Question
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I thank the Minister for the tone and content of her answer. At the heart of this matter are the 11,000 people whose jobs, through no fault of their own, hang in the balance, and who do not know whether they will have a job at all this side of Christmas. Those jobs are not concentrated in a big factory, but dispersed across this country in towns such as Hanley in Stoke-on-Trent and in your constituency of Chorley, Mr Speaker, as well as in the supply chains and distributors in Makerfield and Harlow, which my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) talked about. This company has survived because the workers turned it around. We are in the situation that we are in today because choices have been made by Gordon Brothers. It has rejected solvent bids and is seeking to push a company into administration for its own personal profit. Fundamentally, its interest does not appear to be the 11,000 constituents we all represent, who take home money to look after their kids, put food on the table and live the life that they deserve. I am very glad that the Minister continues with meetings, but the management of Poundland is not the problem; it is Gordon Brothers. If we get to a point where administration takes place and 11,000 jobs and supply chain jobs are put at risk, what levers can the Minister use to save as many jobs as she can? What pressure can this House, through her, put on the owners to accept one of the solvent bids in order to protect jobs? What can this House do to send a message to Gordon Brothers that its predatory capitalism when it comes to this company will not be tolerated? We in this country will always stand with people before profit.
Answer
I thank my hon. Friend for his reflections and comments on behalf of his constituents and the many employees across the country. It is deeply concerning to see the uncertainty about Poundland’s future. That is why the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and I have been keeping a close eye on this extremely worrying situation for staff, their families and communities up and down the country. We have been demanding to know what is happening, and demanding that Gordon Brothers explain why it has not accepted any offer to keep the company going. We continue to establish the facts. Last night, officials met Gordon Brothers as part of our ongoing engagement. The Secretary of State will meet it later this week, and I am meeting Poundland tomorrow. It is absolutely legitimate for this Government to ask the business if it is doing everything that it can to protect employees and suppliers up and down the country.9% vibes
Verdict: AMBER (26/100)
The reply only partly answers the question. It describes concrete pressure already applied to the owners, including demanding an explanation for why no offer has been accepted and meetings with officials and the Secretary of State. It does not say what powers the Minister would have to protect jobs if the company entered administration, and it does not set out what further leverage the House has beyond the Government's own demands, so the asker would likely need to ask again for those specifics.
How we got there
| Question item | Coverage | Specificity | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| What levers the Minister can use to save as many jobs as possible if the company goes into administration. | Not Addressed | Generic | The reply never describes any powers or levers the Minister has in an administration scenario; it only describes monitoring, demanding information and meeting the parties, none of which addresses how jobs could be protected in administration. |
| What pressure the House, through the Minister, can put on the company's owners to accept one of the solvent bids in order to protect jobs. | Partially Addressed | Direct | The reply describes concrete pressure already being applied, including demanding that Gordon Brothers explain why it has not accepted any offer, officials meeting it, and a Secretary of State meeting later in the week. It does not, however, explain what further leverage the House or Minister has over the owners to make them accept a solvent bid, so the answer is incomplete. |
| What the House can do to send a message to Gordon Brothers about its conduct in relation to this company. | Partially Addressed | Hedged | The reply conveys the government's demand that Gordon Brothers explain its conduct, which is a form of message, but it frames this as the Government's action rather than setting out what the House itself can do, and names no further mechanism. |