High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill

Lord Sharkey Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Lords & Report stage: House of Lords
Tuesday 10th January 2017 Grand Committee

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

Where, as in the case of Park Village Ltd, no land is taken, albeit that the property may be immediately adjacent to HS2’s major construction works with resultant significant impacts, the position is different. The only compensation ordinarily payable comes after completion of the works—in this case, perhaps in excess of eight years and then only in respect of some aspects of the operation of the project—not their construction. Paradoxically, greater loss can be suffered by being adjacent to works than by being in their way.

Relocation of the studios on a temporary basis for short periods of time at HS2’s cost remains a possibility but it is highly unlikely that the promoter or the company would be able to find a comparable location offering the distinctive qualities of the Park Village Studio. Just to give an example, the dry hire business would be lost, for which there would be no compensation; nor would there be any compensation for the disruption to the in-house production part of the business.

The assurances offered to Park Village Ltd set out a regime in which mitigation, but not compensation, might be taken forward, but then only on a conditional basis. What has been offered provides no guarantee that the business will be able to remain in the property on a viable basis. More especially, the company remains rightly concerned that in the event that its expectations are borne out and any mitigation that might be provided fails to enable it to carry on its normal activities and continue to attract custom as now, there is no right of redress or recompense. The promoter now needs to act to ensure that, in the acknowledged special case of Park Village Ltd, this business can continue to operate viably throughout the lengthy period of works.

The special report of the House of Lords HS2 Select Committee states at paragraph 196 that,

“the owner-occupiers of Park Village East are among those who will be most severely affected by the works, and to whom we recommend that the Secretary of State should provide further compensation going beyond what is at present proposed”.

I believe the same should apply to the business at 1 Park Village East but this is not currently the case. In the absence of sufficient consideration being offered by way of an agreement that provides for the reimbursement of business and consequential losses arising from the impacts of the HS2 works, a new clause giving such protection should be included in the Bill on a similar basis to the protection provisions given to businesses in similar circumstances in another example of public works. I have done some research. I found Section 16 of the London Transport (Liverpool Street) Act 1983, which is an example of what I am arguing for. Parliament considered it necessary to do this then; it is open to Parliament to do it again.

Through no fault of its own Park Village Ltd, which is a highly reputable and respected company within the UK’s film and recording industry—it is on its own at the top; it is not in a dead heat with anybody else: it is an incomparable and outstanding company—may unnecessarily become a casualty of HS2’s works and the inadequacy of the compulsory purchase compensation code to provide sufficient remedy should mitigation fail.

If I can go back into the history books, having been a Minister for 16 years without a break and without ever having been sacked, I have immediately to stress that I believe the Government’s reluctance to depart from the statutory compensation code is understandable, but they should nevertheless be willing to deal fairly with a recognised special case. When the Bill was first introduced the then Transport Minister said that compensation should be full and fair. More recently, the current Transport Secretary said:

“Where compensation is due, it’s right that we pay, and that we are generous”.

Park Village Ltd is asking only for fair treatment through me, not generosity. For these reasons, I plead with the Minister to acknowledge properly and substantively that Park Village Ltd is a special case. It is a very important provider of jobs locally and significant on the international scene. As no adequate fallback arrangements have been offered, please would he agree to this proposed new clause, because it would give the company the protection it needs and deserves? I beg to move.

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, I will say a few very brief words in strong support of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral. I live in Camden. I know the location of Park Village very well. I can quite see how the works associated with HS2 would effectively put the company out of business. That is quite apart from the disfiguring of a particularly attractive corner of what is not always the most attractive borough.

I have also worked with Park Village over two decades or so. My companies and their clients have been enthusiastic users of the studio, which plays an important part in London’s creative industries. It generates significant revenue. It has an international reputation. It contributes to Camden’s creative life and its stock of jobs. London is quite rightly seen as the leading creative city when it comes to advertising and perhaps photography. Park Village Studios is part of this. It would be a very bad idea to lose the studio. It would be a bad and quite unjust idea to lose it without appropriate compensation.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, before I continue there is one point I want to clarify from my noble friend Lord Framlingham that came up in a previous debate. He asked about the purpose of the Grand Committee in relation to the work of the Select Committee. In general terms, a Select Committee in consideration of such a hybrid Bill normally looks specifically and primarily at private interests raised by petitioners, which gives it a very exhaustive opportunity to look at the different options. The role of the Grand Committee is what it traditionally is: to consider the public law clauses of a Bill, not the specific details of a private petition. We have certainly discussed those and I hope my noble friend feels that the issue has been clarified. I thought it was important to clarify that point.

Turning to the amendment, I apologise to my noble friend: I know he has written to me on this issue. I am assured by officials that a letter will be on its way shortly to address the specific issues he has raised in his letters. I hope that what I say will, if not totally, partly reassure him with regard to the concerns he has raised. As my noble friend acknowledged, this issue was considered fully by the Select Committees of your Lordships’ House and the other place. It received lengthy hearings. A number of assurances have already been given to the proprietors of Park Village Ltd regarding the compensation of losses.

Those assurances set out in detail that the Government will aim to avoid or reduce any impacts on the operation of the business and, if it becomes necessary to do so, will compensate losses suffered by the business under a number of scenarios. This compensation, which my noble friend referred to, will be determined in accordance with the compensation code, which, as I believe he acknowledged, is a tried and tested method of establishing such losses. This system has developed over many years and seeks to address the very concerns he has raised.

Notwithstanding those comments, during the recent Lords Select Committee hearings, the Government gave further assurances to the proprietors of Park Village Ltd to manage the impacts from construction works at Euston on the business. Additionally, we will keep open the possibility of relocating the business should that become necessary. In its recent report, the Lords Select Committee noted that the best course was for the proprietor,

“to work with the promoter to find ways of continuing to carry on the business where it is. Only if this proves unworkable should relocation, at least on a temporary basis, be considered”.

This matter is on the Government’s agenda and the Select Committee had specific views on it. I hope that my noble friend is partly reassured by what I have said and the fact that in the determination of the Lords Select Committee on this matter it has been aware of the challenges that the business is facing. Based on those reassurances, I hope my noble friend is minded to withdraw his amendment.