Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

Alternative Dispute Resolution Regulations 2026-07-02

Thursday 2 July 2026 · 2 questions

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

At a glance

Answered 0 Partly answered 2 Not answered 0

Key points

  • The Department has not provided guidance on the potential impact of the Digital Markets, Competition and Competition Act 2024 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Fees) Regulations 2026 on small businesses providing arbitration services.
  • 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.
  • A well-functioning ADR system makes markets work more effectively and drives economic growth, according to the Minister.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Q1 Alison Bennett Lib Dem Mid Sussex
Context

The question arises from the introduction of new fees under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 which affect arbitration services provided by small businesses. Since the fee changes were implemented earlier this year, many ADR providers have faced challenges in sustaining their business models.

Question

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. 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 has become unsustainable.

Answer from 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 cost recovery for the CTSI.

Partly answered

Not addressed: No impact assessment has been done

How: 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

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q2 Alison Bennett Lib Dem Mid Sussex
Context

The question follows a previous inquiry about the impact of new fees on arbitration services. The changes have raised concerns among small businesses providing these services due to the financial burden.

Question

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?

Answer from 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.

Partly answered

Not addressed: No impact assessment has been done

How: 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

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)