Question

Asked by Jim Dickson to Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade on 03 November 2026 — tabled under the Andy Burnham government

The Poundland store in Dartford forms an important part of the shopping offer at the Priory Centre, as well as the wider town centre. It employs local people, who will be desperately worried about their future in terms of their jobs and the continued survival of Poundland itself. Is it not clear that the Government cannot look on while a solvent company goes under, as the Opposition parties appear to be recommending that we do?

40% point-scoring

Answer

Answered by Kate Dearden (Labour (Co-op))

My hon. Friend is entirely right. We are not just sitting back. I ask again, what would be the role of politicians and this Government if we were to do that? We are taking our responsibility seriously, and it is legitimate for us to ask the business to do everything it can to protect employees and suppliers. We are seeking clarity on its plans and trying to gain a clear understanding of the situation, which is exactly what a responsible Government should do in these circumstances.

29% vibes

Verdict: AMBER (42/100)

The reply says the Government is seeking clarity from Poundland, is asking the business to protect employees and suppliers, and will not simply stand back. Those points answer the question about what the Government is doing, but the support is mostly described in general terms and no specific mechanism is committed to. The reply only indirectly responds to what the Opposition has said, so that part of the question is only partly addressed. A member of the public would likely need to ask again for concrete, specific commitments.

Verdict: AMBER (52/100)

The minister directly agreed with the core point that the Government should not let a solvent company fail, and said the Government is taking action rather than sitting back. The reply only engaged with the second part of the question, that Opposition parties were in effect recommending inaction, through rhetorical framing: it never confirmed or denied that claim or addressed who had made it. A member of the public would have a clear answer on the first point but would likely need to ask again for specifics on the second.

How we got there

Question item	Coverage	Specificity	Rationale
What is the Government doing about the risk to jobs at the Poundland store in Dartford and to the future of the Poundland business?	Addressed	Direct	The reply names concrete actions: the Government is seeking clarity on Poundland's plans, understanding the situation, and asking the business to do everything it can to protect employees and suppliers. This is a thin but real answer to what the Government is doing about the Dartford jobs and the business.
Does the Government agree that it cannot look on while a solvent company goes under?	Addressed	Direct	The minister explicitly agrees with the proposition ('My hon. Friend is entirely right'), and the follow-up rhetorical question and 'we are not just sitting back' reinforce that the Government will not stand by while a solvent company fails.
Does the Government agree that it cannot stand by while a solvent company goes under?	Addressed	Hedged	"We are not just sitting back" and the rhetorical question about the role of politicians "if we were to do that" implicitly affirm that the Government will not stand by, which answers the yes/no agreement question. The support is mostly rhetorical, with no concrete mechanism named beyond the engagement described elsewhere.
Does the Government agree that Opposition parties are recommending that the Government look on while a solvent company goes under?	Partially Addressed	Hedged	The reply rejects the implied idea that the Government should look on ('we are not just sitting back', 'what would be the role of... this Government if we were to do that?'), but it never states whether the Opposition is in fact recommending inaction, and it leaves the attribution to Opposition parties unaddressed. The rhetorical framing is the only engagement with the item.
Asserts that the Opposition parties appear to be recommending that a solvent company be allowed to go under.	Partially Addressed	Hedged	The reply's rhetorical question implicitly rejects the idea of letting the company fail, but it never addresses what the Opposition parties have said or recommended, so the specific assertion about the Opposition is only indirectly engaged.