Railways Bill (Fourth sitting)

Edward Morello Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Olly Glover]

Yes, the hon. Gentleman is correct. Scotland, as a result of a longer-term commitment to electrification, has got unit costs down considerably, and has now electrified the bulk of the dense-traffic network in the lowland area and central belt. We can do the same in England and Wales should we wish to do so. I hope that the Government will change course and, in so doing, that the Minister will enable me to praise his Government and his commitment to beating the Thatcher Government’s electrification rate, liberating me from the difficult position of having to compliment the 1980s Conservative Government on their electrification progress.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I will speak to new clause 20, which makes the simple ask that Great British Railways does all it can not to contribute to the climate crisis. I hope it is uncontroversial, because the bits of legislation that we are asking for GBR to adhere to are the Environment Act 2021 passed by the previous Conservative Government, the Climate Change Act 2008 passed by the previous Labour Government, and the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 passed by the coalition Government.

I am deeply concerned that climate change does not appear in the Bill at all, and we tabled new clause 20 to close down that problem. At a time when extreme weather is already disrupting services, damaging infrastructure and frustrating passengers, the absence of any clear environmental duty is extremely troubling. We are already seeing the impacts of climate change on our rail network. In West Dorset, services have been severely disrupted by soil moisture deficit, alongside flooding, high winds and extreme weather. Last summer, that led to a reduced timetable, widespread delays and endless bus replacement services. From August, services from London to Yeovil Junction were cut to one train an hour, and took more than half an hour longer, while services to Exeter were reduced to one every two hours. That is the cost of not planning ahead.

New clause 20 would require GBR to take climate risk seriously in every decision that it makes. That means factoring in flood risk, heat stress on tracks, coastal erosion and extreme weather, and designing infrastructure that can cope with hot summers and wet winters. If the Bill is about the future of rail, it must account for a future that is going to be impacted by climate change. The new clause would strengthen the case for rail electrification, encourage low-carbon construction methods and ensure that procurement decisions properly consider materials, the supply chain and energy use.

Without a clear statutory duty, environmental goals risk being treated as entirely optional. With new clause 20, climate and environmental objectives would become part of GBR’s core purpose. Decisions would be more consistent across the network, rail would be properly aligned with national climate and nature targets, and GBR would be more transparent and accountable.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank hon. Members for the amendments and new clauses in the group. Before I turn to amendments 3 and 4, however, I will pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for South West Devon earlier about people across the country having an understanding of GBR and its functions, and knowing how it will impact the railway and their lives. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, has consistently given the statistic that 60% of functions on the railway will still be done by the private sector, once GBR is established—

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

I have only a few brief remarks to make. Having read both new clause 8 and amendment 130, which is effectively consequential, I say to the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage that they appear to be perfectly reasonable and sensible proposals that seek to focus, as we should be doing, on the passenger. I have a couple of points consequent to that.

I see the intent behind the provisions; my only query is that I cannot see in the language of the new clause or amendment where the teeth are when it comes to enforceability. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman has in mind exactly how that would operate, but I would be grateful if he clarified how the provisions would be enforced and where the teeth are when it comes to the travelling public. I also associate myself with his question to the Minister, about delay repay.

The focus of all we are doing should be on the passengers—the service users of our railways. The passenger has paid to use that service. Again, I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to confirm on the record that there is no intention to weaken the delay repay scheme once GBR is in operation. The key is for the Government, rather than seeking to weaken delay repay to save money, to actually put their money where their mouths are and be confident that GBR will improve reliability. That way, GBR will not have to pay out so much because the trains will be doing what they are there to do for the travelling public. I hope the Minister can give that assurance as he winds up.

[Edward Morello]

I speak in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage’s passenger charter. I recommend that any Member who was otherwise engaged to go and listen to his ten-minute rule Bill, which outlined it in far greater detail than I will today.

[Edward Argar]

I have it here!

[Edward Morello]

It is excellent reading—something for the train on the way home. It lays out why the passenger charter is so key to delivering a better experience for rail users. The Committee will spend a lot of time talking about rail upgrades, shorter journeys, passing loops and all the things that we should discuss—it is easy to understand why we focus so much on shorter passenger journeys—but the passenger experience is also key. When I agreed to sit on the Committee, I said that if I achieved anything from it I hoped it would be the return of the buffet trolley to any train going anywhere near West Dorset.

[Keir Mather]

For a gin and tonic.

[Edward Morello]

I could not possibly comment, Minister—I was going to say tea. But there are basic human rights that we should be respecting here—and a gin and tonic might be one of them.

On rail journeys lasting more than two hours, access to food and drink is a basic expectation. As anyone who has done the trip to Exeter or Dorchester South from London will know, numerous stations on that line do not have a café on the platform, or even one close by. I hope we are also going to achieve a reduction in the number of delays on that line, but once someone is on it they are on it; their options for access to anything are incredibly low. Whether for a parent travelling with children, older passengers on long journeys or commuters trying to work on the move, access to basic amenities—reliable wi-fi and food and drink—should be mandatory.

New clause 8 would require the Secretary of State, within six months, to introduce a passenger charter as a core function of GBR. It would set out clear expectations for passengers, and clear accountability for operators. As my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage laid out in his ten-minute rule Bill, it would include guarantees on value for money, service quality, adequate seating for journeys over 30 minutes, and improved accessibility across trains.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

If my constituents travelled from London Bridge this evening and caught the 5.34 to Barnehurst or the 6.50 to Bexleyheath, in zone 5, those journeys would take 31 minutes, so do you actually believe that, under your guarantee, my constituents—many of whom, you would expect, would rather just get on a train and expect to stand for some of the journey—would get compensation if they did not have a seat for that commuter journey home of an evening?

[Daniel Francis]

I am sorry, Sir Alec.

[Edward Morello]

Thank you, Sir Alec, for the clarification, and I thank the hon. Member for his question. I understand the premise of the point: whichever number we put in, there is a risk that someone could come up with such an example. I think the point is that, for journeys over 30 minutes, for older passengers, for example, the guarantee of a seat may be an issue of whether they want to travel or not, so we must find a line to draw in the sand; I hope that able-bodied Members would stand up for the elderly, but it is not always the case. I would like us to move to a system where we do not have to stand on trains and where there is an expectation of seating—not least so that the drinks trolley can get through and get a cup of tea to me when I need one.

The charter would also set targets for reliability and a clear timetable for improving passenger accommodation, including seat design, reliable wi-fi and mobile signals, power outlets—I honestly cannot believe we are still questioning whether or not we should have power outlets on trains—luggage and bicycle storage, clean and accessible toilets, and onboard catering for journeys of more than two hours. We must focus much of our innovation on the passenger experience and not just the journey time, whether that is wi-fi for commuting workers or accessible toilets for everyone. Crucially, it would also extend delay repay principles to cover failures in onboard amenities and move towards automatic digital compensation that does not place the burden on passengers to fight for refunds—hopefully that speaks to the teeth that the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston mentioned.

Those are not luxuries. Almost every rail user has stood despite booking a seat, lost their signal mid-journey, missed a connection because of a delay, struggled to find a clean toilet—or a working one—or found nowhere to store a bag, yet too often there is no meaningful redress for those inconveniences. That undermines confidence in the railway.

The data is stark. Only 32% of passengers believe that the rail network meets their needs, and just 59% are satisfied with value for money or onboard internet. Last year, there were more than 62,000 complaints about punctuality, nearly 40,000 about overcrowding, and more than 24,000 about onboard facilities. All those things act as a drag. They are why people do not want to travel on the trains and why they are choosing car journeys instead. If we want people to choose rail for economic, environmental and social reasons, we have to deal with these frustrations as well. New clause 8 puts passengers back at the heart of the system, where they belong.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am very supportive of the intent behind this new clause. Where the Government have taken the political decision to put all their eggs in the nationalisation basket, it becomes even more important that we add as many clauses to the Bill as possible to force them to focus on the passenger experience.

Nationalisation has been tried before, not just in the railways but in a number of other organisations, and not a single one of them is a byword for individual customer choice, so if experience is anything to go by—and if we are, as seems likely, going to be forced to have a nationalised approach to the railways—the legislation needs to bend over backwards to keep reinforcing the point that the passenger experience is the central element that the organisation should be aiming for.

At the moment, the Government are woefully unambitious in their definition of railway services. If you look at clause 18(3)—which I am sure you have already, Sir Alec—you will see that the definition for railway service performance

“includes, in particular, performance in securing each of the following in relation to railway services”.

I was expecting a long list of all the good things that customers travelling on the railway should expect, but what do we get? We get “reliability, (including punctuality),” and

“the avoidance…of passenger overcrowding”,

and that is it. What poverty of aspiration. It really is very striking.

It may be that the wording of new clause 8 could be improved—I am sure that the Government have the drafting firepower to do exactly that—but what is listed in subsection (2)(c)(i) to (vi) is a good starting point, and certainly much better than what the Government managed to come up with in clause 18. I support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for new clause 8 and amendment 130, and all right hon. and hon. Members who have offered contributions in support of the notion of seeking to require the Secretary of State to lay a passenger charter. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am as zealous as he is in pursuing not only the rights of passengers, but their ability to have happy, fulfilled experiences on the railway—whether through a G&T, a cup of tea or whatever else.

Although I fully endorse the aim of raising passenger standards, I do not agree that a statutory passenger charter is the best approach. Great British Railways, not Government, needs to be in charge of the passenger offer, and it is being set up to be an expert-led directing mind, not a Government-led directive mind. There would be little value in reforming the system, only for the Government to continue to micromanage the railway, down to the level of specific seat designs.

[Edward Morello]

During my conversations with the sector, one of the challenges that came up about returning, for example, the buffet trolley or other services to trains is that services have already been sold on station platforms. There is direct and inherent competition between any service that someone might receive on the train and something that might be provided, and has already been sold, leased or franchised out, on the platform itself. How can the Government put passengers’ interests at the core of service delivery when they will have an inherent business or profitability conflict with some of the services that are already in existence?

[Keir Mather]

The hon. Member can intervene again if I have misunderstood his point, but I think there is a lot of utility in the fact that GBR, by being able to direct passenger services as well as having responsibility for long-term infrastructure such as stations, provides a coherent basis on which to tailor the passenger experience across the multitude of ways in which passengers engage with the railway and its infrastructure. From my perspective, it actually removes issues in cases in which competition may not be what is best for the passenger—where there is an offer in the catering car on their service down to London, but also a small business running a café from the station. We will have more of an opportunity to offer a holistic service for the passenger.

It is also important to me that we do not want to fix the passenger offer in statute. We want GBR to be able to adapt to passengers’ needs as they change over time. For example, I cannot imagine that many were thinking about wi-fi when the Railways Act 1993 was passed, but we know how fundamental it is to social and economic connectivity for passengers on the railway today.

To ensure that GBR does a good job of managing the passenger offer, the Bill will also establish the passenger watchdog, which will have strong powers to act in passengers’ interests. The Government and GBR will have to consult the watchdog when developing their policies, strategies and priorities for the railway, including when GBR is developing its business plan and passenger offer, and GBR will be expected to take account of the watchdog’s advice. The watchdog will also set minimum consumer standards, covering areas such as accessibility and passenger information.

The Secretary of State will have the opportunity to prioritise the needs of future passengers through the long-term rail strategy.

Airport Drop-off Charges

Edward Morello Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) on securing this important debate.

What should be a simple act of kindness—giving someone a lift to an airport, as we have all done—is increasingly being met with extortionate airport charges. This is neither fair nor reasonable, and it is why we believe the Government must now look seriously at regulating the fees. For constituents like mine in West Dorset, who live in a hugely rural area with limited public transport, where many villages do not even have a reliable local bus service, let alone a direct rail link to a major airport, it is increasingly painful. For my constituents to get to Exeter, Bristol or Bournemouth airports, let alone Heathrow or Gatwick, means driving, booking a costly taxi or, more often than not, asking a family member or neighbour to help.

If we want to drop someone off, we have to use the airport system and pay its charges. At Bristol, that now means £8.50 for 10 minutes, or £30 for an hour. Bournemouth airport promotes what it calls a passenger pick-up offer of up to 90 minutes to meet and greet friends, for the small fee of £6. For many people, that £6 will be spent on merely five minutes’ activity. For families who are already paying inflated air fares, baggage fees and taxes, it is just another hidden cost added to the journey.

The charges have risen rapidly across the country, far beyond inflation. Gatwick now charges £10 for just 10 minutes—double what it charged in 2021. What began in 2007 as a £1 security-driven charge at Birmingham airport has become a nationwide revenue stream. Airports often justify the increases by citing environmental goals or the need to encourage public transport use, but unless the charges are accompanied by serious, accessible and affordable public transport investment, they do not change behaviour; they simply extract more money from those who have no alternative.

The charges hit some groups particularly hard, including disabled passengers, people with reduced mobility, parents travelling with young children, and those from rural areas who are least able to use public transport and most dependent on car access. Although airports have duties under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments, statutory provisions for blue badge holders do not apply in private car parks, and many people fall through the cracks.

The Competition and Markets Authority and the Civil Aviation Authority previously concluded that there was insufficient evidence of harm in surface access charging. That assessment is now out of date. Since 2016, charges have risen sharply. Free drop-off zones have all but been removed, and on-site payment options have been closed in favour of online or phone systems that are confusing for most.

As people try to avoid the charges, police have reported increased dangerous behaviour, with cars stopping on motorway hard shoulders to pick up passengers. That is unsafe for drivers, passengers and emergency services and is a direct result of an unfair pricing system. It is also worth remembering, as has been highlighted, that these charges are not normal across Europe. Passengers at Paris-Charles de Gaulle, Amsterdam Schiphol, Frankfurt and Madrid do not pay to drop off loved ones. If it can be done there, it can be done here.

Airports argue that they face financial pressures, particularly from business rates, which were recalculated after the pandemic. We Liberal Democrats sympathise, and passing the bill directly to passengers through drop-off fees may be the easiest lever to pull, but it is not the fairest or most effective one. The Department for Transport has previously said that it has no plans to monitor or limit parking fees at airports, and I believe that position is no longer acceptable.

The Liberal Democrats have been clear that we want to reduce the environmental impact of flying, but it has to be done in a way that is fair and effective. We support investment in zero-carbon flights, reforming aviation taxation so that frequent flyers pay more, taxing private jets, improving rail alternatives and banning short domestic flights where fast rail options exist. What we do not support is offloading the cost of climate policies on to families, friends, disabled people and rural transport.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

I rarely intervene on another spokesperson’s speech, but this raises a question: if the Liberal Democrats want these expensive policies and say that consumers should not pay, who should pay?

[Edward Morello]

I thank the hon. Member for the opportunity to clarify my point. It is not about whether the consumer pays; it is about whether the airports are using the revenue they claim they are generating to support climate policies for that purpose, or whether it is simply another revenue stream for them. Airports and providers must use the money correctly, rather than just levying another tax on passengers.

Regulation could take several forms. There could be a cap on drop-off charges linked to inflation. There could be a requirement for a free short-stay grace period. There could be mandatory exemptions for disabled passengers and carers. There could be greater transparency on how revenues are used and whether they genuinely fund sustainable transport.

What we cannot do is to continue to allow airports to exploit their control over access to extract ever higher fees from consumers who have no meaningful choice. It is time we recognised that airport drop-off charges have become unfair, unregulated and disconnected from their original purpose. I hope the Government will act.

Railways Bill

Edward Morello Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I am looking forward to serving on the Public Bill Committee, because this Bill is a long-awaited opportunity to reshape our rail network for the better. It is an opportunity to deliver real value, reliability and affordability for passengers across the whole of the country, but especially in underserved rural communities such as West Dorset. I welcome key provisions such as the commitment to a long-term strategy, a more integrated approach to track and train, the retention of the important regulatory role of the ORR, a strong focus on accessibility and the ambition to simplify a fragmented structure that, for too long and too often, has pushed infrastructure and operations in different directions.

My constituents repeatedly tell me that they want reliability and affordability above all, which is why we also welcome the freeze in rail fares—long campaigned for by the Liberal Democrats—that was announced in the Budget. West Dorset’s rural rail network, including the Salisbury to Exeter line, is crucial for our communities, yet its infrastructure remains outdated and fragile. The recommendations of the “Connecting South West England” report are clear: electrification, upgrading single track sections and additional passing points such as the much-needed Tisbury loop would dramatically improve reliability and capacity, and reduce the delays that plague the line today. Too often, rural lines are left with old, uncomfortable and unreliable trains.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

My hon. Friend talks about unreliable service. I have in my constituency Thameslink and London Northwestern Railway. Doreen, who is in her 80s, talks about cancellation after cancellation. In her mid-80s, she had to wait until past midnight. Then there is Katy, and others. For those cancelled services, the value is awful. They have to pay £30 for a 30-minute return journey. Does he agree that we need to know from the Government what mechanisms there are to hold operators accountable to make sure passengers get the service they pay for?

[Edward Morello]

I agree 100%. I very much hope that the Bill will give us the opportunity to improve that level of service.

End-of-the-line stopping services should not be defined by graffiti, broken heating, limited seating and high fares. What we want are modern trains with reliable wi-fi, working toilets, clear visual and audio information systems for disabled passengers, and safe, well-lit stations.

If the Bill delivers anything, I hope it will deliver the return of the buffet trolley. On rail journeys lasting over an hour, a guaranteed minimum level of food and drink provision should be a basic expectation of modern public transport. Whether it is a parent travelling with children, an older passenger managing a long trip, commuters trying to work on the move, or maybe a Member of Parliament hoping for a gin and tonic on the way home, access to refreshments is important.

I would also like the Bill to support our climate commitments. That means accelerating electrification, expanding battery and hydrogen use where appropriate, and setting clear standards for freight and passenger emissions. A long-term rail strategy must be transparent, regularly reviewed, subject to parliamentary scrutiny and designed with future climate pressures in mind, including the modelling of environmental impacts, such as the soil moisture deficit—already mentioned—that has severely disrupted services in Dorset.

There are elements of the Bill that cause concern. Many will rightly question whether Great British Railways, as currently proposed, risks becoming a rail version of NHS England: a large, centralised body with limited agility, limited parliamentary accountability, and simply an opportunity for ministerial micromanagement. If the Secretary of State wants more power, then accountability to Parliament must increase alongside it.

Passengers deserve clear, measurable outcomes on affordability, reliability and accessibility, not vague commitments that cannot be scrutinised. We need to be able to get answers and get change for our constituents if standards fall below acceptable levels, and not have to deal with arm’s length bodies.

Passengers must be protected from excessive charges and hidden fees. The GBR app and website should never add unnecessary booking fees or administrative costs. Instead, we should push for open-source fare systems that allow passengers easily to find the best deal. Expanding discount schemes, especially for young people through “rail miles” systems, would help people travel more and reduce costs for families.

Finally, the Bill must lead to a railway where back-office systems are rationalised, data is used to improve passenger experience, and long-term planning is not sacrificed for short-term crisis management. Passengers deserve honesty about upcoming delays, clarity on long-term upgrades, and confidence that today’s problems are not simply passed on to tomorrow’s Parliament.

This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to deliver a railway that works: for commuters, for rural communities, for disabled passengers, for young people seeking opportunity, and for the climate. I look forward to working with Ministers and colleagues from across the House to strengthen the Bill in Committee and deliver a railway worthy of the people we serve.

Driving Test Availability: South-east

Edward Morello Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Pinkerton]

My hon. Friend’s constituents are clearly suffering from exactly the same challenges as mine in Surrey Heath. I will talk about some of the actions that have already been taken, and how they might be pushed further and faster.

The delays place immense pressure on learners, particularly those needing to make a second or third attempt at taking their practical test. Many face a further six-month wait for a resit, which forces them to take regular lessons simply to stay test ready. The national pass rate was 49.9% in October 2025, so almost half of all candidates taking their driving test must restart the cycle without any guarantee of a timely retest.

One of the most serious concerns that my constituents raise is the prevalence of bots and third-party reselling. Automated bots secure test slots the moment they are released and resell them at heavily inflated prices—often between £150 and £300.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

When my hon. Friend talked about a 23-week wait, my immediate thought was, “Oh, luxury!” A constituent in West Dorset contacted me to say that he faces a 24-month wait to find a single test within a 50-mile radius. That is one of the problems with being in a beautiful part of rural Britain. The only alternative is to pay more than £200 to one of the resellers. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is exploitation of the most vulnerable?

[Dr Pinkerton]

As an MP for a rural constituency, I know that my hon. Friend’s constituents will feel that pressure with particular force. They experience exactly the same kind of employment curtailment as my constituents in Surrey Heath.

My constituents have further highlighted that websites such as Pass Faster are advertising guaranteed tests anywhere in the UK within four to six weeks. They charge the £62 DVSA fee, plus an additional £88 finder’s fee. The distorted marketplace leaves many families with no choice but to engage with those services, despite their deep frustration at the cost. Those who cannot face that cycle often end up travelling extraordinary distances. Some Surrey Heath families are forced to book tests in Cornwall, Taunton, Kendal, Birmingham or Leeds—all examples from my own constituents. One family told me that they undertook a staggering 728-mile round trip to Berwick-upon-Tweed. Another, after spending more than £2,000, had to travel to the Isle of Wight because it was the nearest available test slot.

Rural Railway Stations: Step Free Access

Edward Morello Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Helen Morgan]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I think there is an element of pork barrel politics and of making undeliverable promises shortly before the election. That is not forgivable, because it has created an expectation among constituents that cannot be fulfilled.

As I was saying, the lack of clarity has added to the frustration of residents in places such as Whitchurch—especially in Whitchurch, because the plans for the lift are in place. It has been designed and Network Rail is keen to start work on the project, having designated it as a high priority for delivery in control period 7. All we need for step-free access at Whitchurch is a green light from the Department for Transport. I would be grateful if the Minister set out the Government’s timeline for delivering step-free access to Whitchurch station, so I may share that with my constituents.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I share my hon. Friend’s frustration but would like to say what a luxury it is to be so far down the line with an Access for All bid. Despite having £100,000 pledged by Dorset council and local developers to support step-free access, Dorchester South station is still waiting to hear whether it will even be considered for the bid. Does she agree that more should be done to create transparency in this process?

[Helen Morgan]

My hon. Friend is right: there should be more transparency, but there also needs to be more attention to the issue of step-free access in rural areas. I am about to come on to that in more detail.

Improving the accessibility of Whitchurch station will bring more people to the town via rail. That obviously could boost tourism—Whitchurch is Shropshire’s oldest continuously occupied town and is well worth a visit, along with the other beautiful and historic towns in my constituency—and bring customers to local businesses, workers to job vacancies, critically, and families to their loved ones.

Rural towns and villages have been consistently deprioritised by successive Governments and this Government, I am afraid, are no better, continually focusing investment into mayoral combined authorities’ coffers. Those areas do not face the same fundamental issues that rural areas do. They have regular buses that come within minutes, even on Sundays, and train services that are more frequent than every two hours. If people choose to drive, they can do so without the risk of damaging their tyres because they have bumped into a huge pothole. In a town like Whitchurch, if the bus turns up the round trip to someone’s destination is likely to be more than two hours—even if it is only to Shrewsbury, which is 20 miles away. Investment like the Access for All scheme in rural areas is part of the solution to improving economic growth—to more businesses thriving, more people spending and more money flowing into our economy.

Connected and Automated Vehicles

Edward Morello Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Coombes]

Absolutely. I represent many professional drivers myself, so I completely agree about the importance of the current systems working for them, as well as future systems working. I want to be clear about this. Given that full vehicle automation is decades away, I hope that we can provide reassurance that mass redundancy of drivers is not around the corner. People who drive for a living do much more than an automated vehicle could do, whether that is by supporting vulnerable passengers, protecting freight as a heavy goods vehicle driver or managing antisocial behaviour on bus services.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

Many moons ago, I was listening to a futurologist on the radio, a job that seems to involve mainly sitting on beanbags. He was talking about autonomous vehicles and was asked, “Is there anything that you think people should be thinking about on autonomous vehicles?” He said, “We’ve got to get used to the idea that grandma is going to turn up dead, because right now when you have a medical emergency, whether it be in a taxi or in a car, you’ll crash the car and get some kind of medical intervention as a result of that, but with autonomous vehicles, grandma will unfortunately arrive back at the house.” When we talk about the importance of cab drivers or vehicle-led driving, we also need to think about the unintended consequences of automated vehicles.

[Sarah Coombes]

It is absolutely about creating a safe system for the future. If AVs are involved in an incident, will they be able to get to hospital? All those questions have to be talked about, as we begin to see fully driverless vehicles on our roads.

One person who has benefited from new employment in the AV industry is our safety driver at Wayve yesterday. He told me how thrilled he was to have secured a job there. He spends at least six hours a day training and testing their cars around the streets of London, having formerly worked as a delivery driver.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Edward Morello Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I do understand his point. This is a transition. We are moving away from fuels that are killing our environment and our ability to survive on planet Earth. It is a responsible thing to do to find ways to reduce our reliance on carbon-generating fossil fuels through cleaner alternatives. This may not be the final solution for aviation—it might be a transition. Future technologies and innovations might allow us to stop the use of such fuels altogether.

More than 130 organisations from airlines and clean energy firms to researchers and investors have called on the Government to prioritise PTL through the Bill. They have called for urgent engagement, timely regulation and a clear pathway to a commercial-scale plant in the UK by 2026. As I have mentioned, the EU, Canada and the United States are moving faster. We must not miss this industrial opportunity to take a lead in progressing innovative SAF alternatives and licensing that technology around the world. We must act decisively, not incrementally.

I support the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill, but I believe we have a responsibility to make it stronger, bolder and more targeted towards the fuels that will truly deliver net zero. My amendments are practical, proportionate and widely supported. They add not cost, but clarity, confidence and a commitment to a sector that needs all three. If we want to lead the world in clean aviation, we must lead with action, not just ambition. I call on friends and colleagues across the House to support the amendments in my name, and in doing so to give PTL the foothold it needs to take off in the UK.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

Sustainable aviation fuel offers us a route to decarbonise one of the most carbon-intensive industries and to secure the future of our aviation sector in a way that is compatible with our net zero goals. Climate change remains the greatest challenge of our time. It is an existential threat to us, our children and our grandchildren, and every decision made in this House must be measured against the scale and the urgency of the crisis.

Aviation, while connecting people and driving our economy, is a contributor to the problem. In 2022, it was responsible for almost 30 million tonnes of CO₂, equivalent to about 7% of the UK’s total emissions. Even as emissions from other sectors decline, aviation’s share is projected to rise to 16% by 2035. That is not compatible with our net zero targets, nor with our moral obligation to keep global temperature rises below 1.5°.

Sustainable aviation fuel is not a silver bullet, but it is a step towards addressing the challenge. As someone who spent almost a decade working in renewable energy, I have seen how technology, innovation and the public trust must work hand in hand if we are to make lasting progress in addressing climate change. However, with innovation must come accountability, which is why I have tabled new clauses 4 and 5. These new clauses would strengthen this Bill and aim to make the transition to clean flight more accountable, more transparent and, yes, more ambitious. New clause 4 would support the Secretary of State to raise sustainable fuel targets in any given year and introduce a duty to consider annually whether the target should be increased. The Secretary of State would also be required to set out what steps the Government will take to make any increase possible. In short, to ensure that the Government cannot forget the targets, it would require them to revisit, review and, wherever possible, raise their ambitions for cleaner flight.

New clause 4 would strengthen the parliamentary scrutiny. It would require the Government to lay a copy of each annual report before Parliament and share it with the relevant Select Committees in both Houses, meaning proper oversight and public accountability. Progress must not just be made; it must be seen to be made if we are going to take the public with us.

New clause 5 would build on that principle of transparency and public engagement, requiring air travel providers to report annually on their sustainable aviation fuel in a way that passengers and the public can actually understand. Too often, data about emissions and fuel use is buried in complex technical reports that mean little to consumers. Under this proposal, airlines would publish both the total amount of SAF used and the proportion it represents of their overall fuel consumption.

[Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is giving a very detailed speech. Would he agree that we already have the annual carbon budget audit, which looks each year at exactly those emissions and was what drew to our attention the growth in this sector and why we need to focus exactly on driving down emissions from the aviation sector, which led us to the SAF mandate? Does he acknowledge that we already have a mechanism for this, which has helped us to get to where we are today with this excellent Bill?

[Edward Morello]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. She managed to make a detailed speech sound like a backhanded compliment. I do not disagree with her point that we have several reporting standards, and my only counter-argument would be that I do not believe there can be too much transparency. If that results in information being presented in a way that gives the public further clarity and puts greater pressure on any Government to speed up the transition, that can only be a good thing.

Those figures must be presented clearly in a format that is accessible and easy to find on websites and in public material. That matters, because whether it is demonstrating that solar and wind power lower bills, that carbon removal technology will provide jobs or that sustainable aviation fuel can cut emissions, we must be transparent to build public trust and belief in what we are doing. The powers in this Bill to fund the strike price mechanism to levy fines on fuel suppliers who fail to pay are all welcome, but they must be matched by equally strong accountability to this House and the general public. The amendments I have proposed would ensure that the Government are required to review progress every year, to explain how targets will be strengthened, and to make transparent the actual use of sustainable fuel across the aviation industry.

[Tom Collins]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Edward Morello]

The hon. Member is just in the nick of time, so I will.

[Tom Collins]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I would like to speak to his comments and those of the Father of the House about the impact on consumers. In Committee, the Government made it clear that they are alive not only to the considerations of cost and the impact on consumers, but to the extreme complexity of how aircraft logistics and fuelling function across global markets, and how aircraft are operated on a day-to-day basis. That makes some of these reporting requirements extremely difficult for airlines to deliver. We do not want to create a burden of bureaucracy that drives airlines away from sustainable fuel and back towards unsustainable pure fossil sources. I support the Government’s position that we should stay where we are and build processes that provide accountability.

[Edward Morello]

I think I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am afraid that I do not agree that increasing reporting burdens on industry is a bad thing. Every industry will argue that reporting is onerous. The liturgy starts with water companies. Companies will hide behind not having to report. On the need to move forward with technology, I am reminded that Henry Ford once said, “If I asked people what they want, they would say a faster horse.” The reality is that technology will be the route to our achieving our net zero goals, and this is one step on that pathway.

I will finish. New clauses 4 and 5 would strengthen this Bill, strengthen public confidence and demonstrate the UK’s global leadership, and I very much hope the Government will support them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Blue Badge Eligibility

Edward Morello Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Helen Grant]

As usual, the hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. I agree with him that certain illnesses should have an automatic entitlement, because at the end of the day we should be making it easier for people who are going through hell, rather than harder and more complicated.

It is not just the three-year rule that is out of step for people with shorter-term conditions. Blue badge applications take 12 to 15 weeks to be processed, which is far too long in terms of cancer timelines, and rejected applicants cannot reapply for six months. Again, that is incompatible with cancer treatments, where debilitating physical effects can quickly arise. So today I speak on behalf of the many thousands of cancer patients and people with life-altering conditions whose lives could be made so much easier if they had access to a fairer blue badge system.

The issue came to the Kent Messenger’s attention through the experience of an employee, a lady called Sandy Burr, who is with us in the Public Gallery today. Sandy was diagnosed with skin cancer in 2024. She applied for a blue badge when she found out that her toe needed to be amputated. Not long after the operation, she was rushed back into hospital with breathing difficulties. Doctors found blood clots in her lungs, causing embolisms. She is now undergoing immunotherapy, which has additional debilitating side effects. All those issues further impact how far Sandy can walk with her crutches. Sandy’s blue badge application has been refused by Kent county council, and she told me that the rejection felt like a kick in the teeth. She said that her mindset was focused on being brave and trying to stay alive, and she did not feel she had any extra fight in her to deal with the rejection or to appeal.

Another lady, Bev Evans, also shared her story with me and the Kent Messenger. Bev fell downstairs and broke her neck in 2020. She now suffers permanent injury and has extreme mobility issues. She, too, has been rejected for a blue badge by Kent county council on two separate occasions. No reasonable explanation was given. Applications are made online, and in Bev’s case the computer just said no, because it thought she might get better within three years. It did not say why it thought that. Bev cannot walk without crutches and has no realistic prospect of a full recovery.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing this important debate. She raised the problem of applying for blue badges online. When the condition is unnamed or unrecognised, that receives an automatic no. The brother of my brilliant parliamentary researcher is in full receipt of accessibility benefit. He represents England as a visually impaired cricketer, yet because his condition has no name he is automatically denied a blue badge. When he speaks to someone, he can change that, but with an online system it is an automatic no. Does the hon. Lady think that is right?

[Helen Grant]

No, and the hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. We can, and must, do better in these important processes.

Following strong public reaction to the stories about Sandy and Bev, the KM approached me, because I am a local Kent MP and because I am a recent cancer survivor. In 2023, I was diagnosed with breast cancer. Later that year, I underwent the first of three surgical operations to remove the cancer and reconstruct my body. The first eight-hour operation was extremely invasive; I could hardly move, let alone walk, for several weeks. By the time I was able to walk, it was in a hunched fashion, due to the nature of the surgery. Extreme tiredness was also a significant factor for many months post surgery, while my body used much of its energy to mend me from the inside.

During all that time, I was very lucky to have the support of my family to access the goods and services I needed, but not everyone is so fortunate. On 19 March this year, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport explaining the position. I requested that the eligibility criteria for a blue badge be broadened to include cancer patients and those with life-altering conditions, with the badge issued for a shorter term and with more frequent reviews, or that a separate but similar badge scheme be introduced for those with cancer and other life-altering conditions.

Disappointingly, when the Minister responded on 9 April, she confirmed that the Government want only one class of blue badge and that there is no plan to legislate to change the current system, but that local authorities have powers to promote locally determined parking concessions in their respective areas. Accordingly, on 19 June this year, I am proud to say that all 18 Kent MPs and the shadow Transport Secretary signed a letter to the leader of Kent county council, with further correspondence going to the leader of Medway council.

We asked both leaders to consider the introduction of a locally determined concessionary scheme for residents with short-term impairments. We await full responses, but the leader of Medway council has offered a meeting, and we hope perhaps to see him next week.

We still believe that there is a strong case for a national scheme, which would require only secondary legislation. I hope that the Minister, having heard all our representations today, will reconsider the position. A national scheme would avoid an inevitably unfair postcode lottery situation, with different local authorities having different local policies on the matter.

We need a fairer and faster approach to blue badge eligibility, which recognises that at the centre of these faceless application processes are highly vulnerable people who deserve care, dignity and respect. I am grateful to all my Kent colleagues, and to the Kent Messenger newspaper for bringing the issue to our attention and helping to drive this important campaign forward. I am also grateful, of course, to Sandy, Bev and others who have bravely shared their stories.

<Railway Services: South-West>

Edward Morello Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for his work securing this debate, the Backbench Business Committee for granting it, and hon. Members from across the House for agreeing to speak.

As we have heard from everyone here today, it is clear that the railway network in the south-west needs urgent improvement. The failure of successive Conservative Governments has left the network in a terrible state. Ticket prices are too high and services too unreliable. Infrastructure is too old and capacity too meagre. That is true across the country, but nowhere more so than in the south-west. As we have heard from Members from across the House, businesses and individuals are highly reliant on the railways and Labour needs to take urgent action. If the Government are hoping to meet their targets on economic growth and housing, ensuring that that key region has a fully functioning rail system is vital. That requires action. The Government must ensure that the challenges faced by the railways in the south-west are met.

We have heard today about a number of the challenges. As my hon. Friends the Members for Newton Abbot and for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) eloquently explained, the rail services of those in the further reaches of our isles are uniquely vulnerable. As we saw when the sea wall fell at Dawlish, this can have catastrophic consequences for those further down the line, cutting them off from the rest of the country. We heard the figures earlier. We cannot afford for that to happen again, so it is vital that the new Government back the fifth stage of the project, to ensure that the line is protected from further disruption.

Members today have again raised a number of concerns about the building works at Old Oak Common. As has been said, there will be six years of disruption. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) said, residents and constituents in the south-west will get all the pain but none of the gain. Anyone living west of Swindon and Westbury will simply get no real benefit from these connections. We need to compensate them by doing other things for the rail system and other transport in the south-west. We have had doubts about the current capacity of Euston and the overcrowding there during the building works, and we have the other issue about the trains stopping at Old Oak Common—the five to 15-minute delay. It sounds like a small thing, but it is important when we are talking about a fast train. Previously, the Minister’s colleague said that no decision had been made on whether every train would stop at Old Oak Common. May we have an update on that, please?

Although my party and I are highly supportive of the HS2 project, there are understandable concerns. We appreciate that Old Oak Common is a vital part of HS2 and will bring benefits to many. We must also accept, though, that the benefits of Old Oak Common and HS2 will be less keenly felt by those in the south-west. We will keep reiterating that, and we need to do something for them. The constituents of the south-west, including those represented today, must receive reassurances that the Government are listening and they are not being ignored. Their voice must be heard, and I hope that their patience will be rewarded by their finally receiving the oft-promised investment in the region that it so desperately needs and deserves. We heard about some of that today from colleagues, from my party and others.

The Access for All programme appeared to die under the Tories. We need access for all, not just in the south-west, of course, but across all regions and particularly in London, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said. The Severn Tunnel closure is causing real problems for transport into the west and into Wales. I asked this question of the Secretary of State last Thursday in Transport questions: will Wales get more investment to compensate for the money going to HS2? HS2 is being treated as an England and Wales project. It is giving no great benefit to Wales. Wales needs some money in the same way as Scotland did, and it needs investment in the Welsh rail system.

We need proper services for Wiltshire. We need to address the fact that there are short trains; more train carriages need to be introduced. There are problems with mobile phone access. We hear that time and time again. We have to bring the rail system into the 21st century. The need to electrify sections of the line to speed up the trains is also important, and punctuality is a real issue, not to mention the exorbitant cost of rail travel to the south-west.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making some important points. Does he agree that the decision to renationalise South Western Railway a year before the Government have set up GB Rail will inevitably mean that investment in the kind of upgrades he is talking about will stagnate completely?

[Mr Kohler]

There is a real issue here, and I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. GB Rail exists as an idea, but we do not yet know what it will do, and we have real problems. The idea that nationalising rail will suddenly solve the problem is too simplistic. We are agnostic about ownership; we need to actually invest in our rail system. On that point, my party has been supportive of open access, which is why we supported the Go-Op co-operative and its ideas to bring rail systems to the south-west.

We are worried by what the Secretary of State said in a letter last week—she seems to be going cold on open access—so we would like more clarity on that. We are supportive of the Go-Op co-operative idea, and we want to see such ideas working. In fact, open access is the only bit of the rail system that is working quite well at the moment. Hull Trains, for example, has far better customer satisfaction than any other part of the rail system. The idea that we are now backing out of open access worries us, and Go-Op was a perfect idea to help a particular section of the south-west. I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot for securing this debate; we would love some answers from the Minister.

Rural Cycling Infrastructure

Edward Morello Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) for securing this important debate on rural cycling infrastructure.

Members present appreciate the unique challenges faced by cyclists in rural areas, and the need to ensure their safety if we are to promote greater accessibility for cycling as a mode of transport. Rural roads present unique risks: they are typically narrower, less well maintained, and shared with fast-moving vehicles. In places in my West Dorset constituency roads are also shared with horse riders, who are similarly desperately in need of safety infrastructure.

The road conditions make cycling on roads disproportionately dangerous. Statistics show that cyclists are almost twice as likely to be killed on a rural road as on an urban one. For my constituency the challenge is clear: only 1.7% of people cycle to work, and that figure is well below the already appallingly low national average of 2.1%. Both figures reflect the deterrent effect of unsafe rural roads and the lack of cycling infrastructure, but also the wider picture of cycling in this country.

Cycling can provide an affordable, sustainable and accessible alternative for shorter journeys, not to mention the benefits to the environment and to physical and mental wellbeing. In West Dorset, 50% of people drive to work, 14% of households do not own a car and 30% of residents travel less than 10 km to work. That distance is more than achievable by bicycle for most individuals. Between Bridport and West Bay, the old railway has been repurposed as a cycling and walking path, with many residents hoping that it can be extended all along the old line to Maiden Newton to avoid their having to use country lanes. Similarly, an alternative cycle route between Bridport and Chideock would mean that residents and tourists alike could avoid the main coast artery of the A35, with its heavy goods vehicles.

Public transport in West Dorset is limited and irregular. Congestion on our few A roads and many country lanes causes delays and disruption in our villages. Cycling would reduce congestion, provide people with greater freedom to travel independently, reduce the environmental impact and support healthier lifestyles. I urge the Government to take immediate steps to address these issues and support rural constituencies such as West Dorset by making cycling a safer and more viable option.