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 believes that Succession Planning Associates, the executive search consultancy, was gravely at fault in failing to properly research the business background, prior to appointment, of the successful candidate for Chief Executive of Maryport Develpments Ltd; understands that, under the terms of SPA's ??14,000 contract with English Partnership, SPA is required to undertake the recruitment of a new candidate at no cost to MDL; asks whether SPA will be compensating MDL for money lost over the Hancock appointment; asks MDL to disclose publicly the full cost of prematurely terminating Hancock's contract and whether, if no compensation is paid, legal action is contemplated against SPA; questions why both an English Partnership appointed director to MDL and the Chairman both failed to inform the other directors when they were first informed of concerns over Hancock's appointment at the end of February; notes that other directors including Allerdale and the County's representative directors were not informed until Thursday 21st April of enquiries into Hancock's status; notes they were assured that there was no cause for concern; notes on Monday 25th April that having been alerted to the details of the Hancock affair the County and Allerdale representative directors demanded a full explanation from MDL at an MDL board meeting as to the background of Hancock's appointment; notes the decision was then taken to seek Hancock's resignation; and supports the MDL board in taking decisive and early action thereby avoiding considerable public embarrassment for Maryport at a later stage.

That this House believes that Succession Planning Associates, the executive search consultancy, was gravely at fault in failing to properly research the business background, prior to appointment, of the successful candidate for Chief Executive of Maryport Develpments Ltd; understands that, under the terms of SPA's ??14,000 contract with English Partnership,...