Maryport Developments (No. 2)

EDM number 1173 in 1993-94, proposed by DN Campbell-Savours on 05/05/1994.

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 ú14,000 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.

This motion has been signed by a total of 4 MPs.