Sports Direct Boss Formally Told To Face MPs

Sports Direct boss Mike Ashley is to be formally ordered to appear before by MPs on 7 June and warned that if he does not he could face parliamentary censure.

The Commons Business, Innovation and Skills committee wants to quiz Mr Ashley over the treatment of workers at the sportswear giant and have said he could be in contempt of Parliament if he fails to attend.

Mr Ashley, who also owns Newcastle United football club, last week accused the MPs of being “deliberately antagonistic” after they called on him to agree a date to appear before them or face action.

Now (NYSE: DNOW - news) after meeting to decide on their next course of action, the committee has decided to escalate the stand-off by ordering him to appear on a set date at Westminster.

A spokesman said: "At its meeting this morning, the Business Committee decided to issue a summon to Mike Ashley to give evidence to it on Tuesday 7 June 2016 at the Palace of Westminster.

"As indicated in the Chair's previous letter, should Mr Ashley not agree to appear on 7 June, the Committee reserves the right to take the matter further, including seeking the support of the House of Commons in respect of any complaint of contempt."

In the earlier letter, committee chair Iain Wright turned down an offer for the committee to meet at the company's centre in Shirebrook, Derbyshire and said Mr Ashley had not accepted any alternative dates suggested by the committee.

But in his reply, Mr Ashley accused the MPs of creating a "media circus" and added: "I was disgusted to learn that you have adopted a stance that is deliberately antagonistic."

It (Other OTC: ITGL - news) is thought no one has been charged with contempt of Parliament for more than 50 years.

Speaking in the Commons last week, the shadow leader of the house Chris Bryant said the House could "force him to attend".

"He may be the 22nd richest man in Britain but he is running a modern-day sweatshop and this House will get to the truth," he said.

Sports Direct has been the subject of sustained criticism over the use of controversial "zero hours" contracts.

Last December it defended the way it treats its workforce after a Guardian investigation into working conditions among its warehouse staff.