Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Kate Dearden and Alison Bennett(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
The Department has not provided guidance on that matter. Fees relating to the accreditation and monitoring of alternative dispute resolution providers have not risen since 2015, and have been significantly eroded by the impact of rising costs. The intention behind the new fee structure is to ensure that, over time, fees are commensurate with the costs of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute performing the relevant functions to the required standards, that they are predictable for ADR providers, and that they provide costs recovery for the CTSI.
Alison Bennett
I thank the Minister for that response. Caroline from Lindfield owns a small business that provides arbitration services. Since the introduction of the one-size-fits-all fees set down earlier this year, her business model and that of so many other small ADR providers has become nigh on impossible to sustain. Has the Minister considered the impact on the sector from the fee changes? Can she explain why no impact assessment has been done? In particular, has she received feedback from trading standards since the legislation came into force?
Kate Dearden
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. A well functioning ADR system makes markets work more effectively and drives economic growth. We are committed to ensuring that consumers and businesses are able to resolve disputes early, which helps to raise consumer confidence and compliance rates. We acknowledge that there will be a period of adjustment as the new fee structure beds in, and in the autumn we will conduct a review to assess whether the fee structure should be amended further. We recognise the importance of ensuring that charges are fair and proportional for all ADR providers and the CTSI as the competent authority.
Stations: Step-free Access
Debate between Kate Dearden and Alison BennettWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
A constituent with mobility issues recently wrote to me about his concerns about Wivelsfield station in Burgess Hill. It was part of the Access for All scheme, but the money for improvements has yet to be forthcoming. It is another example of a station like that mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), where one side of the platform is accessible but not the other. Will the Minister ask officials to look into what is happening at Wivelsfield station and write to my office with an update on progress?
Kate Dearden
I thank the hon. Member for her contribution, which has been noted and heard. I am just coming to an update on the Access for All programme. As I mentioned, 22 stations have been completed under the programme, with a further five due to be completed by April 2025. That will be the highest number of stations completed in any single year since the programme began, but we know our work is far from done.
Much of our rail network was designed in the Victorian era. It was an impressive engineering achievement for its time, but it falls short of meeting the accessibility standards that 21st century passengers rightly expect. Today, only a fifth of stations across Great Britain offer step-free access to and between all platforms. However, it is important to recognise the progress made, with 75% of journeys now passing through step-free stations, which is a significant improvement on 50% in 2005.
I share hon. Members’ frustrations that changes have not happened at the pace people would like to see. The Network Rail performance at the end of control period 6 was not good enough, with a number of projects late and over budget. We have taken steps to rectify that, including restoring a strong national oversight team at National Rail, so that best practice between routes and regions can be shared.
Under the previous Government, 310 nominations were received from Network Rail, train operating companies and other strategic transport organisations for the next round of Access for All. Last year, a list of 50 stations selected for initial feasibility work was announced. I am pleased to report that significant progress has been made with those studies. To date, 29 feasibility studies have been completed, with remaining studies on track for completion by the summer.