Greenhouse Gas Removals Sector

Edward Morello Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to bring this Adjournment debate to the House and to make the case for greater Government support for the greenhouse gas removals sector. First, I thank the sector for engaging so openly with me about its businesses and concerns, the Minister for his continued co-operation on this issue and Dr Alan Whitehead for publishing his extremely important review.

Before entering this place, I spent almost a decade working in renewable energy, and before that on climate impact projects. I would certainly not claim to be an expert on greenhouse gas removals, but, through my work in the renewable energy sector, and now as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on climate technology and the co-chair of the net zero APPG, I have at least become a passionate advocate for the sector.

It has been encouraging to see a Secretary of State and Ministers who genuinely recognise the scale of the climate challenge. However, warm words must now become concrete action if Britain is not to miss yet another opportunity to become a world leader in one of the defining industries of the next century.

Climate change is here. It is happening now. We see it through rising temperatures and increasingly frequent heatwaves, flooding, drought and wildfires. The changing climate is already affecting our communities, businesses and public services. Much of the conversation has rightly focused on reducing our emissions, and let me be clear: decarbonisation must remain our first priority. Every tonne of carbon dioxide we avoid emitting now is better than having to remove it later. However, even if we achieve every single one of our net zero targets—and we absolutely must—we will still have a problem.

Net zero does not remove the carbon dioxide that is already sitting in our atmosphere, which is why this debate is not about carbon capture and storage, but about carbon removal. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been absolutely clear that without greenhouse gas removals, keeping global warming within internationally agreed limits becomes effectively impossible.

Today, humanity removes only about 2 billion tonnes annually, 99.9% of which is done by trees and plants. Meanwhile, we continue adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere every single year. The scale of the challenge is enormous. Whenever I speak about this issue, someone invariably asks, “Why do we not just plant more trees?” I agree: trees are wonderful, and we should absolutely plant more of them. However, to keep global temperature increases below the 1.5% or 2% target, we would need to remove 10 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere every single year, which would require us to plant roughly 50 million hectares of new forest annually. That is equivalent to covering the entirety of the UK with trees, twice, every single year. Even the most committed of environmentalists would accept that that approach has practical limitations.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

In recognising the challenge of planting enough trees on the land, I wonder whether my hon. Friend has thought more about capturing carbon in the ocean. He and I share the Lyme Bay marine protected area in our constituencies. The Vision Group for Sidmouth was telling me that despite covering less than 1% of the ocean floor, seagrass beds are responsible for 15% of its total carbon capture. Does he agree that we can also look to the sea for the capture of carbon?

[Edward Morello]

My hon. Friend and neighbour is absolutely right. There are many exciting nature-based solutions for which I have high hopes. In my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on climate technology, my focus today is mainly on the engineered solutions, but we need to consider all solutions to meet the challenge ahead.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for securing the debate. I spoke to him today about this subject and I congratulate him on highlighting environmental issues. Does he agree that we must ensure that all areas of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, receive a fair share of investment? Does he also agree that the Government must ensure that the GGR strategy supports our rural communities, utilising natural land-based solutions rather than just financing large industrial projects elsewhere? Above all, we must protect local jobs and ensure that common sense always prevails.

[Edward Morello]

I believe that we should back any and all solutions that help us face the challenge, and Northern Ireland is as well placed as any part of the UK to offer innovative solutions.

Technology such as direct air capture and engineered removal methods will become an essential part of moving beyond net zero towards net negative emissions. Those technologies are nascent. The businesses that will develop them need to be founded today and to scale over the next decade. They need investment, certainty and confidence if they are to become globally competitive and properly supported.

The encouraging news is that Britain already possesses almost everything needed to succeed. We have world-class universities that produce cutting-edge research, exceptional engineers, innovative start-ups and university spin-outs, globally respected financial services and investors, and advanced manufacturing capability.

The UK’s GGR sector already contributes about £1.2 billion to the UK economy. It has the potential to contribute between £7 billion and £9 billion to GDP by 2050 while supporting more than 100,000 skilled jobs. The countries that build those technologies first will not simply reduce emissions at home; they will be central to global emission reductions for decades to come. Britain should aspire to become the global centre of carbon removal innovation, the home of future climate tech unicorns and a leading exporter of GGR technologies.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that creating industrial clusters is the best route to bringing in some of the new companies that look to scale up and invest? I recently met UnionDAC, which is looking to invest in Teesside. That is partly because of the huge amount of investment that is coming to the east coast cluster carbon capture, utilisation and storage project, which is creating 3,000 construction jobs as we speak. Does he therefore agree that the Government must continue to maintain the momentum for those clusters and new ones in next year’s spending review to create skilled jobs across the UK?

[Edward Morello]

There is a lot of truth in what the hon. Member has outlined. We see the most rapid transformation and progress where innovation and expertise are clustered.

British innovators are already developing world-leading GGR technologies. The problem is that many of them struggle to raise the long-term investment needed to move from successful demonstrations to commercial deployment. British companies have told me that they will be European or American by the end of next year if the UK does not do more to support them.

The Whitehead review made that point very clearly. It recognised that the United Kingdom possesses many of the ingredients required to become a global leader, but that early-stage GGR companies continue to face significant barriers to scaling up. Many of those businesses require substantial upfront capital before they generate meaningful revenue. Private investors understandably look for long-term certainty and a return on their investment. Without that certainty, investment simply flows elsewhere.

UK start-ups struggle to access patient capital at precisely the moment they need it most. Of all climate tech early start-ups that failed, 62% fail at series A, the start of the so-called valley of death. Britain has repeatedly invented world-leading technologies only to watch other countries commercialise them. We cannot allow that to happen again.

If we get this right, GGRs could become one of Britain’s great industrial success stories. If we get it wrong, we will again become purchasers of technologies developed elsewhere. The Government can create the long-term policy framework that gives markets confidence.

The publication of the GGR business model alongside the Whitehead review was an important milestone. The commitment to integrating GGR into the UK emissions trading scheme is another positive step, but companies developing GGRs are making decisions today about where to build their first commercial facilities. Those decisions will determine where future supply chains develop, where highly skilled jobs are created and where intellectual property remains.

What the sector is calling out for are low or no cost policy changes that would make a real difference until the response to the Whitehead review finally stops gathering dust on the Minister’s desk. Solutions could be amending the sustainable aviation fuel mandate, improving access to finance from public finance bodies, voluntary carbon market changes, expanding UK GGR standards to wider methods or endorsing interim standards, a new UK buyers’ club, a regulations audit, departmental sandboxes and standards for the emissions performance standard. We must give the market the certainty it is asking for and the investors the confidence to unlock that potential.

That brings me to what I believe is the single most important proposal that the Government should consider. The answer lies in creating a British carbon bank, a Government-seeded revolving fund that will crowd in private finance. A British carbon bank would provide long-term advanced market commitments for verified GGRs. That would de-risk the purchase for the offtaker as the credits are certified, provide the capital that the GGR project needs to start capturing greenhouse gases and generating carbon credit, and improve investor confidence because there is a guaranteed purchaser. Rather than the Government attempting to fund every project themselves, a British carbon bank would create guaranteed demand for high-quality removals over many years, allowing businesses to secure investment and scale their technologies with confidence.

The Whitehead review recognises exactly this challenge. It concluded that demand certainty will be fundamental if GGRs are to develop at the pace required. Without reliable long-term demand, many technologies will simply struggle to reach commercial scale.

One particularly interesting example is Terraset, a US charity. Rather than relying solely on traditional grant funding, Terraset uses philanthropic finance to early pre-purchase commitments to vetted projects, giving those projects the capital to actually remove greenhouse gases. Those advanced commitments provide early demand, giving companies confidence to develop technologies while demonstrating to investors that a future market exists. These projects deliver verified carbon credits to Terraset, which it then sells to buyers. Any revenue generated is then returned to the fund and gets deployed into new projects. For every $1 it deploys, it unlocks $5 in private finance and achieves a 15% mark-up for credits under this de-risk model. As a result of this profit margin, it is now attracting interest from institutional investors, including pension funds.

A British carbon bank would take that principle and apply it at a national scale. It would provide a clear signal that Britain intends to become the best place in the world to develop, deploy and commercialise greenhouse gas removal. One strength of a British carbon bank model is that it addresses the greatest barrier currently facing the sector: risk. The bank would purchase future carbon removals in advance, holding those credits until they have been independently verified and certified. There is, of course, a risk for the Government that some projects may ultimately fail to deliver the promised removals or not achieve certification. However, that risk can be significantly reduced through robust due diligence and careful product selection, as organisations such as Terraset have already demonstrated successfully.

Importantly, the model also overcomes the current “chicken and egg” problem in the market. Today, many buyers are reluctant to pre-purchase carbon removals because they bear all the delivery risk. By contrast, a British carbon bank would offer only certified verified credits to the market, making them far more attractive to businesses seeking high-integrity carbon removals while simultaneously providing developers with the up-front certainty they need to secure investment and scale their technologies. The market will determine which solutions ultimately prove effective, whether nature-based approaches, direct air capture or entirely new technologies that are yet to emerge. With a relatively small Government investment, we could seed this market, crowding in five or 10 times more in private finance.

Terraset supported Graphyte, which needed early-stage capital to move from planning into commercial deployment. Private buyers recognised the value of the project, but were not yet ready to commit at the scale or speed required. Through its revolving fund, Terraset made an advance commitment of just over $100,000, providing the confidence and working capital that enabled the project to proceed. Once Graphyte had delivered independently verified carbon removals, those credits were purchased by a commercial buyer, with the proceeds going back into the revolving fund to support the next generation of projects.

I believe that a British carbon bank could replicate this revolving model at scale, helping promising British companies bridge the gap between innovation and commercial success. Net zero is today’s problem, and net negative is tomorrow’s, but if we do not start thinking about it now, we will not be ready to meet that challenge. We should be ambitious. We should not settle for participating in the market—we should aim to lead it.

Will the Minister confirm precisely when the Government intend to publish their full response to the Whitehead review, and whether that will be before the House rises for the summer recess? Will he confirm whether the Government are giving serious consideration to the proposal for a British carbon bank or revolving fund to provide the long-term market certainty the sector has consistently called for? If the Government are not yet in a position to introduce longer-term reforms, what interim measures will they take to ensure that promising new UK GGR businesses are supported and not lost overseas while policies are being developed? Finally, will the Minister commit to continuing to work closely with the sector over the coming months, listening to businesses, investors and researchers, so that the UK can seize the opportunity to become a global leader in greenhouse gas removals rather than watching others move ahead?

Carbon does not recognise borders or respect international treaties; it is a global challenge that demands world-leading solutions. I believe that those solutions should be developed here in the UK.

Draft Contracts for Difference (Allocation) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Edward Morello Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 General Committees

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I will leave the Minister to respond to all the inaccuracies in the shadow Minister’s speech. The purpose of the draft regulations is not to alter the underlying policy objectives of the CfD scheme but to improve the administration and operation of the allocation process. As the number of applications has increased significantly in recent allocation rounds, the complexity of assessing those applications has also grown.

The three principal changes introduced by the draft regulations are all positive. Allowing NESO to correct certain administrative errors that it may make during the assessment of an application should reduce the risk of projects being incorrectly assessed due to procedural mistakes. Permitting NESO to consider additional documentary evidence or information when reviewing first-stage appeals from applicants whose projects have initially been deemed to be non-qualifying should ensure that decisions are based on the fullest possible information and that applicants are treated fairly. Finally, the draft regulations clarify how pending applications should be treated where eligibility decisions remain outstanding at the point at which the allocation process must move forward. This follows operational experience from allocation round 7 and provides greater certainty for future rounds.

The Liberal Democrats support reforms that strengthen and improve the operation of the CfD scheme and accelerate the transition to cleaner and cheaper renewable energy. We will continue to support the expansion of fixed-price renewable contracts to break the link between electricity prices and gas prices, but although we support the draft regulations, we believe that further reforms of the CfD framework should be considered, including extending the lifetime of CfD contracts from 15 to 25 years, and moving all older renewables obligation contracts on to the CfD scheme.

Seasonal Hospitality Businesses in Coastal Areas

Edward Morello Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) on securing this important debate. West Dorset is home to the world famous Jurassic coast, a UNESCO world heritage site. Tourism contributes more than £320 million annually to the West Dorset economy and supports over 5,000 jobs—all thanks to the 4 million day visitors and 2 million people who stay overnight annually. However, behind the postcard image, many of the businesses that support our economy are under immense pressure.

I have been contacted by countless constituents who run pubs, hotels, restaurants, cafés, campsites and holiday parks. They tell me that they are now operating on margins so thin that a single, unexpected cost increase can put their future at risk. Business rates remain one of their biggest concerns. The George in West Bay told me that its business rates bill increased from £8,000 to £27,000 in a year. That is not a sustainable increase for a local hospitality business trying to serve its community and employ local people.

The Liberal Democrats have long argued that the business rates system is fundamentally broken. We would replace it with a commercial landowner levy based on land values rather than the capital value of buildings. We would also maintain the existing 75% relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses until that reform is delivered, while freezing the small business multiplier. Hospitality businesses should be rewarded for investing in their premises and communities, not punished for it.

National insurance increases have also added pressure. The hospitality sector relies heavily on part-time and seasonal workers. Many businesses in West Dorset have told me that the recent hikes have significantly increased their staffing costs. The Liberal Democrats oppose those changes and continue to call for their reversal. Businesses are job creators.

Then there is the ongoing cost of living crisis. Businesses across West Dorset tell me that visitor numbers remain relatively strong, but spending behaviour has changed dramatically. At a hospitality and tourism roundtable that I hosted, West Dorset Leisure Holidays explained that visitors are increasingly making decisions based solely on price rather than quality. Understandably, when households are facing rising costs, eating out becomes a luxury and is often one of the first things that they cut back on.

I welcome the Chancellor’s recent decision to implement the summer savings scheme, but that alone is not enough. That is why the Liberal Democrats have proposed a reduction in VAT for hospitality, accommodation and leisure businesses until April 2027. That would help businesses, support jobs and encourage consumers back into the local economy. Hospitality businesses in West Dorset are doing everything that they can and doing everything right. They create jobs, support communities and welcome visitors to our part of the country from around the world. They deserve a Government who recognise their value.

Ground-mounted Solar Panels: Alternatives

Edward Morello Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) on securing this important debate.

I confess that I had prepared to do far more debunking of climate-denying nonsense, given some of the statements by the hon. and gallant Member’s party leader, so I was relieved to hear his very impressive and science-based speech. I support a lot of what he said. The only note that I wrote myself was to say that we do not need to worry that solar panels start to lose efficiency above an ambient air temperature of 25°C, which is a fairly infrequent event in the UK. I totally accept his point about the efficiency of putting solar on water.

If the constituents of the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) have concerns about battery energy storage systems fires, she should point out to them that there have only been about 30 BESS-linked fires globally in the last 15 years. It is actually incredibly safe.

The point about rooftops is about prefab buildings—the large warehouses. The roofs have an insurable lifespan of about 15 years, whereas solar panels have a 30-year lifespan, so we need to change the building regulations, as has been said.

That is all a long-winded way of saying, that prior to getting elected, I spent 10 years working in the renewable energy sector, so I have a particular passion for this subject. I am also the chair of the ClimateTech all-party parliamentary group and co-chair of the net zero all-party parliamentary group. I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne will forgive me if I expand a little on the technological options available outside floating solar.

We face a worsening climate crisis, with more frequent extreme weather events affecting communities in West Dorset and across the UK, as well as being in the middle of a cost of living crisis, with families facing high food, fuel and energy bills, compounded by the illegal conflict started by the President of the United States. About 15% of households in West Dorset rely on heating oil, and many do not qualify for the support that has been announced. Petrol and diesel prices are rising. Red diesel for farmers has doubled in price. Fertiliser prices are rising, too, which will feed through to food prices.

As a result, it has never been more important to make renewables work for working families. That is not because they are cleaner and more secure than fossil fuels, although we know that they are, but because they are the cheapest form of energy available. New solar now costs 11% less than the cheapest fossil fuel to generate electricity. Onshore wind is 39% cheaper. Over a decade ago, only 6% of the UK’s electricity came from renewables. Today, it is 42%. On Sunday, renewables generated 62% of the UK’s electricity, of which solar produced 8.8%. We should be enormously proud of that, but while renewables are getting cheaper, people are not seeing the benefit in their bills. Under the current marginal pricing system, the price of electricity is set by the cost of gas. That means that when global gas prices go up, electricity bills go up too, regardless of how much renewable power, or power of any kind, we are generating domestically. That system has left the UK with the fourth highest electricity prices in the world. It is not working for households or for businesses.

Let us be clear that the answer to energy insecurity is not more dependence on oil and gas; it is more cheap British renewable energy. Under the clean power 2030 action plan, the Government want 95% of Britain’s electricity to come from clean sources by 2030—a noble endeavour. To get there, the Government plan to increase solar capacity to between 45 GW and 47 GW by 2030. That will require doubling our capacity.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

When alternatives are not available, building solar farms, as Leonardo is doing in Yeovil, can be important to strengthening grid capacity for businesses and residents. When the site in Yeovil is working fully, there is not enough power in the grid for other businesses to expand. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to make sure that we have alternatives and get more solar out there to power our businesses?

[Edward Morello]

My hon. Friend is 100% right. Wherever possible, we should generate and use on site. The problem so often—I will come to this point in my speech—is that the value of anything that is exported to the grid fundamentally underlines any kind of investment model when we are looking at on-site generation.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I sent a note, which you were kind enough to mention, Mr Stringer, to apologise for entering the debate late, but I am delighted to be able to contribute.

The hon. Gentleman must surely know that renewables need to face the same tests of cost-effectiveness as all other kinds of generation. For example, the concentration of offshore wind, with very large turbines, a single point of connection to the grid and large amounts of energy, contrasts with the peppering of the country with onshore turbines in small numbers and with multiple connections to the grid. Similarly, putting solar on grade 1 land is just not sensible. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

[Edward Morello]

I can certainly agree with the argument that putting solar on grade 1 land should be avoided wherever possible. The right hon. Gentleman may be interested in the recent report of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy on our adversaries’ attempts to cut subsea cables, and on the implicit danger of having so few connection points with such concentrated areas of offshore generation, as we have seen with recent Russian activity. I will happily pick up that point with him afterwards.

About two thirds of UK solar capacity is ground-mounted, but there are concerns about where developments are located, particularly those built on high-quality agricultural land. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool): I have never met a farmer, especially in West Dorset, who got into farming because they wanted to grow solar panels. Farmers want to produce food, but we must acknowledge that after years of pressure on farm incomes and pressure on them by this Government, some see solar as one of the few reliable ways to keep their farm operating.

We are asking more and more of our countryside. We want it to produce food, support biodiversity, generate renewable energy, capture carbon, provide housing, and support tourism and recreation. We need guidance to identify where solar is most appropriate, steer it away from the best agricultural land wherever possible, and encourage dual-use schemes that allow land to generate energy while still supporting farmers and nature—

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

I will come on to that point.

[Edward Morello]

The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) suggests that we should utilise the least useful land going. My understanding, according to the numbers I have looked at, is that at least 2% of the UK is covered in golf courses, which are ecological wastelands. At the risk of alienating all the golfing voters out there, I wonder whether the Minister would like to use that land.

[Michael Shanks]

I will not be drawn on golf course membership, because I do not know how many of my constituents are members of golf courses; I can imagine how many Conservative Members are.

I come back to the point about land use, because we absolutely recognise the importance of having a framework for how we use land across the country. That is why the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published the first-ever land use framework in March— I recommend a read of it. It is a vision for all of England’s land use, using the latest data on how much we need for housing, energy and all sorts of things to ensure that we are making the best use of land. Both that and the strategic spatial approach to planning the energy system could have been done in those 14 years, but they were not. That is why we have ended up with a haphazard approach to strategic planning, and why we are now building the grid to connect the renewables that were built all over the country without that spatial plan. It is important that we strategically plan that, and it was not done previously, so we are moving forward to do it.

Postal Services: Rural Areas

Edward Morello Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) on securing this important debate. As every postie and every Liberal Democrat deliverer knows, rural delivery is hard. Homes are harder to find, walks between addresses are longer and journeys to sorting offices take more time. That reality means that our posties work incredibly hard, particularly during peak periods, and they deserve better support to deliver their services.

Royal Mail’s performance shows the scale of the challenge. In the Dorchester postcode area, performance was 79.2%, and in the Taunton area, 74.4% of first-class mail was delivered the next working day, against a target of 93%. Ofcom has fined Royal Mail more than £37 million over the last three years and has demanded a credible improvement plan, but rural customers are still waiting to feel the change.

Alongside delivery issues, post offices themselves are under pressure. Post offices are the heart of rural communities, providing access to cash, banking, and Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency services. They are often small village shops and offer foreign exchange services. Nationally, nearly 2,000 bank branches have closed in the past three years, so post offices are often the last remaining place for in-person banking, especially for older residents and those without reliable digital access. In Halstock, my constituents are deeply concerned that Lloyds Bank will soon stop allowing cheque deposits at their local post office. With the nearest Lloyds branch miles away and others closing, that change risks undermining both the community and the long-term viability of rural post offices.

Parcel delivery companies such as Evri present a huge problem for many. Ofcom research shows that 68% of customers in the south-west experienced delivery issues in the last six months. Say what you want about Evri, it is consistent: consistently bad and consistently among the worst performers. It is also very egalitarian, in that I get no more response from my parliamentary email address than the public do from any other one. In Sherborne, a café owner described repeated contradictory tracking messages, parcels failing to arrive and no meaningful customer support. Residents of Cattistock and Maiden Newton have contacted me about parcels being delivered to the wrong village altogether, or simply disappearing.

One constituent put it plainly: rural areas appear to be outside Evri’s business model, yet customers are never told this up front. Most people would happily pay more for a reliable service, but instead they are left guessing which courier will be used, and powerless when things go wrong. That points to a clear imbalance: Royal Mail is tightly regulated and fined for failure while private parcel firms face far weaker oversight.

The Government could make two changes: first, they should strengthen Ofcom’s powers over parcel delivery firms to bring them much closer to the standard applied to Royal Mail; secondly, vendors should be required to clearly state, before purchase, which courier will deliver an item. Transparency would allow consumers to make informed choices and would protect rural customers from the repeated failures that they are experiencing.

Seasonal Work

Edward Morello Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney]

It is tragic to hear of the closure of my hon. Friend’s local organisation. Not only will local people be deprived of the opportunity to enjoy the services it provided, but young people will be deprived of the opportunity to take on their first job.

On the Employment Rights Bill, the Liberal Democrats have been clear that we welcome many of the principles underpinning the legislation, but we have been pushing the Government to make crucial improvements to ensure that it properly delivers for workers and small businesses. We strongly believe in giving all workers security over their working patterns, and we are deeply concerned that too many struggle with unstable incomes, job insecurity and difficulties in planning for the future. On flexible work, we will continue to advocate what we think would have been a fairer and less onerous system, based on giving workers a new right to request fixed hours, which businesses would not be able to unreasonably refuse.

On seasonal work, we are glad that, thanks to the work of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords, the Government have made significant concessions for the benefit of businesses and workers, placing a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consult with key stakeholders before exercising powers to specify what a “temporary need” is in relation to the provisions on the right to zero-hours contracts. We are pleased that the Government have listened to Liberal Democrat calls for clarity by providing examples of how an employer could approach seasonal demand while complying with the new right to guaranteed hours. These provisions, secured by Liberal Democrat peers, will support workers by giving them more control over their working hours, while ensuring that businesses are properly consulted and given the resources to navigate this new legislation.

This weekend, towns across the country mark Small Business Saturday, but many small businesses will have struggled to celebrate, given the challenges that they face. Recent Government decisions, including the devastating business rates hike in last month’s Budget, are causing huge damage to small hospitality firms, with many now considering whether their business remains viable.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

Tourism is vital to the economy of West Dorset and hospitality is one of the largest employers. Our population soars by 40% during the summer months and those businesses require seasonal workers. Given all the headwinds my hon. Friend outlines that face the high street and UK hospitality, does she agree that the Government should reward and look after the sector with a 5% drop in VAT?

[Sarah Olney]

My hon. Friend is right; the hospitality sector has been disproportionately impacted by the hike in national insurance contributions because it generally employs people on lower wages for a shorter period of time. In particular, the decrease in the threshold has been damaging to many businesses that have that kind of employment pattern.

My hon. Friend is right that what we really need to do is boost growth and demand. We think that that could happen by introducing a 5% decrease in VAT for hospitality businesses. We need the Government to give hospitality the tools it needs to grow and help boost the wider economy. Thousands of venues are facing steep and unprecedented cost rises, making this a critical moment for the hospitality sector. I urge the Government to tackle the cost-of-doing-business crisis by adopting our proposal on VAT.

Employment Rights Bill

Edward Morello Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

We can always have a dig at the SNP, but the real enemies have been the Greens, the Liberal Democrats, the Tories and the Reform Members who have voted against this Bill consistently. They are the ones who have brought us to this point.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Justin Madders]

I will not give way anymore, because we have not got much time. I will pick up on what the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) said about compensation. I accept what the Minister said at the Dispatch Box. I hope that when the Lib Dem spokesperson checks back, she will be able to instruct her Lords that this measure was part of the deal and they should not block the Bill any longer. It is also telling that she has only spoken to businesses, not trade unions, about what was agreed. That shows which side the Liberal Democrats are on.

It has to be pointed out that unfair dismissal compensation limits are not operated that often. Most people’s claims are much lower than that. Most people who have been unfairly dismissed who would benefit from the measure tend to be much older workers who sadly do have not any employability in the job market. They are the ones who will benefit from the uplift in compensation, not bad water bosses, because to qualify people have to be unfairly dismissed. I suspect many water bosses would struggle to show that they had been treated unfairly.

Let us ensure that we get this legislation delivered and maintain vigilance across the whole agenda. That means proper meaningful access, not people being stuck in a shed somewhere far away from where the workers are, and serious fines linked to turnover for those who do not play by the rules. It means no loopholes and proper deterrents on fire and rehire so that companies do not think it is even worth going there. We do not want to see those P&O scenes repeated anywhere. It also means holding firm on some of the nonsense that we are still hearing today about zero-hours contracts. People seem to have a problem with fixed-term contracts and zero-hours contracts being completely different things. There has been a lot of conflation there, I am sad to say.

What comes next is important, because the Make Work Pay agenda is not just about this Bill. Let us get this Bill over the line and delivered, and let us get all the important regulations implemented, but there are so many other important things that we need to tackle in our workplaces in this country, particularly, bogus self-employment. That is going well beyond the gig economy; in fact, it is an epidemic, and it is important that we tackle it. The Bill will level the playing field, allowing good employers to compete fairly, and create more security at work. Employing people with proper terms and conditions may even lead to a greater tax take.

Further down the line, we must tackle unfair dismissal law, which is half a century old and desperately needs updating, but that is for another day. We have debated the Bill for over a year, and it is about time the Lords accepted the democratic mandate and accepted that we must deliver it. Let us get it over the line, and let us start delivering for working people in this country.

Carbon Budget Delivery Plan

Edward Morello Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) on securing this important debate. I am delighted that after years of delays, legal challenges and missed opportunities, we finally have a new carbon delivery plan. As we all know, however, a plan is not enough—it is actions, not words, that count.

Before I get into the action that is needed, I want to first acknowledge the great progress that has been made. The UK has halved its emissions since 1990. That is an exceptional achievement and one we should rightly be proud of, but much of that progress has been made by phasing out coal. Much of the heavy lifting on hard-to-abate emissions still lies ahead: decarbonising manufacturing, transport and agriculture and improving energy efficiency, all while protecting nature.

The key to further progress is changing the narrative. The transition to a low-carbon economy is not a cost or a burden; it is one of the greatest opportunities of our time. It can bring cheaper bills, warmer homes and thousands of well-paid jobs in the green economy. It is deeply disappointing that, having once lead the UK through varying levels of success in green technology, the Conservative party has abandoned its values and veered into climate denialism. Its recent calls to scrap the Climate Change Act just show how far it has fallen from the environmental leadership that Britain once showed.

The new carbon budget delivery plan is a step back in the right direction. The Government’s plan includes bold targets: low-carbon power making up 98% of the grid by 2035, 9 million heat pumps in operation, 1.6 million homes upgraded every year, and 75% of farmers engaged in emissions reductions. The Liberal Democrats support those aims, but we also want action now. We have proposed a 10-year emergency home upgrade programme, starting with free insulation for low-income households, ensuring that all new homes are zero carbon, and extending rooftop solar through the sunshine Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson).

We would also provide a social tariff for vulnerable households and move older renewable projects on to cheaper, more stable contracts. The Government’s investor prospectus is a good start, but stability is what really attracts private investment. The green economy is already growing three times faster than the UK economy as a whole and employs nearly 1 million people in well-paid, secure jobs. With clear policy direction, we can accelerate that growth.

The Government must end the sporadic nature of the climate portfolio and end the stop-start conversations with the Treasury. The £8.3 billion for GB Energy is good news—having spent a decade in renewable energy finance, I can tell Members that I would have supported that if it were £8.30—but it needs to be front-loaded, not spread out over the course of a Parliament. If we want to crowd in private investment, we have to de-risk the first 10p on the pound, not the first 1p.

There also need to be long-term secure funding streams that are accessible to start-ups and innovators. The net zero innovation portfolio was a great scheme. It invested around £300 million in early-stage climate ventures, leveraging up to £3 in private investment for every £1 in public grant funding. Sadly, it was scrapped this year. Will the Government confirm whether they intend there to be a replacement to the net zero innovation portfolio? Will they also confirm that the clean tech innovation challenge will proceed in 2026, as previously announced? In addition, I urge Ministers to commit a portion of the next round of Government carbon purchases specifically to carbon removal projects, to help to establish and grow the greenhouse gas-removal market.

We must reform how the National Energy System Operator manages battery storage. By prioritising flexible storage rather than reverting to high-emission generators such as Drax, we would be able to utilise a far greater proportion of the renewable energy that we generate.

On agriculture, the plan to recognise farmers as central to climate action is great, but we need to fund them properly. The Government’s cuts to the sustainable farming initiative and delays to environmental land management schemes mean that many farmers are left uncertain about the future and unable to invest in carbon reduction and nature-friendly initiatives. The Liberal Democrats would commit an additional £1 billion a year to support sustainable farming and rural resilience.

We must also accelerate the upgrade of our national grid, and ensure that communities affected by new infrastructure share in the benefits. Clean power cannot flow if it cannot be connected. The Liberal Democrats are also calling for a UK-wide adaptation strategy to embed climate resilience into every decision and support local communities to prepare before disaster occurs.

COP30 is currently being held in Brazil, and while the world’s negotiators grapple with finding an agreement, the British public are clear that they overwhelmingly support strong climate action. They want leadership. The Liberal Democrats believe we can halve energy bills within a decade, end fuel poverty and create a cleaner, fairer and more secure Britain. In the delivery plan, the Government say that they will

“seek to improve delivery and, where appropriate, will explore further measures, to ensure that the UK will meet its international commitments.”

Well, the Liberal Democrats believe in facts. We believe in science, the opinions of experts, and the inalienable truth that climate change is an existential crisis. We are here to help to improve that delivery, explore those further measures and ensure that our generation meets our commitment to future generations.

Hospitality Sector

Edward Morello Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) on securing this debate. It is unusually cruelly timed, as I feel that I have not stopped sweating in about three days and quite frankly I can think of nowhere I would rather be than on a beach in West Dorset.

I am not alone in that. Our Jurassic coast, our rivers and fields, our chocolate box villages and historical market towns attract millions of visitors each year. This landscape underpins a vital part of our economy: hospitality. Our pubs, cafés, hotels, holiday parks and B&Bs support thousands of jobs and provide livelihoods for families across West Dorset.

In West Dorset, 85% of local businesses are micro-enterprises. Those small businesses are the backbone of our tourism industry. They create jobs, keep high streets alive, and provide essential services. Rising costs driven by inflation, energy, staffing and tax are now threatening their survival.

In 2024, West Dorset recorded more than 4,200 sewage spills discharged into our rivers and seas for more than 48,000 hours. Tourists are now checking pollution alerts before they swim. In an area where tourism brings in more than £320 million and supports more than 5,000 jobs, it is unacceptable that inaction by the Government is putting our hospitality businesses at risk.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

It is fascinating that the vast majority of the tourism businesses in West Dorset are microbusinesses. Can my hon. Friend think of a worse policy for those businesses than reducing the NI threshold to the level it was reduced to in the Budget? Can he think of a policy that would do more economic damage to the hospitality sector in his constituency?

[Edward Morello]

I would struggle to think of a policy that would be worse for microbusinesses.

Meanwhile, transport and parking infrastructure across rural West Dorset is stretched to breaking point, something made worse by the 42% surge in population during peak season. If visitors cannot reach our businesses or cannot park, it is local traders that will lose out. As my hon. Friend just mentioned, in April we saw a rise in national insurance contributions and an increase in business rates—that was the other thing I was struggling to think of that might be worse for small businesses. Since then, more than 220 pubs have shut down. I heard directly from The George in West Bay in my constituency, which has seen its business rates increase from £8,000 to £27,000 a year. That is basically its entire operating profit margin.

UKHospitality reports that a third of businesses in the sector are now operating at a loss. Most have had to raise prices, cut hours, lay off staff or cancel investment. As I am sure the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), will outline, we would replace business rates with a commercial landlord levy. We would keep the 75% business rate relief for hospitality and freeze the small business multiplier until the new system is in place.

We are also calling for a dedicated Minister of State for tourism and hospitality to give those sectors the leadership and support that they desperately need. In places such as West Dorset, hospitality is the economy. For every small business that closes, we lose part of our community. We need action. We need to stand up for hospitality businesses, because when they thrive, all of West Dorset thrives.

Business and the Economy

Edward Morello Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mohindra]

Well, I have been listening; I spend a lot of time in the Chamber. Yes, there is an element of Punch and Judy, but the reality is that there are 650 of us here who want great legislation to support our communities and make sure that people can get on with their daily lives without the burden of having to think about legislation. They want us to get on with it on their behalf.

On tax rises, we have seen the leak of the Deputy Prime Minister’s letter to the Chancellor. I remain concerned that any ambition to increase taxes is another death by a thousand cuts for our small businesses. We need certainty and support from this Government, saying to people, “Go and be ambitious.” If people are risk-averse, there will be a structural problem for us on our high streets and for our small businesses. That means that we will not create the world’s next unicorn because those ambitious people will already have left our country to generate their income in a better financial climate, typically in the middle east or other parts of Europe.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I was touched by the hon. Gentleman’s story of his father’s role in contributing to the economy. I hope that he will be present in the immigration debate later this afternoon to make the same points about the vital work of immigrants contributing to wealth creation in the UK.

The hon. Gentleman mentions NICs and the other headwinds facing small businesses. One small business in West Dorset has seen its business rates go from £8,000 to £27,000. If we want to help small businesses grow, surely we have to stop taxing them so much.

[Mr Mohindra]

I have always thought that business rates were totally outdated. They generate a significant amount of money for the Treasury, so it is resistant to reform without knowing for certain how it will fill that significant black hole.

We have not spoken about hospices and the effects of NICs increases on the charity sector. Others have spoken about the winter fuel allowance. All these things affect our most vulnerable individuals, and the community groups and charities that fill a massive void that the state or the private individual do not. My worry, which is increasing, is that we are doing things that will have unintended but significant consequences.

We chose this subject for debate to ensure that the Government heard loud and clear from across the House that where they do the right thing, we will support them, and where they need to adjust their direction of travel—I will not say “U-turn”—we will support them. It benefits no one, and provides no benefit to our communities, if we just chuck political grenades.

I will end my remarks on the loss of business confidence. Small businesses are closing, investors are leaving, inflation is rising and confidence is collapsing. I know that there is a direct lack of business experience on the Treasury Bench, but that is neither here nor there. I know that there are various economists, think-tankers and so on in the Minister’s party, but I urge him to listen to those who run businesses of whatever shape or size, because that life experience brings them value in this place. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) created a business that employs 1,000 people. That is real life experience; he knows how the Government’s decisions would have influenced the projections and ambitions of his business. I know from my continuing conversations with businesses that they are looking to shrink and be secure rather than expand and be ambitious. That is not what the UK is about; we are outward-looking and globally ambitious. I wish the Government success in getting to that point.