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 r 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.

I 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

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*ç ruvJA,

lain Wright Chair of the Business, Energy and

lndustrial Strategy Select Committee