Question
Employees in the Poundland stores in Carrickfergus and Larne in my constituency are now facing a bleak economic future, all because of what appears to be asset stripping of the stores and Poundland by Gordon Brothers. However, there is an alternative. Sales are up, profits are up, and there are viable investors wishing to take over the stores. Specifically, what pressure is the Minister putting on Gordon Brothers to do the right thing? Will she assure us that she will not hide behind the excuse that this is a commercial decision which the Government cannot do anything about?
Answer
I hope that the right hon. Member is reassured about the work and commitment that we are undertaking as a Department, whether we are engaging with USDAW, with Poundland or with Gordon Brothers. Business owners have a responsibility to their employees—12,000 of them, in this case—and to many thousands of suppliers across the country. That is why it is right that we put pressure on the company. Ownership brings responsibilities as well as rights, and it is therefore legitimate for us to ask it whether it is doing everything that it possibly can to protect its employees and suppliers up and down the country.
Verdict: AMBER (52/100)
The reply gives a direct account of the pressure being applied to Gordon Brothers, including engagement with the company and questions about whether it is doing enough to protect employees and suppliers. It also implicitly indicates that the Government will act, though it does not say so explicitly. It does not address the Carrickfergus and Larne store closures specifically or the proposed sale to interested investors, so the person who asked would likely need to follow up on those points.
Verdict: AMBER (62/100)
The reply addresses both parts of the question. It says the Department is engaging with the company's owner and describes that pressure concretely, as asking whether the owner is doing everything possible to protect employees and suppliers. It does not state the assurance in explicit terms, though it implies that the closures are within government's influence. Because the reply gives no specific commitments or next steps, the person who asked may need to follow up to learn what action will actually be taken.
How we got there
| Question item | Coverage | Specificity | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| What pressure the Minister is putting on Gordon Brothers in relation to the Poundland stores in Carrickfergus and Larne. | Addressed | Direct | The reply says the Department is engaging with Gordon Brothers and that it is right to 'put pressure on the company', then describes that pressure concretely as asking whether the owner is doing everything it possibly can to protect employees and suppliers. Seq 1 is a platitude and adds nothing, but seqs 5 and 7 describe the pressure itself. |
| What pressure the Minister is putting on Gordon Brothers in relation to the Poundland stores in Carrickfergus and Larne, including the closures and the proposed sale or takeover of the stores by interested investors. | Partially Addressed | Direct | The reply describes concrete pressure on Gordon Brothers, namely engagement with the company and asking whether it is doing everything it can to protect employees and suppliers, which answers the 'what pressure' part. It does not address the Carrickfergus and Larne stores specifically or the proposed sale or takeover by interested investors. |
| Whether the Government will give an assurance that it will not treat the closures or asset stripping of the Poundland stores as a commercial decision outside its ability to influence. | Addressed | Direct | The reply never states the assurance in those words, but its substance rejects the idea that the closures sit outside government influence: it asserts that 'ownership brings responsibilities', that it is 'right that we put pressure on the company', and that it is 'legitimate' to ask the owner to protect employees and suppliers. The item is answered in substance, though the lack of an explicit commitment leaves some room for doubt. |
| Will the Minister confirm that the Government will not treat the closures as purely a commercial decision beyond its influence, and will act on the matter. | Addressed | Direct | The reply rejects a purely commercial framing by stating that owners have responsibilities to employees and suppliers (12,000 in this case), and it commits the Government to acting by saying it is right to put pressure on the company and legitimate to ask it whether it is doing enough. This implicitly confirms the Government will act rather than treating the closures as beyond its influence, though it does not state this in those exact words. |