracts; notes that following an investigation by South Wales TEC into irregularities into the companies' operations, according to a letter from the Minister of State at the Welsh Office of 16th June 1993, the South Wales TEC relocated most of the 94 Mainport trainees to other training providers; notes the TEC contract with Mainport/Swelldale was terminated after five weeks' notice on 20th June, leading to 20 trainers and others losing their jobs; believes that Peter Hancock's failure to disclose this information gave him an unfair advantage over other applicants at the original interview with Maryport Developments; notes that despite repeated assertions to the contrary by Hancock no legal proceedings have been brought against South Wales TEC over termination of the training contract; and believes that the people of Maryport are entitled to know the truth concerning this particular appointment.

That this House notes the appointment of Peter Hancock as Chief Executive of Maryport Developments Ltd in late 1993 and his subsequent resignation for so-called personal reasons in April 1994; notes that Peter Hancock was asked to leave by Maryport Developments Ltd's Board for failing to reveal in his curriculum...

That this House notes that following a detailed investigation by the honourable Member for Workington, fraudulent diplomas and documents issued by JHP have been identified; believes that this documentation forms only part of a large volume of similar material held by the company nationally; believes that a detailed enquiry into JHP operations will reveal, the extensive forgery of trainee and trainer signatures, the theft of public money, the submission of falsified documentation and attendance records to TEC officials, unreasonable pressure having been exerted on employees, the deliberate misleading of the national examination boards, the alteration of trainee work records prior to assessment and verification, the pursuit of training targets for the purpose of maximising profit, the use of questionable activities with regard to verification procedures, the creation of phantom trainees for the purpose of cheating the taxpayer, the generation of fictional trainee timesheets, the holding of award certification prior to the completion of training, and the premature departure of trainees in disgust over the quality of training; believes that JHP local, regional and national personnel have been made aware of these practices in internal reports and meetings; believes that the indifference of the company to such allegations, apart from the discreet termination of a few employee contracts, only serves to indicate how widespread has been the fraud; and expreses thanks to Cumbria TEC for being helpful and open during the course of the honourable Member for Workington's enquiry and for the recent work carried out on quality standards in relation to JHP.

That this House notes that following a detailed investigation by the honourable Member for Workington, fraudulent diplomas and documents issued by JHP have been identified; believes that this documentation forms only part of a large volume of similar material held by the company nationally; believes that a detailed enquiry into...

That this House calls for a full inquiry by the National Audit Office under section 9 of the National Audit Act 1938, and by the Runcorn-based Internal Audit Unit at the Employment Department into the activities of JHP Training Limited, of Foleshill, Coventry, associate company of Pitman Personnel and Pitman Sumlock; notes that JHP has a national network of 65 training centres; notes that in July 1993 JHP fraudulently misled the Pitman's Examination Institute into issuing an NVQ business administration level 2 diploma certificate number PE13046 in the name of Mr Gareth Marshall, a constituent of the honourable Member for Workington; notes that Mr Marshall, who never received the award, and who was never made aware of its existence, strongly objected to his name being used in the committing of this criminal offence; believes that the Pitman's Examination Institute is an innocent victim of this fraud carried out by senior JHP personnel; advises Martin Cross, the Chief Executive of the RSA examination board, that his organisation has also been used in similar circumstances by JHP; believes that such actions totally undermine the NVQ awards system in the United Kingdom; calls upon the PEI and RSA, in defence of their high reputations to consider bringing civil proceedings for damages against JHP and for the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute those involved at the highest level under the criminal law; and notes that the papers in the possession of the honourable Member for Workington are available to the investigating bodies.

That this House calls for a full inquiry by the National Audit Office under section 9 of the National Audit Act 1938, and by the Runcorn-based Internal Audit Unit at the Employment Department into the activities of JHP Training Limited, of Foleshill, Coventry, associate company of Pitman Personnel and Pitman...