Question
I welcome the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). What we have here is an American private equity firm that is able to buy a going concern that is present on many of our high streets; to put its desire for profit above the interests of its workers, as well as the 18,000 workers in the supply chain; and to make a mockery of the Government’s plans for our high streets. If there is a viable bid on the table and we do not have the power to ensure that it is prioritised, why do we not have that power?
Answer
I am proud of our plans for high streets and the announcements the Chancellor made in the Budget last week for businesses across the country. As a Minister, I am proud to work with our retail companies and sectors all across the country to support them to grow and thrive. As I have mentioned, we are committed to asking the company to do everything it can to protect employees and the thousands of suppliers across the country. That is why we are seeking clarity on the situation and the company’s plans. My hon. Friend will have heard me discuss the meetings we are having this week and reiterate that businesses have a responsibility to their employees. It is right for us to put pressure on the company, because we have a responsibility to do so, and ownership brings responsibilities as well as rights.27% vibes
Verdict: RED (10/100)
The reply does not answer the question asked: why the Government lacks the power to ensure a viable bid is prioritised. Its statements mention related themes, such as applying pressure and the responsibilities of ownership, but never explain what legal or policy powers the Government has over a bid or why those powers are limited. A member of the public reading it would still not know the answer and would likely need to ask again.
Verdict: RED (8/100)
The question asked why the Government lacks the power to prioritise a viable bid. The reply does not address this. It instead describes asking the company to protect employees, seeking clarity on its plans, and applying pressure, but it never mentions bids, the Government's powers, or the reason it cannot prioritise one. The person who asked would most likely need to submit a follow-up question to get an answer.
How we got there
| Question item | Coverage | Specificity | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Why the Government does not have the power to ensure that a viable bid for the business is prioritised, where one is on the table. | Not Addressed | Generic | The question asks why the Government lacks the power to prioritise a viable bid, but the reply only describes asking the company to protect employees, seeking clarity on its plans, and putting pressure on it. Nothing mentions bids, the Government's powers, or why it cannot prioritise a bid, so the specific item is left unanswered. |
| Why the Government does not have the power to ensure that a viable bid for the company, where one is on the table, is prioritised. | Not Addressed | Generic | The item asks why the Government lacks the power to ensure a viable bid is prioritised, and no statement addresses government powers over bids or why they are limited. Statements 7 and 8 mention applying pressure and the responsibilities of ownership, which are related themes but do not answer the question of legal or policy powers over a bid. |