Asked by: Richard Holden (Conservative - Basildon and Billericay)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, what assessment he has made of trends in the level of UK vehicle production since 2020.
Answered by Chris McDonald - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero)
The Government recognises that UK vehicle production has been affected by global shocks since 2020. Output declined during the Covid19 pandemic and was further impacted by supply chain disruption and volatile consumer demand. We want to make the UK one of the best locations in the world to manufacture vehicles and we are working with industry to support recovery and strengthen long term competitiveness.
Our ambition to grow UK vehicle production to over 1.3 million cars and commercial vehicles by 2035 is backed by our £4 billion DRIVE35 programme. It will support the automotive sector through to 2035 by accelerating commercial scale‑up and increasing investment in zero‑emission vehicles, batteries and their supply chains. We are also investing in the infrastructure needed to support this transition, including a further £200 million for EV charging, in addition to the £400 million committed at the 2025 Spending Review.
Asked by: Richard Holden (Conservative - Basildon and Billericay)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, how many full-time equivalent members of DBT staff were working (a) in and (b) on each country on behalf of the UK as of (i) 4 July 2024 and (ii) June 2026.
Answered by Kate Dearden - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade)
The table shows the number of FTE DBT staff working in, and on behalf of the UK in each region as of July 2024 and April 2026. April 2026 is the latest available data point; data for June 2026 are not available. The available data are held at regional level. The requested information on a country-by-country basis is not readily available but could be provided as a separate list.
| July 2024 | April 2026 (latest data available) | ||
Regions | UK based staff working in other countries (FTE) | Country based staff working on other countries on behalf of the UK (FTE) | UK based staff working in other countries (FTE) | Country based staff working on other countries on behalf of the UK (FTE) |
Africa | 20 | 85 | 15 | 61 |
Asia Pacific | 45 | 212 | 45 | 200 |
China and Hong Kong | 24 | 152 | 22 | 137 |
Eastern Europe and Central Asia | 17 | 55 | 12 | 54 |
Europe | 34 | 285 | 33 | 267 |
Latin America and Caribbean | 15 | 220 | 13 | 129 |
Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan | 23 | 89 | 23 | 75 |
North America | 12 | 146 | 6 | 127 |
South Asia | 17 | 93 | 13 | 90 |
Total | 207 | 1,337 | 184 | 1,140 |
DBT also has UK-based teams working across a broad range of business and trade activities, including support for international trade missions. Most staff are in the Trade Group. However, DBT uses a flexible resourcing model, some staff work across multiple functions. The department therefore cannot separately identify the proportion of wider UK-based roles that support international trade missions.
Asked by: Richard Holden (Conservative - Basildon and Billericay)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of the fee structure for ADR accreditation under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 on small and specialist ADR providers handling low volumes of consumer disputes.
Answered by Kate Dearden - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade)
The intention of the fee structure is to ensure fees are set at levels commensurate, over a reasonable course of time, with the costs of CTSI performing the relevant ADR functions to the standard required, that these are predictable for ADR providers and provide cost recovery for CTSI.
CTSI do not have discretion to deviate from the fees set in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Fees) Regulations 2026. The current fees reflect that rates have not risen since 2015 and have been significantly eroded given the impact of rising costs since then.
The ADR framework under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 allows for ADR providers to charge fees to consumers for ADR services, subject to these being agreed by CTSI as proportionate. ADR providers continue to be able to refuse to take cases that they deem frivolous or vexatious.
The Department recognises there will be a period of adjustment as the new fee structure beds in and will conduct a review in the autumn to assess whether the fee structure should be further amended to ensure charges are fair and proportional for all ADR providers.
Asked by: Richard Holden (Conservative - Basildon and Billericay)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, what assessment he has made of the risk that ADR accreditation requirements may lead (a) small and (b) specialist providers to withdraw from the consumer ADR market.
Answered by Kate Dearden - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade)
The intention of the fee structure is to ensure fees are set at levels commensurate, over a reasonable course of time, with the costs of CTSI performing the relevant ADR functions to the standard required, that these are predictable for ADR providers and provide cost recovery for CTSI.
CTSI do not have discretion to deviate from the fees set in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Fees) Regulations 2026. The current fees reflect that rates have not risen since 2015 and have been significantly eroded given the impact of rising costs since then.
The ADR framework under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 allows for ADR providers to charge fees to consumers for ADR services, subject to these being agreed by CTSI as proportionate. ADR providers continue to be able to refuse to take cases that they deem frivolous or vexatious.
The Department recognises there will be a period of adjustment as the new fee structure beds in and will conduct a review in the autumn to assess whether the fee structure should be further amended to ensure charges are fair and proportional for all ADR providers.
Asked by: Richard Holden (Conservative - Basildon and Billericay)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, what assessment he has made of the potential (i) merits of requiring established consumer arbitration schemes to be (a) free and (b) subject only to nominal consumer fees and potential (ii) of that on frivolous and vexatious claims, case volumes, scheme sustainability, business costs and prices.
Answered by Kate Dearden - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade)
The intention of the fee structure is to ensure fees are set at levels commensurate, over a reasonable course of time, with the costs of CTSI performing the relevant ADR functions to the standard required, that these are predictable for ADR providers and provide cost recovery for CTSI.
CTSI do not have discretion to deviate from the fees set in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Fees) Regulations 2026. The current fees reflect that rates have not risen since 2015 and have been significantly eroded given the impact of rising costs since then.
The ADR framework under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 allows for ADR providers to charge fees to consumers for ADR services, subject to these being agreed by CTSI as proportionate. ADR providers continue to be able to refuse to take cases that they deem frivolous or vexatious.
The Department recognises there will be a period of adjustment as the new fee structure beds in and will conduct a review in the autumn to assess whether the fee structure should be further amended to ensure charges are fair and proportional for all ADR providers.
Asked by: Richard Holden (Conservative - Basildon and Billericay)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, whether CTSI has discretion to (a) reduce, (b) waive and (c) scale accreditation and periodic fees for (i) small, (ii) low-volume and (iii) scheme-specific ADR providers.
Answered by Kate Dearden - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade)
The intention of the fee structure is to ensure fees are set at levels commensurate, over a reasonable course of time, with the costs of CTSI performing the relevant ADR functions to the standard required, that these are predictable for ADR providers and provide cost recovery for CTSI.
CTSI do not have discretion to deviate from the fees set in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Fees) Regulations 2026. The current fees reflect that rates have not risen since 2015 and have been significantly eroded given the impact of rising costs since then.
The ADR framework under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 allows for ADR providers to charge fees to consumers for ADR services, subject to these being agreed by CTSI as proportionate. ADR providers continue to be able to refuse to take cases that they deem frivolous or vexatious.
The Department recognises there will be a period of adjustment as the new fee structure beds in and will conduct a review in the autumn to assess whether the fee structure should be further amended to ensure charges are fair and proportional for all ADR providers.
Asked by: Richard Holden (Conservative - Basildon and Billericay)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, what estimate he has made of the average annual cost to businesses of transitioning from small to medium-sized company status due to accounting changes under FRS 102; and what assessment he has made of the potential impact of those costs on SMEs.
Answered by Blair McDougall - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade)
FRS 102 is issued by the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) and the responsibility for any detailed assessment of the impact of changes in FRS 102 rests with the FRC. Impact assessments are available on the FRC’s website: Impact Assessments and Feedback Statements. In relation to recent changes arising from the Periodic Review 2024 the FRC considered the effect of companies potentially moving from small to medium-sized and estimated at the time that a limited number of small entities could move above the small company threshold as a result. Since then, the Government has significantly increased the monetary company size thresholds, and this will reduce the number of entities affected by this interaction.
Asked by: Richard Holden (Conservative - Basildon and Billericay)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, when the planned Supply Chain Centre will become operational; what its initial remit will be; and what assessment he has made of the potential impact of that centre on mitigating domestic supply chain vulnerabilities.
Answered by Chris Bryant - Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade)
The government announced its intention to set up a Supply Chain Centre as part of the Trade and Industrial Strategies. The Centre is already operational, with its formal launch expected to take place later in the year. The Centre’s remit will be to lead work across government, working with business, to strengthen the resilience of supply chains critical to UK security and prosperity, including those linked to the Industrial Strategy, through data‑driven reviews. The Centre will take a more strategic, assertive and data‑led approach to identifying vulnerabilities and improving readiness for potential disruptions.
Asked by: Richard Holden (Conservative - Basildon and Billericay)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of enforcement powers available to Trading Standards authorities at county level to take action against premises engaged in persistent breaches of consumer protection and trading laws; whether he has considered devolving powers to county-level Trading Standards authorities to enable them to apply for the closure of premises in cases of serious or repeat offending; and what discussions he has had with the (a) Home Office and (b) Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on aligning enforcement powers between licensing authorities, the police, and county-level enforcement bodies.
Answered by Kate Dearden - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade)
Local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales are responsible for delivering trading standards services, aiming to ensure fair trading and safeguard both consumers and reputable businesses. Trading standards services operate independently from central government and enforce a wide range of laws, tailored to local needs.
Where issues impact on a wider group of consumers or businesses, or the detriment is particularly high, other regulators have power to take action. For instance, National Trading Standards plays a role in delivery of broader national and regional enforcement issues, supported by local trading standards services.
We keep this system under review, and the Department for Business and Trade is reviewing the current duties of Trading Standards to ensure that consumers remain protected from harm. My department is working with the Home Office, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and other Whitehall Departments in this work.
The Business Secretary and the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister recently wrote jointly to Cabinet colleagues to ask them to set out what further action they plan to take in this Parliament to address consumer harms in their areas, including on toughening enforcement actions against conduct and businesses that do the most harm to the community.
We will report back on this work in due course.
Asked by: Richard Holden (Conservative - Basildon and Billericay)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, pursuant to the Answer of 6 March 2026 to Question 116229 on Department for Business and Trade: Carbon Emissions and Sustainable Development, on what date did his Department (a) allocate funding to Mott MacDonald to review the Dominican Republic’s state-owned energy company's and (b) receive a copy of the review's findings.
Answered by Chris McDonald - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero)
In 2024, the UK signed a Government-to-Government Arrangement with the Dominican Republic to help deliver infrastructure projects that promote mutual economic growth. My department awarded Mott MacDonald a contract to review the Dominican Republic's state-owned energy company's, Empresa de Generación Hidroeléctrica Dominicana, national energy masterplan. This provided recommendations to prioritise renewable energy projects aligned with national targets and opportunities for UK supply chain involvement. The funding was allocated to Mott MacDonald on 31 January 2025 and we received a copy of the review's findings on 31 March 2025.