Poundland

Debate between Alison Bennett and Kate Dearden

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Kate Dearden]

My hon. Friend will have heard me say that we are demanding to know what is happening. In particular, we want Gordon Brothers to explain why it has not accepted any offer to keep the company going and how it will be acting in the best interests of Poundland’s loyal UK staff and stores. We continue to establish the facts. Last night, officials met Gordon Brothers as part of the ongoing engagement, which includes my engagement this week with Poundland and the Secretary of State’s engagement with Gordon Brothers. There are ongoing commercial negotiations about a private business, and we do not want to impede or influence that process. I hope she has heard my concerns and our priorities for how this Government respond.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I have not been contacted by any constituents who work for Poundland, because the store in Haywards Heath closed in February. Roll forward to November, and that large unit—an anchor unit for the whole high street—is still lying empty. What is the Government’s plan to reform business rates in order to support these large units that prop up the rest of our high streets?

[Kate Dearden]

I am sure that the hon. Member welcomed the Chancellor’s announcements on business rates last week, which included introducing a two-year real-terms freeze for all retail, hospitality and leisure properties to help with increased inflation. We are also removing 70,000 extra properties from business rates, meaning that half of all RHL properties will pay no business rates at all. High streets are the beating heart of our communities and are so important for local people and jobs. We are committed to tackling their decline with our high streets strategy and so many other initiatives in partnership with the sector. We want to back our high streets, back the jobs and back the businesses that support them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alison Bennett and Kate Dearden

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

6. Whether his Department has provided guidance on the potential impact of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Fees) Regulations 2026 on small businesses providing arbitration services.

[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 Alison Bennett and Kate Dearden

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[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.