Business, Energy and

I ndustrial Strategy Committee

House of Commons, London SWlH 9NB
Tel 020 7219 5777 Email beiscom@parliament.uk Website www.parliament.uk/beis

8'l'

Novembe

2016

Mr Mike Ashley
Sports Direct lnternational plc
Unit A Brook Park East
Shirebrook
NG2O 8RY

|,ro"

fY),h /

I am writing following

the Select Committee's visit to Shirebrook on Monday 7

November.
You will recall my question to you in June at the Select Committee inquiry, when I
asked if we could visit Shirebrook unannounced, and your reply stating "yes...100 per
cent.2417". In the light of that, the visit was by its nature not communicated to the
company until 9.30 am on the day, three hours before we were due to arrive.
I appreciate the time taken by several members of staff to show us round the
warehouse and answer questions. I hope that you will pass on our thanks to the many
people at Sports Direct who walked us round and engaged with us throughout the

visit. lwould have liked you to have been on site to show us around personally; our
respective diary commitments and the unannounced nature of the visit made this
impossible on this occasion.
However, I also have to express our anger and disappointment at the placing of a
recording device in a room in which we had requested to hold a brief and private
meeting at the end of the visit.
For an organisation in the process of reviewing its corporate governance and working
practices, it is difficult to understand how a representative of the company thought that
such an action would assist Sports Direct and why this action was authorised. The
press statement made by Sports Direct today is also wholly unsatisfactory. On behalf
of the Select Committee I am asking you for an explanation of how and why the
camera came to be placed in the room, who authorised its placing and what steps you
have taken as a result. The covert recording and surveillance of a parliamentary
committee without its knowledge or permission damages Sports Direct's reputation
and it damages the ability of this committee to have faith or confidence in what we
were told that day. lt would be reasonable for other interested parties, such as current
and potential investors, audit teams and providers of finance to business, now to
question whether they have been recorded without their permission during visits to
Shirebrook. lt is staggering to think that nobody thought to think of the long-term
damage such an act, amateurishly carried out, could inflict upon your company.
will assume your initial suggestion to me during our telephone conversation that the
device was planted by a Committee member was a spur of the moment misjudgement
I

rather than what would be a very serious allegation, especially given that the recording
device was the same as that used by your staff to record our visit around the
warehouse.
I am afraid that this utterly unacceptable action was consistent with the way much of
our visit was handled. Although we were treated with courtesy, there were few
opportunities to speak to agency staff unmonitored, delayed access to the specific
areas we wanted to see and obviously organised and stage-managed staff
interventions. I regret that this incident completely overshadowed and undermined the
real purpose of the visit.

When you came before the Select Committee in June, you stated, in relation to any
potential visit from us:

"Any person here can do it, but all I want is fairness and balance. You will be let
in and everything else. You willfind things wrong, but let us do it then
constructively and move forward."
That was the spirit in which I as Chair of the Committee wished to conduct the visit.
We did not expect to see everything identified as having been resolved, especially
given the fast-growing and vast nature of the business, but we wanted to highlight and
communicate progress that had been made and areas where improvements were
required. lt was that balanced view, aided by open and constructive communication
between ourselves, which I had hoped to achieve from the visit. lnstead, the
controlling manner, culminating in the discovery of the recording device, has eroded
trust and damaged still further the reputation of the company. We could have reported
an open and positive process which had seen improvements made and provided
confidence that further progress would be implemented. That is now at risk.
It would be regrettable if this incident jeopardised the process of constructive
engagement in which we have embarked. lt is obviously for you to run your business
as you see fit. lt is the wider issues around the use of agencies, the treatment of
workers and corporate governance that remain the focus for our Committee. As I have

discussed with you previously, you have an opportunity to demonstrate leadership and
make positive change which will help allworkers in the business, as well as the longterm prosperity of the business itself. We recognise that you have made some
progress. Despite the disappointing erosion of trust, I remain prepared to offer support
to your efforts to reform your business in a way that treats all workers fairly and with
respect. We of course do not manage the business, but the Select Committee can
highlight your progress publically and demonstrate your good practice and
improvement, as well criticising when matters have not improved. However, you do
need to demonstrate a degree of trust, openness and constructive engagement that I
hoped to establish but was so unfortunately lacking on our visit to Shirebrook.
ln view of the public interest generated by our visit, we will publish this letter and your
reply.

Y* ru

v
JA,

lain Wright
Chair of the Business, Energy and
lndustrial Strategy Select Committee