Leominster Enterprise Park

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2014 Westminster Hall

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

I will be brief, because I am keenly aware of the passage of time in the short period that we have been allocated for this debate.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) on his masterly speech; he shone a pitiless light on the official incompetence of various Departments of State. I wish that the problems he described were limited to North Herefordshire, but I am afraid that that is not the case; the incompetence of PxP has made its way into South Herefordshire as well, and I will briefly explain how that is so.

In 2007, my constituent, Mr Jim Hardy of Aconbury Sprouts, leased a unit from PxP in the village of Ewyas Harold and borrowed significantly to do so, to expand the production of sprouted seeds in reaction to growing consumer demand. Through no fault of his own, that demand then evaporated, due to action by the supermarket multiples. Although he struggled on, unfortunately he found himself having to place the company in liquidation, after trading successfully for 26 years. The rest of his business was unable to support the borrowing he had incurred to meet the orders that he had lost.

Fortunately, from Mr Hardy’s point of view, there was another well-established and well-resourced business that was keen to take over his business as a going concern, but that process required rapid action, because, of course, taking over a business that is already functioning requires speed, to maintain continuity. Despite the best efforts of the liquidator and the prospective buyer, PxP failed to respond in a timely and flexible way, and the opportunity was lost. All Mr Hardy’s staff were made redundant and Mr Hardy’s equipment was sold off for a tiny fraction of what it would have been worth in situ.

To secure the lease, Mr Hardy had been forced to sign a personal guarantee and unfortunately that guarantee remains in place. Mr Hardy has subsequently made other attempts to sell the business. PxP has put no value on all the improvements and adaptations he has made to the unit; indeed, it has demanded that he remove them. A company in an adjacent unit has approached Mr Hardy to acquire his unit, which would remove any of the issues that PxP had raised with the original purchaser, but PxP has refused to discuss any possible sale with that company. In fact, the unit has been shown on PxP’s website as being unavailable to let, despite that being pointed out to PxP on several occasions. Now PxP is pursuing my constituent, Mr Hardy, for sums of money that will inevitably lead to his bankruptcy and the loss of his home, which is also his only source of income.

As Mr Hardy says, that is not appropriate behaviour. It is certainly not appropriate behaviour for an institution that is focused on regeneration but has given up large amounts of revenue because it has not allowed a number of transactions to take place, and that—after all—is 50% owned by a public body. However, I would go further and say that it is not appropriate behaviour for a private company either, and I am at a loss to understand how PxP can be allowed to penalise and pursue my constituent in this way over a period of time.

It seems to me that this example I have given provides a further data point about PxP West Midlands, and that if we join the data points the result is not flattering for the company.