Westminster Hall

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 22 April 2026

[Paula Barker in the Chair]

Junior Doctors’ Foundation Programme

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Westminster Hall

00:00

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab) [R]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Foundation Programme and its role in supporting and retaining resident doctors.

Thank you, Mrs Barker, for chairing today’s debate. First, I must thank everyone for coming and say something about my interests. As many know, I am an ear, nose and throat surgeon and I have a son who is a registrar in accident and emergency medicine. I am a fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, I have an MD from the University of East Anglia, and my medical school was at Sheffield.

This debate is to consider the foundation programme and its role in retaining resident doctors. It is a privilege to introduce the debate, and I am grateful to all the colleagues who have come along this morning. As we all know, our resident doctors just spent six days on the picket lines; the wards were covered by others, operations were postponed and patients’ appointments were rescheduled. When the strikes ended, as they did just over a week ago, the problems did not go away. That is why I asked for the debate. If we are serious about resetting the relationship between this Government and the medical profession, as I believe we all are, we must begin somewhere, and in my view we should begin where every doctor begins: at the foundations.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

From this morning’s papers—perhaps the hon. Member will wish to refer to this—it seems that the Health Secretary had engaged with the British Medical Association and had an agreement with its leader. Does the hon. Member share my disappointment that even with that agreement, it went ahead with the strikes? When it had agreed a wage packet for doctors that could be anything from £50,000 as a starting wage to £100,000, it seemed that we had the recipe for an agreement, yet it was all thrown away by, it seems, the BMA.

[Peter Prinsley]

I heard the same thing; indeed, I met Dr Fletcher from the BMA yesterday myself and heard exactly this story, so the situation is intensely frustrating, but I believe that we can get ourselves back to a position in which an agreement can be reached.

My argument this morning is simple. The foundation programme, the first two years of a doctor’s working life, is, in its present form, not supporting and retaining doctors as it should. The problem is that the doctors are treated like numbers on a spreadsheet rather than the people they are, and some of our brightest young doctors, at precisely the moment when they need the most support, are considering leaving the NHS altogether.

Let me set out what the system does, why it is failing, what we have learned from recent attempts to reform it and what I believe we ought to do instead; but let me first refer to a Royal College of Physicians survey of resident doctors that was done in 2025, which has some interesting findings. Only 44% of the resident doctors stated that they were satisfied with their clinical training. Just 26% of the respondents felt ready to move on to the next step. About 20% of the doctors thought that the recruitment process was fair, which meant that 80% of them thought that it was unfair. About half of them want to work less than full time and, most alarmingly, only 65% of them said that they thought they would be working in the NHS in five years’ time.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. Given that the foundation programme is typically the first full-time frontline post for doctors and often coincides with the period when they are most vulnerable to stress and burnout, does he agree that the Government should be doing more to address their workload?

[Peter Prinsley]

Certainly we must address the workload but, as I will reveal later in my speech, there are many things that we can do to help the situation.

Let me say a bit about my own experience, which admittedly was a long time ago—

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

No!

[Peter Prinsley]

I know—it is hard to believe. I was a medical student in Sheffield, and my first jobs were at the Royal Hallamshire hospital and the Northern General hospital. I have fond memories of the time that we started there. There was, for instance, a doctors’ mess with hot food. There was somewhere for us to live; we had residences. It is ironic that the name “junior doctors” was changed—just last year, I think—to “resident doctors”, because that is the very last thing they are. The residences have all disappeared—they have been sold off—and the doctors work shift systems, sometimes with absolutely nowhere to rest.

We had six-month rather than four-month rotations, which meant that we got to know the teams we worked with. We worked with named consultants. We had a distinct pyramidal team, with senior registrars, registrars and senior house officers, and we knew the people we were working with. They were people we had known as medical students; they were often the people who had taught us. That meant that there was a sort of support network for young doctors as they started in their careers. On the whole, the newly qualified doctors of today do not experience anything quite like that.

[Jamie Stone]

It is great to hear a qualified doctor talking about this matter. Health is devolved in Scotland—I must put that on the record—but in my constituency one finds that an awful lot of social care workers are calling it a day and walking away, with all sorts of unfortunate ramifications such as delayed discharge. Crucially, the support for doctors that the hon. Gentleman is talking about is not there or has been reduced. Does he agree that, if we boosted social care workers’ pay and conditions and retained them, that would help doctors?

[Peter Prinsley]

I absolutely agree that doctors are only part of a much bigger healthcare system. We certainly need to look after all the people involved in health and social care. Of course, that is more of a problem in geographically remote districts such as the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, where I believe it is difficult to recruit professions of all sorts.

I do not want only to sound nostalgic this morning, although of course I am. I am not arguing that absolutely everything was better in my time, because it certainly was not, but in one important respect it was better: it was designed around human beings. It understood that newly qualified doctors are individuals, not one of a herd to be simply moved across a map by a computer. It also recognised that pastoral support and clinical teams matter, and that the transition from medical student to doctor is a particularly vulnerable moment in a medical career. Let us come back to that point soon.

Today, we have a thing called the foundation programme. In 2024, the foundation programme office replaced the application process with something called preference informed allocation. What happens is that medical students list the foundation schools in order of preference, and are each assigned a computer-generated rank. The rank is not informed by academic achievement, personal circumstance, where the student trained or what they did; it simply works through the ranks and places the student accordingly.

The UK foundation programme’s 2026 figures show that of the 10,810 graduates allocated this year, 82% received their first preference. Superficially, that sounds quite reassuring, but I do not really think it is. Every year, a minority of graduates—this year it is roughly 1,900 young doctors—end up somewhere other than their first choice. The minority who do not get their first preference find themselves, aged 22 or 23, packing up their lives for a city where they know nobody. As I put it in the Chamber last month, it is a

“crazy foundation lottery that sends a doctor from Norwich to Belfast and a doctor from Belfast to Norwich.”—[Official Report, 26 March 2026; Vol. 783, c. 452.]

That is what we mean when we talk about a lottery. It is not a figure of speech, but a literal description of how the system works.

There is another reason why this headline figure flatters to deceive: the system incentivises what we call strategic preferencing. The students know the ranking system is random and that a high rank does not protect them tomorrow, so they game it. They preference the foundation schools they think they can realistically get, rather than the ones they actually want. A high first preference rate is, in part, a measure of the student lowering their ambition to protect themselves against a coin toss. That is not a system working; that is a system being worked around.

Let me say a bit about couples. Medical students often form a couple with other medical students or other people who work in hospitals, because that is the nature of a hospital. The foundation programme offers something called linked applications, but the unfairness is particularly acute. Two medical students in a relationship can choose to link their applications so that they are allocated together, but the pair is placed using the lower of the two ranks, so that if one of them is lucky in the ballot and the other is not, both are placed in the worst ranked situation. Should the algorithm be unable to accommodate both in a single school, the link is broken. A student cannot unlink once they have applied, and there is no appeal. The system quite simply cannot see that these are two people trying to begin their careers side by side. It just sees two records on a database.

That has knock-on consequences throughout the rest of the service. When foundation doctors are disorientated, unsupported and demoralised, their work does not disappear; it flows upwards to the more senior doctors, who take more and more of it on themselves. Young doctors should not be deployed by ballot into strange cities, with only limited account taken of their circumstances—their partners, their dependants, their health or their need to be near home. The claim that the current system is somehow fairer than the one it replaced is, I am afraid, one we cannot accept.

Let me talk about how we got here and the recent reform. The old system was not perfect. For many years, medical students competed on a combination of academic decile and a national examination known as the situation judgment test. The SJT was quite unpopular: it was stressful, it had unpredictable validity and there was a documented score gap that consistently disadvantaged candidates from ethnic minority backgrounds. That was a real and serious unfairness, and those who reformed the system were right to try to address it. When the students lobbied against the SJT, they had a good reason to do so, but they did not ask for a random number generator—yet that is essentially what they got.

In 2024 the SJT was abolished and academic achievement stripped out. In their place came PIA, underpinned by a computer ranking. It is hard to think of a clearer case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Students asked for fairness, and they were given randomness. Those are not the same thing. Fairness takes account of circumstance; randomness ignores it. Fairness rewards merit and responds to need; randomness does neither. What we have is not a reformed system, but an experiment that has gone wrong.

That is not just my view. The medical training review led by Professor Stephen Powis and Professor Chris Whitty, published last October, drew on more than 8,000 responses, 6,000 of them from resident doctors. Its very first recommendation was that

“a reform of postgraduate medical education and training is undertaken as a matter of urgency.”

It also recommended that recruitment to medical training be reviewed so that it is

“fair and equitable to all candidates”.

It is not sufficient, on any reading of the report, for allocation merely to be random. Random is not fair.

The BMA has taken a big interest in this question, which is not surprising, and I will read out some of its recommendations:

“The BMA is calling for: meaningful improvements to working lives with greater access to support services, supervision, rest and mess facilities; increased flexibility in rotations, including the option to swap placements; a guarantee that all UK graduates will be offered a foundation post, with full details provided at least 12 weeks before the start date; and any review of the allocation system to include proposals for a new recruitment process developed with meaningful consultation with students.”

There is another group of doctors that we should consider: those who will progress to become academic doctors. There is a crisis in this country of clinical academics, the doctors who teach the next generation of doctors. It has become very difficult to recruit into clinical academia. The career pathway for clinical academics has become very uncertain, and we have an emerging crisis—a real and present crisis—that must be addressed. One way to do that is to think about how we recruit foundation doctors into academic programmes.

Here is a straightforward proposal, which I hope colleagues will improve rather than simply accept. Let us return to a firm-based model for the first year of training. The F1 placement should be arranged by the medical schools, not by a centralised national algorithm, with each new doctor placed alongside peers they already know with consultants who have taught them. That is the system we had so many years ago. Medical schools know their students; they know who has the caring responsibilities, who has a linked partner, who has health needs, who has a strong reason to stay close to home. They are in the best possible position to start designing a year that makes sense for each individual.

That does not preclude movement later. F2 can broaden horizons, and specialty training will often mean relocation, but in the critical first year, when doctors are doing their first on-calls up at night by themselves, writing their first prescriptions and being present at their first deaths, they should not be alone in a city where they do not know anybody. They should be doing that with the support of their friends, teachers and colleagues they already trust. I do not think that would be particularly expensive; it might even cost less than the centralised allocation machinery we run today. Whatever we do, I offer one principle: medicine is the most distinctly human of professions and it is futile, and somewhat ironic, to try to reform it with an algorithm. The reform must be human.

Let me close where I began. Resident doctors have just come off picket lines. I do not think that in this debate we can rehearse the pay dispute, which is a matter for another day, but the strikes are not just about pay. At root, they are about a sense that the profession has been treated as though it does not matter. The individual doctor has become invisible behind the workforce spreadsheet. The Government have taken one very important step, with the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act 2026 giving UK graduates the rightful priority for specialist training places—and that matters. Today’s debate is an opportunity to take the next step to fix the starting point itself.

We have in medicine one of the most extraordinary workforces in the world. Young doctors are among the best trained, most dedicated and most compassionate professionals. We owe them and, more importantly, the patients who depend on them, better than a lottery. We owe them the fair, well-supported, human start they deserve. I believe that would go a long way to resetting the Government’s relationship with the profession, and towards ending these damaging rolling strikes.

09:47

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for setting the scene incredibly well. We all appreciate his in-depth portrayal of the issues. I thank him for his 40 years, as I understand, of service to the NHS. It probably does not seem that long but, on paper and statistically, it clearly is.

The hon. Member has forgotten more than I will ever know about the procedures, as I speak from a layman’s point of view. I can, however, outline what young doctors have told me, which certainly bears repeating. They work through their F1 and F2 years in fight-or-flight response. They work unsociable hours without a support network. They make life and death decisions, then return home from that night or day on duty and wonder whether they made the right decision. They wonder whether they missed something and they worry about their patients.

Doctors are empathic with their patients, they are compassionate and they understand the issues incredibly well. They follow shift patterns that on paper look like a different week but, in reality, they are working 80 hours over seven days. Off days on call keep them on tenterhooks waiting to know if they will be called in to do more work, which they will respond to out of duty and compassion. They are scheduled to finish work at 8 o’clock and on a regular basis they only leave at 9.30 pm. They start work before 8 am and take their first break at 2.45 pm, and that is not a one-off on a busy day—every day is a busy day. It is almost like “Groundhog Day”—that film where the alarm goes off at 6 am, he gets up, he does all the things, he goes back to bed and the next day starts the same—but for doctors, it is life and death.

When I asked how they function on that lack of sleep and sustenance, one 23-year-old doctor told me:

“I keep sweets in my pocket and pray for guidance.”

It needs to be more than that. I carry sweets in my pocket because, as a diabetic, if I feel myself going down, I have a chew on one and it brings me back up again, but for them, it is to ensure their concentration. Christians always pray for guidance in everything they do. They need wisdom in all the work that they do.

When I asked that 23-year-old doctor what was next for her in life, what she wanted to specialise in and what her hopes were for the future, she said:

“I am so exhausted that I don’t think anything is next.”

The exhaustion takes over. The workload is overwhelming. Put simply, she is burnt out and feels unsupported and uncertain—not because she is not a confident person, but because the workload and all that she has done have overtaken her. That is replicated numerous times, in too many doctors for us to attribute it to personality. It is not her personality, because she is a lovely young lady; it is the current procedure.

I am very pleased to see the Minister in his place. He has empathy and understanding of what we need for our doctors. I am confident that his reply will encourage and hearten us. Hopefully, it will also help with the expectations on young doctors from families and with the paperwork—that has never been more onerous, yet there is no time for them to set aside to do it because they are overwhelmed by the workload in wards and A&E and surgical work supporting doctors. If their placement is in a smaller hospital, they do not have the support of house doctors or consultants during evening shifts, and the pressure is immense. I said earlier that it is overwhelming, and it is, to the extent that they sometimes just say to themselves, “My goodness me, how am I going to keep going?”

We all understand that medicine, by its very nature, is highly pressured and that skills are learned not only in books, but in practice. For the junior doctors I met back home, it is a physical practice—they learn by what happens in the ward. Home-grown students are not being retained, however, so changes to the system must take place, and take place soon. In his introduction, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket referred to one doctor who went from Norwich to Belfast and another who went from Belfast to Norwich. It is unreal, and it seems idiotic—I use that word in a very gentle way—that that should take place.

Training a doctor in the UK costs the taxpayer roughly £230,000 to £327,000 per student from medical school through foundation training. That is a big sum of money, but we are training someone on whom we depend to be the best in a critical situation in hospital. Who of us, when we have a chat with our doctor and ask for their opinion, will not accept what the doctor tells us as gospel? We trust that we can depend on that doctor’s diagnosis of the disease, so that money must result in qualified, capable doctors and not just young people who could have made a difference if they had been given the support and reasonable working hours with reasonable pay to make all the on-calls and missed sleeping patterns worth it.

[Alex Easton]

Another problem we have in Northern Ireland is that many doctors are moving over to private care, which is leading to shortfalls of NHS doctors. Is that something we need to tackle to retain doctors in the NHS?

[Jim Shannon]

It certainly is. To be fair, I do not know of any doctors who have made the journey, but I know that they are certainly aware of the bigger wage packets available in, for instance, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, where they can go for two or three years. The problem is that if they go away for two or three years, they may never come back. It is not just a matter of going to earn big money to pay off student fees and move forward—it is more than that. It is a critical issue, so the hon. Member is right to mention it.

I wonder whether the Minister would consider in his response the option of having student doctors sign a retainer that would keep them in the NHS, and consider providing a bursary for their fees. I understand that Wales does that; I know it is a regional matter for us in Northern Ireland, but if Wales can do it, there are certainly points for us to consider.

I have constituents who have gone to Wales from Northern Ireland for the purpose of going away for two or three years—I think of one young lady in particular whose family I know well. She went to Wales and completed her full studies there at university and in the hospitals. Then, of course, what happens? She meets a young Welsh guy and he sweeps her off her feet and the next thing we know, she is engaged, she is married—she is never coming home.

We will not have the advantage of that young lady’s expertise, but Wales will. I am very pleased that Wales will have that expertise, because she is an excellent student and person. I am sure there are many other people for whom the same thing has happened, because love is a funny thing, is it not? When it gets you, you cannot get off it. You are caught forever. From my point of view, my wife has stuck with me for 39 years—my goodness, she needs a medal.

I have spoken at length about intelligent, capable young people who feel overworked and underappreciated but who, most importantly, feel overwhelmed. That can change with support—support that must echo from here not with words, but with appropriate pay and staffing. If we do that, we will retain the best of the best within the NHS. I do not doubt that that is the desire of the Minister and this Government, and of every hon. Member here.

09:58

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) not just for securing this important debate, but for his service in this sector.

I am shocked by what the hon. Member set out about the algorithm and how students or resident doctors are placed in the embryonic stages of their profession. In fact, I am astounded—I suspect many parliamentarians will not know this, and certainly the public will not be familiar with the process—that there is no appeals process. I suspect that something could quite easily be incorporated, within certain parameters, so that not everybody gets to appeal, but it is possible in exceptional circumstances. That must be right.

When we talk about the future of healthcare in the United Kingdom, we are really talking about the people who hold it together every single day, and resident doctors are at the core of that. These individuals have committed years of their life to rigorous study, they have worked long hours and they have an unwavering dedication to patient care, yet at one of the most critical stages of their career, many feel unsupported, overstretched and uncertain about their future within the NHS.

This is where and how the foundation programme plays a vital role. It is not just about a training pathway; it is the bridge between medical school and a lifelong career in medicine. At its best, the foundation programme provides structured learning, broad clinical exposure, and the opportunity to develop confidence and competence in real-world settings. It shapes not only skills, but professional identity.

If we are serious about supporting and retaining resident doctors, however, the foundation programme must do more than simply place doctors into rotations—it must actively nurture them. That means ensuring fair workloads, access to high-quality supervision and protected time for education. It means creating environments where doctors feel valued, heard and supported not just as clinicians, but as people. Retention is not just about pay or contracts; it is about culture. When doctors, especially foundation doctors, feel respected, when their wellbeing is prioritised and when they can see a sustainable future within the system, they are far more likely to stay and build their careers in the United Kingdom. One of the biggest problems I see around Birmingham is new and young doctors talking about moving abroad.

We cannot ignore the reality that many resident doctors have felt pushed to the point of taking industrial action. Strikes are never a first choice; they are a last resort when people feel that they have no other way to be heard. Concerns about pay erosion, rising living costs and consistently long and demanding hours have created a situation where many doctors feel undervalued and exhausted.

I went to a picket line outside Queen Elizabeth hospital Birmingham. So many young doctors there talked about how they were unable to live in close proximity to the hospital; they were living many miles away, simply because of accommodation costs. That is quite surprising, because we often hear people talk about junior doctors earning so much money. But if in reality, after tax and all the other expenses, junior doctors—people who save lives—cannot afford to pay for accommodation near the hospital, that shows how our system is broken.

If we want to be honest about supporting doctors, we must acknowledge that their concerns are not unreasonable. A system that relies on goodwill alone is not sustainable. Extra investment in the NHS means very little if it does not translate into better pay, safer working conditions and genuine support for the workforce delivering care every day. The Government must do more: not just words, but meaningful action. That means engaging constructively, addressing the pay concerns fairly and ensuring working conditions that allow doctors to provide safe, high-quality care without burning out.

If we invest properly in the foundation programme and support doctors throughout their early careers, allowing them an appeals process for exceptional circumstances and giving them the basic support in addressing their current challenges, we are investing in the long-term strength of our healthcare system. Supporting resident doctors is not optional—it is essential. When we support them, we do not just retain doctors; we safeguard the future of patient care.

10:03

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for another insightful speech; this time I will avoid comparing the anatomy of human and dog ear canals—we have covered that already.

We always rightly start these speeches by paying tribute to NHS staff, doctors, nurses and everyone involved in patient care, especially given the pressures on them as a result of sheer patient numbers and working in systems that can make the job even more stressful and pressurised than it already is. They are caring for severely injured or very ill people at the toughest moments of their lives. The emotional burden of caring for people who could be dying is difficult in itself, but resident doctors work in a system that adds extra pressures and conditions that can add stress alongside that. We cannot pay enough tribute to them for even surviving in those areas.

One of the best books highlighting the plight of resident doctors that I have read is Adam Kay’s “This is Going to Hurt”. It did a lot to help the public to understand just how difficult it is for a doctor to not know where their training place is going to be. It is where they are going to be forced to live and work for several years—a place where they may not have any friends or family; they might be taken away from family and spouses. They might have dependants and children. It is really difficult to plan a career, especially such a difficult and challenging career, when working with that level of uncertainty. I lived with medical students when I was a student at Liverpool University and have followed their careers since. The challenges that the hon. Member set out have been reflected in their lives and careers.

I support the Government’s ambition to increase medical school placements. That is important. We have a recognised workforce shortage in the NHS, so that is an obvious thing to do, but we must ensure that we do not carry on falling into the same trap. The previous Government, under Boris Johnson, said that they would increase medical school placements—and they did, but without providing the infrastructure for training resident doctors who want to go on to specialised training. That obvious bottleneck was going to filter through. No mechanism was put in place to ensure that the NHS would have the capacity to train those extra medical students when they finished their F1 and F2.

In Winchester I speak to many resident doctors, and even to their parents. Those resident doctors have gone through university, sometimes getting themselves in a fair amount of student loan debt, and are working hard on their F1 and F2. The stress of not knowing whether they will get a training placement is overwhelming, frustrating and for us, as a society, ridiculous because we are short of doctors. How have we ended up in a situation where we are training students and resident doctors, but cannot give them the further training places to continue? I urge the Government to ensure that any training places will filter all the way through for the rest of that person’s career.

We know that the last Government not only thought it sounded good for winning votes to say that they would increase medical school placements, but said that they would build 40 new hospitals, though there was absolutely no funding—putting votes before a genuine long-term plan for the NHS. We then come up against a brick wall of reality. People working in the NHS end up suffering and the people who rely on the NHS—everyone—end up not getting the service that they voted for.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the Minister’s statement about increasing training numbers, especially for people from more disadvantaged backgrounds. It is important that we look at the diversity of the professions. Certainly within the veterinary profession, socioeconomic diversity is not what it should be; it does not reflect society. A profession—whether the medical profession or another—offers a better service to society if it better reflects it. I once heard someone say that talent is everywhere, but opportunity is not. It is the job of all professions to ensure that we get the people with the talent enrolled on courses so that they can have fulfilling careers and offer much back to society.

The statement is a really good first step, but it is a bit vague. The Minister writes about underserved parts of the UK seeing new medical spaces; how many will there be, and how will that be delivered? Will current medical schools increase their capacity? Will new teaching hospitals open to support it? The target is to place

“up to 25% of students at participating medical schools…to local foundation training places”.

How many medical schools have indicated that they want to participate? That will be fundamental to how this policy gets delivered.

To reiterate what the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket said, we need to treat medical students and resident doctors like people; they are not just numbers. Working conditions are as important as pay, and to improve working conditions we need to double down on improving social care to avoid delayed discharge and corridor care. The doctors delivering treatment will feel that they are doing a better job, and will not feel under pressure as a result of being unable to deliver the care that they want and that patients deserve.

We also need to ensure that we have a happy, resilient, passionate and excited workforce going forward. The Minister has been asked constructive questions. I ask him not to repeat the previous Government’s mistakes of talking about increasing hospital numbers and medical students, while creating a whole generation of doctors who cannot go on to serve their communities and have a fulfilling career.

10:10

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) on securing this debate and giving a great speech. I need to declare an interest as a consultant paediatrician in the national health service, a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, and a member of the British Medical Association.

Going back a little while to when I was young—in fact, we are going back 25 years—I graduated as a doctor in 2001. I had done a five-year degree and I had provisional registration with the General Medical Council. In order to get full registration, I had to complete a year as a pre-registration house officer, most commonly referred to as a house officer. That was six months of medicine and six months of surgery in adult care in either order. It was, to some extent, an extension of medical school. Indeed, it was supervised by the medical school in terms of placements, and almost everyone—I say “almost”; I will come back to that in a moment—stayed local.

In the process that I followed in Newcastle, where I was a student—I am recollecting this from 25 years ago—we had to apply for two medical and two surgical jobs. I applied for the Royal Victoria Infirmary and the Freeman hospital, but there were other options across the north-east where people were involved in training and medical school placements, such as Carlisle, Sunderland, North Tyneside—which was particularly popular at that time—South Cleveland and others. As with any other job, one was shortlisted, interviewed and potentially offered a job. The system worked so that, if a person was offered both jobs, they had to pick one. When the first round went out, people said which job they wanted and that was theirs. All the other jobs that were not allocated were put back into round two, people applied again, and by the time it got to round three essentially everyone had a job.

The benefit of the system was that everyone knew that they had a job in the region where they trained to complete their full registration with the GMC, and the Government knew that all the people they had invested in for that training would become fully qualified doctors, provided they put in the requisite effort and attainment.

However, changing over deaneries was extremely difficult. I applied for the RVI and the Freeman, and I got offered both. That was straightforward, but then I fell in love. I was proposed to, I accepted and I planned a wedding for no more than a week before I graduated. I did not fall in love with another member of hospital staff; I fell in love with a farmer, and farms are quite difficult to shift.

I then decided that I wanted to move to Nottingham deanery. It is fair to say that Newcastle deanery was not keen on that idea, although it was supportive, and Nottinghamshire deanery was really not keen on the idea because it had to fit an extra person into the system. It made that clear, saying, “Well, you’re not having a job in a big teaching hospital.” That was fine: I just wanted a job near to where my husband’s farm was. I was allowed to move deaneries under those special circumstances.

I first spent time at Lincoln under Dr Patterson, a wonderful consultant, as a young doctor. He was a respiratory physician, and I very much felt part of his team. I then went to Mansfield, where I worked for Mr Moulton, an orthopaedic surgeon. He was a lovely man; we used to do French verbs together during knee operations. After that, I worked for Miss Patterson, a vascular surgeon.

As the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket put it, I very much felt part of a firm or part of a team. There was continuity of care, as I was looking after my consultant’s patients. I was not part of a massive group of people performing a list of tasks for a whole range of consultants on a group of patients who I did not know, which is how it can be for many junior doctors now.

The other thing provided at that time was accommodation. Part of the system with a PRHO job was that accommodation was provided for free, on the hospital site or very close to it, for the first year. That meant that when junior doctors were doing those two six-month jobs straight out of medical school, they had accommodation.

In their wisdom, the people negotiating the pay and conditions decided to give that accommodation up for a little bit of extra money. At the time I thought that was mad, but since I had passed that stage, at the time I considered that it was really none of my business. However, I think that it caused a problem, particularly because the European working time directive has meant that instead of working really long shifts, people work much shorter shifts but have much longer travelling times. I was working long shifts but not having to do a lot of travelling. Junior doctors now have to do shorter shifts—more of them, on a much less flexible rota, to get all the required shifts in—and they are also travelling for miles at the beginning and end of each shift. I think that change has been counterproductive; I wonder whether the Minister has any thoughts about it.

The other thing is that the system was based on merit—whether or not I got the job at the RVI or the Freeman was based on merit. I had to apply. I had to say that I had done things such as presenting at an international conference as a final-year student. That sort of thing was considered important, as was getting good grades in my exams or in my project work at medical school; now it is not.

I just wanted to examine what happened between that time and now. In 2005, the then Labour Government introduced a modernising medical careers programme, which changed the one-year foundation programme to a two-year foundation programme—I am not clear why that was thought necessary—and the placements were changed from six months to three or four months in duration. I agree with the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket that that is too short for someone to really get into a job, and to understand the team they are in and what they are doing, before they have to move on again. People have virtually just arrived and then they are going.

There was then the medical training application scheme, or MTA scheme, in 2007, which was a national scheme. There were lots of errors and data breaches. The Secretary of State apologised, and we went back to the deanery approach. There was then a lot of concern that that system was not fair, and that it was stressful; it required people to perform well in exams, and people did not like that very much.

So we have gone to the Oriel system—this preference-informed allocation system that matches people with places. In the engagement process before it was brought in, there were 14,500 responses, mostly from students, and 66% of respondents said they wanted the system, while about 30% said they did not, so it was brought in. The education performance measure and the situational judgment tests, which have been referred to, were removed, and a lottery system was brought in. Essentially, it means that junior doctors are given a completely randomly allocated number, based on nothing but chance. Junior doctors are then allowed to express a preference for particular foundation programmes.

However, when I refer to foundation programmes, I mean areas of the country. As I said, in the case of Newcastle that can mean an area that goes all the way from one coast to another—for example, right down to Middlesbrough and up to Hexham and Berwick. Those are not small areas; they are quite chunky bits of the country to travel around, requiring many hours of travel, from north to south to east to west, in some of them.

Nevertheless, applicants get to express a preference. The computer system will allocate places on the basis that if someone’s first preference is available, they get it, but if it is not they effectively get put back in the box for later. The computer will go down the list until it has allocated all the first preferences and, as the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket said, quite a lot of people do get their first preference although, as he also said, whether or not it was their first preference in truth is another matter.

Then an applicant gets to look in the foundation area that they have been allocated to, and to express a preference regarding the jobs within that region. The computer, using the same number—if the student was lucky the first time, they are lucky the second time—goes down the list and allocates them. If they are not allocated, it has to go round again and allocate them a later preference. That means that people either get their first preference or go very much further down the list: a Newcastle medical student, as I was, could get sent to Penzance, which is a lovely place but a long way from Newcastle. There is nothing the student can do about that. They have no control over their life. Even if they are the best-performing medical student in every capacity in the whole country, they still get sent where they get sent—and that is tough.

[Peter Prinsley]

Some time ago, when I came here, I had working with me an intern, Dr Harry Dunn, who was a medical student at Cambridge University. He graduated last year. He came top, not only of the University of Cambridge medical student cohort, but of the whole of the University of Cambridge, so he was the top student of his year. He was offered a foundation post in Northern Ireland. He chose not to take it, and has now gone into consulting, having given up medicine. That is an extremely sad example of an unintended consequence of this crazy lottery.

[Dr Johnson]

I congratulate that person on his prowess in university. He is clearly an incredible person, and it is a shame that he has been lost to medicine. I am sure Northern Ireland is a great place to work, and it is disappointing that he did not want to go there, but he should have been able to apply for the jobs that he wanted in places where he wanted to work, and to compete fairly for them. That is a bit stressful and competitive—but getting into medical school is competitive.

You may not know this, Mrs Barker, but the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket and I grew up on the same street, in the same town, and went into similar-ish careers. We competed for medical school places and for our jobs. We are all here today having competed against others for election—that is the reality of life. To remove the competition, which is based on meritocracy, and replace it with a random allocation is more unfair and stressful than the alternative.

One of the issues raised about the old scheme was that it was difficult to recruit in some areas. The competition for the best jobs, or at least those perceived to be the best or most wanted jobs, means that some areas of the country and some specialties could find themselves with the people who did not succeed in getting the jobs they wanted. How do we manage that? It used to be managed with rotations. When people went to the interview for specialist jobs, they would be called in one at a time and told, “These are the rotations available. Which one do you want?” The best jobs—the most popular ones—would be mixed with the least popular, so that would mitigate the problem.

There is one issue that I want to raise briefly. Some medical schools in the UK, including Newcastle, have overseas campuses in Malta, Cyprus and Malaysia. Some British people have gone to those branches of UK medical schools and have found themselves completely excluded from places in the United Kingdom under the medical training changes that the Government have made in the past couple of months, which seems wrong. We talked about that when the Bill went through, and the Minister was keen to reassure us that all would be well, but we have found that British students have not been able to get jobs in the British training programme. Will the Minister look at prioritising at least those who went to medical school before the changes for British jobs?

The current system gives junior doctors—resident doctors, as they are called now—no agency, no control, no appeal and no alternative. It is clearly unfair. Could the Minister update the House on how he intends to fix the system?

10:24

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for securing this vital debate, and all the hon. Members who have contributed. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s significant and distinguished career and experience in our NHS. I take the opportunity to thank resident doctors up and down the country for the vital contribution they make to our NHS and to treating the patients it serves.

As my hon. Friend said in his opening speech, the UK foundation programme is a central part of the pathway to becoming a doctor, bridging the gap between medical school and specialty or general practice training in the NHS. It supports newly qualified doctors to develop the clinical and professional skills needed to deliver safe and effective care, preparing them for progression into core, specialty or general practice training. Resident doctors who currently work in the NHS have made it clear that they have concerns and frustrations with their training experience. We are committed to listening to and addressing that and to improving the training pathway for the medical workforce, for the benefit of NHS services and patients.

Through phase 1 of the medical training review we conducted extensive engagement to ensure that doctors, patients and NHS leaders had the opportunity to describe what works well in medical education and training and what needs to improve to meet the needs of both resident doctors and patients. The phase 1 diagnostic report was published last year and made 11 recommendations centred on four key priorities: more flexible training; removing the divide between service and training; ending the damaging recruitment bottlenecks and rewarding teams where doctors feel valued.

The implementation team, led by Dame Jane Dacre, who has been appointed as the independent chair for this work, will now work with doctors, the General Medical Council, the Medical Schools Council, royal colleges and other bodies to drive this much-needed change.

[Dr Johnson]

Could the Minister highlight the timing of that in relation to the workforce plan, and when that will be published?

[Stephen Kinnock]

The workforce plan will be published this spring, so there is not too long to wait. It has taken a little longer than we initially hoped, but we think it is really important to ensure that it is anchored in very solid engagement with our partners and stakeholders.

Earlier this year, the Government delivered fast-track legislation to put UK medical graduates at the front of the queue for foundation and specialty training places, reducing uncertainty and ensuring that they can progress to full registration as doctors. We have confirmed that all eligible UK medical graduates will be offered a place on the foundation programme this year. Of course, our fast-track legislation seeks to rectify the unforgivably reckless and damaging decision made by the previous Government to remove the resident labour market test after Brexit, which in many ways is the root cause of the mess created by the neglect and incompetence of the previous Government over 14 years.

I turn now to the process for allocating places to applicants for the UK foundation programme and the steps the Government are taking to improve it. We recognise that the location a foundation doctor is assigned for training has both professional and personal impacts. The four UK Health Departments determine the number of places available each year based on workforce planning across the continuum of postgraduate medical education and training. Applicants are allocated across the UK using a nationally applied preference informed allocation system, which has been extensively commented on in the debate.

The PIA system was introduced in 2024, following extensive engagement with the four UK statutory education bodies, medical students and key stakeholders. The move to the new system aimed to address concerns that the previous system was unfair and stressful for applicants and that there was a lack of standardisation within and across schools. It is worth mentioning that the consultation on the PIA system received over 14,500 responses, 66% of which favoured a move to the PIA option against the status quo. There were 106 organisations among those 14,500 responses. It was an extensive consultation with fairly conclusive feedback on the change that was required.

[Ayoub Khan]

In relation to the consultation on the PIA system, does the Minister agree that, if there is no appeal process in the system, it cannot be fair, because there will be extenuating circumstances that ought to be considered? That is something I suspect the Government could implement relatively easily.

[Stephen Kinnock]

It is worth highlighting that around 82% of applicants get their first preference. That is a significant improvement—it was 71% in 2023. We are taking steps in the right direction, but we would love to get to 100%. It is difficult to get to 100% of anything in a large and complex system, but that is our aspiration. Of course, those who do not get their first place are welcome to re-engage with the system, and efforts are made to ensure they get their preference, although we do not always succeed in that process. I will take the hon. Member’s question away and discuss it with my colleague the Minister of State for Health—she leads on this portfolio, although she was not available for this debate—and we will write to him with further clarifications on the important point he makes.

The introduction of the PIA was broadly supported by stakeholders, and I am pleased that we have seen an improvement under this system in the number of students allocated their first preference programme. As I said, 82% of applicants to this year’s foundation programme were allocated their first preference, up from 71% in 2023. However, we are committed to ensuring that the system remains fit for purpose. NHS England will conduct a review to ensure that it is still working for applicants. The timelines of that review will be confirmed in due course.

Furthermore, although some individuals may want to move away from their university area for foundation training, some need greater certainty, for a range of reasons, about their foundation placements. In the last two years, we have supported a portion of students in three UK medical schools by allocating them to foundation programmes in their local area. Last Friday we went further, announcing that we will work with medical schools and foundation schools to extend that support to trainees across the country from disadvantaged backgrounds. Providing a post close to where they live will mean more stability for trainees and will support employers in developing a local workforce.

I would like to say a final word on the PIA. I think we all accept that it is not perfect—it is very difficult to have a perfect system—but I take issue with the characterisation by some Members in the debate that it is a random system. We do not agree with that characterisation. We are clear that the system in place is enabling people to clearly articulate their first preference, and in the overwhelming majority of cases they are getting their first preference. That does not feel like a random system to us, but we absolutely accept that it is not perfect, and there is always room for improvement.

Let me turn to rotations. We recognise the importance of stability for doctors in training and the impact that frequent relocations can have on wellbeing, retention and workforce planning. Following the 2024 resident doctors agreement, the Department of Health and Social Care conducted a review of rotational training and found that rotations can provide valuable breadth of experience. However, we know that in some cases they can disrupt learning, wellbeing, team integration and patient care. To tackle that, NHS England is developing pilots under the medical education and training review to test longer placements and more flexible arrangements for less-than-full-time trainees. The evaluation of those pilots will inform future policy decisions on placement length and continuity benefits.

I turn now to the wider working conditions for resident doctors. It is essential that we create a supportive environment for doctors throughout their training that looks after their health and wellbeing. NHS England’s resident doctors’ working lives programme continues to implement several measures aimed at supporting resident doctors, encouraging them to stay in training and the NHS and reducing overall attrition. That includes measures such as the less-than-full-time training options to allow trainees to continue to work in the service and progress with their training on a reduced working pattern where that is beneficial for their personal circumstances.

We have made significant progress over the past year to improve the working lives of resident doctors, including agreeing an improved exception reporting system, which will ensure that doctors are compensated fairly for additional work, and rationalising statutory and mandatory training to reduce unnecessary burden and repetition.

[Dr Johnson]

The Minister talked about less-than-full-time training, which has obviously had an impact on the number of doctors we need. The Secretary of State said before the general election that if Labour was elected, it would double the number of medical school places. Is that still the Government’s intention?

[Stephen Kinnock]

Yes, that is the Government’s intention. Obviously, we have had some challenges in April around our hope that we could create 1,000 additional places. We have not been able to do that, unfortunately, because of the reckless decision of the BMA to go back out on strike. The absorption of huge capacity, as well as operational issues, has meant that we have not been able to do that.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the Minister for that answer, but I believe that it relates to postgraduate training places. I was asking whether it is still the intention to double the number of medical school places?

[Stephen Kinnock]

Sorry; I misunderstood the question. Yes, it is still our intention to double the number of medical school places.

The Government remain committed to publishing a 10-year workforce plan this spring to set out how we will create a workforce ready to deliver the transformed service that we set out in the 10-year health plan. The 10-year workforce plan will ensure that the NHS has the right people, in the right places, with the right skills to care for patients when they need it.

NHS staff told us through the 10-year health plan engagement that they are crying out for change. The workforce plan will set out how we deliver that change by making sure staff are better treated and have better training, more fulfilling roles and hope for the future.

I thank all hon. Members for taking part in this important debate.

[Ayoub Khan]

I hesitate to interrupt the Minister’s final remarks, but will he shed some light on the strike by young junior doctors? Queen Elizabeth hospital in my constituency serves many local residents. The young doctors I have spoken to talk about the cost of living and the inability to support themselves, at the point when they are entering an exciting career. What more support will the Government provide them with?

[Stephen Kinnock]

That gives me an opportunity to highlight the fact that this Government have delivered a 29% pay increase for resident doctors. Although I absolutely accept that, prior to July 2024, over 14 years of dealing with an incompetent Government, they suffered from being underpaid and neglected, and we had to seek to fix that—we have done that in good faith and with good will—there have to be limits to what we can offer. The sky is not the limit; the limit is the deeply damaged and parlous state of the public finances that were left to us when we took over in July 2024, and the significant pressures across every aspect of Government.

We implore the resident doctors and the BMA to come back to the table. The Secretary of State believed that he had a deal with the officers of the BMA, and those officers then took that deal to the broader committee. There is no doubt that that committee has ideological motivations, and it refused to accept the deal. We are now in a very challenging position. The Secretary of State has asked several times for a face-to-face meeting with the entire committee, and that request has been refused. We have to make progress, but I simply remind its members that most of our constituents would see a 29% pay increase as a pretty positive deal.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for that comprehensive response to the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan). So near and yet so far—that is the way I see it. I have always supported the Secretary of State in his endeavours to secure a deal, and it is incredibly frustrating to get so close to one and for it then to fall down. I am probably reiterating what the Minister said, but although the deal fell and we did not secure what we all hoped for, does the Department intend to continue engaging with the BMA and the junior doctors to secure a deal? We have got so close that we must be able to get this over the line.

[Stephen Kinnock]

The short answer is yes, absolutely—our door is always open. We have to find a constructive way through this. I accept that it is not always just about pay; it is also about broader terms and conditions—exactly the things we have been debating today. That is why I was so excited by the fast-track legislation we brought forward specifically to address the bottlenecks and the impact of the disgraceful decision under the previous Government to remove the resident labour market test. We are seeking to fix all those problems, and we need a constructive partner on the other side of the table to do that. We are starting to see in opinion polls that public support for the action taken by the BMA and resident doctors is eroding quite seriously, and I hope they take that into account before they make their next decisions.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

As a doctor, I feel uncomfortable with the morality of going on strike and leaving patients to suffer in order to get more money for oneself. I think the morality of the strikes is outrageous. However, does the Minister regret the repealing of the minimum service levels legislation, which could have enabled the Government to put in firmer boundaries around the strikes to prevent harm to patients? Will the Government consider banning doctors from striking altogether, as a Conservative Government would, in the same way that people in the Army and the police are banned from striking?

[Stephen Kinnock]

The hon. Lady’s point about morality is important and interesting, but people also have to be able to put bread on the table, pay the mortgage or rent, and feed and clothe their kids. Morality is fine, but it does not put bread on the table. The two things are very important.

On the retrograde steps the Conservative party is proposing around industrial relations, that is just not what the Labour party is about. The Labour party is about constructive, positive industrial relations and respect. It is about treating the workforce and unions with the respect they deserve and finding a constructive solution. We do not want to move to some kind of police state, where we restrict the rights of trade unions. We see the right to organise and go on strike as a fundamental right of citizens in our country, and it would be a retrograde step to remove it. It is pretty extraordinary to hear that suggested by the Conservative party when we live in a liberal democracy. So the answer to the hon. Lady’s question is no. I believe we will find a way through this dispute. It will be hard going—it will be two steps forward and one step back, I am sure—but in the end I believe we will get there.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the Minister for being extremely generous with his time. He says the Government will not consider removing the right of doctors to strike, but he seems to be going further and suggesting that doing so would be wrong in principle. Do the Government therefore intend to allow the right to strike for those who are currently not allowed to, such as the police and armed forces?

[Stephen Kinnock]

We have those restrictions on the right to strike in the police and the armed forces for obvious reasons of national security. I think that is a very different issue; our critical national infrastructure must be protected, and there cannot be any dispute about that.

We are dealing with a workforce whose pay and conditions had clearly been neglected. The previous Government used the moral argument the hon. Lady was trying to make as leverage to keep pay and conditions down, which I would say is a deeply immoral position to take. The right to be a member of a trade union and to go on strike is relevant to certain sectors of our labour market, and that right, where it exists, should be protected; where it does not exist, that is a completely different debate.

I thank all Members for taking part in this important debate. The Government are taking important steps, and we remain committed to improving the working lives and prospects of resident doctors, and to ensuring an effective foundation programme.

10:46

[Peter Prinsley]

I thank all hon. Members who came to speak in the debate. I particularly thank the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan), who gave very interesting Back-Bench contributions. I also thank the Minister and the Opposition spokespeople—the hon. Members for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) and for Winchester (Dr Chambers)—for their contributions. It is quite true that the shadow Minister and I grew up on the same street—probably about 10 houses apart, but many more than 10 years apart.

This has been an interesting debate, whose purpose was to highlight the plight of foundation doctors. As we have said, if we can fix the foundations, we will be able to fix the problems we have with our young doctors. I definitely think that this industrial dispute, which has been rolling and rumbling on for several years, is solvable. It sounds as though we were close to solving it and particularly to attending to the conditions of young doctors.

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind the hon. Member that this is not a chance for a second speech; it is just a winding-up speech.

[Peter Prinsley]

I will wind up, then. I thank everyone very much, and I look forward to seeing success in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Foundation Programme and its role in supporting and retaining resident doctors.

10:48

Sitting suspended.

Army Reserve

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Army Reserve.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. It is also a pleasure to have the Minister in her place; she brings with her a distinguished service record and is recognised across the House as having a genuine commitment to our armed forces. I am sure that she, like me, recognises that the role of the Army Reserve has changed in recent years. When we debate this issue, we are not simply talking about training days with the reserves; they play a much more active role in supporting defence capabilities on a daily basis.

In bringing forward this debate, my purpose is not to strike a partisan tone. There is much on which both sides of the House can agree. First, the Government are right to say that the threat to our national security has increased, and increased materially. The strategic defence review is right to focus on expanding our reserves as one of the measures that we need to take. The Armed Forces Bill, despite some of the noise in the media, has a number of sensible measures on updating legislation. There are areas, as a foundation, that all sides of the House can agree on.

My principal concern is the gap between the Government’s words and their delivery. In particular, I am concerned about their delivery in the context of negotiations with the Treasury, and in the context of a No. 10 that is perhaps distracted by other issues and not as focused on responding to the national security threat with provisions such as the reserves.

I will address that point through three areas: first, the reserve numbers; secondly, a specific issue this year around the Government’s commitment to reserve service days, a material issue on which it would be helpful to hear directly from the Minister; and thirdly, funding prioritisation and to what extent—given some of the media stories regarding the Ministry of Defence and the wider context that it faces—funding, whether for equipment or estate for the reserves, will be ringfenced or secured this year.

On numbers, Members on both sides of the House recognise that boosting the number of our reserves is probably one of the best-value options for the MOD in terms of building defence capability. It is what I would regard as low-hanging fruit—something that should be done. The SDR set a modest ambition of a 20% increase, but I think we should be doubling the numbers this Parliament; other countries such as France are doing that—and from a higher base, so up to over 100,000.

Even on the Government’s more modest ambition of 20%, if we actually look at what has happened since the general election, there was an initial fall in numbers until the SDR. In that non-partisan spirit, however, let us just look at the numbers since the SDR: in that period, there has been virtually no increase. Since coming into office, the number of reservists fell by 119 personnel—not particularly consequential—but since the SDR, it has risen by just 249.

To put that in context, on the Government’s current trajectory, it is going to take 13 years to meet their own more modest target—a target that is a fifth of the French target and that starts from a lower base. In other words, it is going to take 13 years just to add 20% to our reserves, when the French are going to double theirs. The record so far does not match the Government’s words about the increased threat and the importance of the reserves.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member on securing this debate. I declare an interest as a former reservist for 11 and a half years. I used to have hair then—that is how long ago it was. He will be aware that as of 1 January 2026, the trained strength of the UK Army Reserve was some 23,740, a decrease compared with 1 January 2025, and its total trained strength has continued to decline over the years.

I always try to be constructive and helpful to the Minister and the right hon. Member who secured this debate. Does the right hon. Member agree that we need to invest in the cadet forces, particularly those attached to schools across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and encourage our young people to train as reservists while still pursuing their career choices?

[Steve Barclay]

I know that the hon. Member has a long-standing commitment to the cadets and the military in general. The cadets is a recognised pipeline into the armed forces, and I am sure the Minister recognises its importance in giving people their first taste of military experience. Again, I think that is an area of agreement.

The first point I want to land is that in the first two years of this Government, the number of reservists has fallen overall, if we take the quarterly statistics published in April that give the numbers to January. The current record does not match the Government’s words. My second point is on reserve service days and this year’s commitment—

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Steve Barclay]

That commitment is the most important point, but it can wait until after the hon. Member’s welcome intervention.

[Edward Morello]

Before the right hon. Member leaves his first point, which I absolutely agree with, I want to pay tribute to the 6th Battalion the Rifles in Dorchester, the only infantry reserve in the south-west. Their proud track record includes service in Mali, Cyprus and elsewhere with British forces. The issue of growing numbers is particularly pertinent to rural areas where there are sparse populations over large areas. Does he agree that the Government’s aim to grow reservist numbers also needs to focus on the particular issues associated with rural areas?

[Steve Barclay]

The hon. Member is right. I represent the rural constituency of North East Cambridgeshire, and I recognise the point that he raises; that plays into the issue of overall numbers and into the second point that I am coming on to, which is about the commitments for the existing numbers.

Let me set out the crux of the issue. Media reports suggest that the MOD has been asked to make efficiency savings of £3.5 billion this year. My concern is that quite often, areas of the budget are locked down—they are fixed and cannot be shifted—so it is tempting for the MOD to look to the reserves as an area most able to meet those efficiency targets. The reserve service days could be cut as part of that. That is hugely disruptive because it often means that posts, as they come up for renewal, are delayed and left vacant; it means those who might have planned financially to do a certain number of days find those plans change; and it means those trying to fit in annual leave or commitments with their existing employer find those plans disrupted at short notice.

Given that I have heard anecdotal reports of units already being told that their reserve service days may be reduced this year, could the Minister send a clear message to reservists up and down the country that the Government do value their work and the reserve service days, and that there will be no reduction in reserve service days this year? In the overall scheme of things, for a budget of £60 billion, the cost of the reserves is tiny if one is trying to meet those wider budget challenges.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

There are two points that could reinforce the right hon. Member’s argument. First, I served in the Territorial Army, and it taught me to read a map; the reserves can teach people skills that will be useful in their lives. Secondly, many peoples’ lives are disorganised, but being in the reserves, the Territorial Army or part of the forces could give a structure to their lives. That will help out with the Government’s social policies, a point that should be emphasised to the Treasury. It is not just about people in uniforms; it is about the wider good of the nation.

[Steve Barclay]

I completely agree. The Government say they are committed to tackling things such as the cost of living; everyone in the House is very worried about the growth in youth unemployment and other pressures, and we want society to come together in more integrated ways. The armed forces are a unifier within society, so the hon. Gentleman’s points are extremely pertinent.

Let us look at this key point of reserve service days in the context of what has happened in the first two years of the Labour Government. In 2023, there were 1.339 million training days recorded; that dropped to 1.17 million last year. I am not trying to overstate the position—those are modest changes—but the direction of travel is wrong. Given the national security threats, the reserves are more important, and other countries are moving much faster on this. That is why I want to hear from the Minister a clear commitment to units up and down the country and to reserve service days. That is the most material issue that I want to flag in this debate.

My third point, which I concede has been an issue for many years, is that there has always been a temptation to give a lower priority to the reserve estate and equipment within the MOD more generally. The Government are right to say that the reserves are really important, but following on from that we need ringfenced funding for equipment and the estate. I know that there are specific issues, and we have the reserve estate optimisation programme, but the funding for that this year is not clear. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that. Given the £3.5 billion efficiency target, the Department could be tempted to stray into such areas, but if someone is a reservist in the logistics unit and there are no vehicles, or is in an artillery unit and there are very few guns, that has a corrosive impact on morale and on wider defence capability.

Let us look at how things have changed. The conflict in Ukraine is, in essence, a conflict between two reservist armies: reservists have been called up on the Ukraine side, and there are now reservists on the Russian side. We can see from the direction of travel just how important the capability of our reserves is. The Government are right to flag that, so it would be very odd if they were to cut reserve service days this year or if they did not protect the budget.

[Jamie Stone]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time; he is being more than generous. I should declare an interest: my son-in-law is a serving officer in the Royal Air Force and my daughter was, until recently, the same. One of the things that hits morale in all three services is being below strength—when they do not have the numbers and the platoon is short by two or three people. There is a long tradition—this was true in my time too—of reservists having an attachment to what we might call a frontline battalion or a frontline unit. That was actually great fun, and it really added something to the reservists’ lives. It was looked forward to. I hope that might happen now and again.

[Steve Barclay]

Again, there is a lot of agreement in the House about these points. With that in mind, I will suggest a couple of potential solutions—I always think it is better to come with solutions than with problems—and ask the Minister for an update.

First, it would be great to have a clear signal to units about reserve service days. Secondly, the Minister will be familiar with the case of Major Milroy, which goes to the issue of fairness. The Government have lost twice in tribunal. There was a debate on that case a couple of months ago, so it would be helpful to have an update. Thirdly, Labour Members often talk about the perils of zero-hours contracts, but of course reservists are often in essence on zero-hours contracts. It would be interesting to know whether the Government are considering a statutory underpinning for employers’ commitments.

[Jim Shannon]

On the comments by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), I recall my time in the Royal Artillery during the Falklands war. This relates to the issue of whether a person can retain their job should they be sent to the front. We were not going to go to the Falklands, we were going to go to Germany, and the frontline troops were going to go to the Falklands—but that did not happen, because the numbers were there on the ground to make sure that it did not. I remember going to my boss—I worked at Henry Denny at the time—and saying, “Mr McCluskey, it looks like we might be called up, and I’ve been told to let you know. The reason I am telling you is because I understand that you have to retain my job, so that when I come back, I will get my job back.” In the society we live in, it is important for employers to understand that they have an obligation to their employees.

[Steve Barclay]

It is worth putting on the record that there are many good employers who recognise that. At the same time, we want to make it as easy as possible for those willing to be reservists to do so. I want to flag that and some of the consistency across Government.

I will come on to some solutions. I talked about the context of the £3.5 billion efficiency savings this year—the money is next year, 2027—and the pressure of that. I remind Treasury colleagues that reserve pay and bounties is less than one quarter of 1% of the MOD budget, which is why this area of MOD spend brings a lot of bang for its buck. I also remind the Minister of the 2009 Guardian front page, when Gordon Brown had to intervene because that past Labour Treasury was straining to make savings in this territory. That caused such angst on the Government Benches at the time that the decision was U-turned.

I know this Government do not particularly want to U-turn—that would be a heresy in the current climate—but it may be helpful for the Minister to get ahead of the argument with Treasury colleagues. We are talking about a very small sum of money in an area that offers real defence capability. It is not the most fertile political terrain for the Treasury to strike. The Minister will know better than most in this House about the NATO commitments in article 3 and how we meet those—the reserves are key to that. And I am sure she has seen the excellent paper from Professor Vincent Connelly and Hamish Mundell, part of a series by the Royal United Services Institute, highlighting the importance of this area and why we in this House should focus on it.

11:17

[The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) for securing today’s debate on this hugely important topic, as he rightly noted. I am a member of the Strategic Reserve myself, and I am grateful to other colleagues who have joined us to talk about the important role that the reserves play in our armed forces. During my time in the British Army, when I was a regular, I served with some fantastic reservists. They were and are a seamless and indistinguishable part of teams across the armed forces.

I will turn to a couple of points raised during the debate. First, I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his wonderful advocacy for the cadets. They are a fantastic part of our armed forces community, and the support they give to our young people is truly transformational and life-changing for so many. This Government have a commitment to growing the cadets; I was at a cadet event yesterday, and they did a fantastic job. As he rightly points out, they provide wonderful structure for young people growing up across our country.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) rightly highlighted the fantastic benefits of joining the reserves, both in terms of the skills and experience that people gain—many of these skills are difficult to gain anywhere else—and the values that can be learned from being in the reserves. I thank him for his advocacy.

The right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire is right to talk about the importance of RSDs. I am cognisant of that for a host of reasons, not only because they maintain capability, but because for many of our reservists they are a vital part of their income; losing RSDs has an oversized impact on their ability to manage their everyday expenses. I am very cognisant of that, as well as of the overall impact on skills retention and retention in general.

I am sure the right hon. Member will understand that I cannot make a commitment here and now, and he noted that RSDs are budgeted by the services rather than centrally. However, I note that the Army has had no RSD cuts over the past two years, and I hope he understands how seriously we take that. I would hate for anybody to think that we would see RSDs as a lever to pull without recognising the impact of doing so. I join him in highlighting how important they are.

The right hon. Member rightly raises some of the other challenges that the reserves are facing, whether on their estate or the kit and equipment to which they have access. Again, this Government are committed to investing in our armed forces. He will be well aware of our commitment to raise defence spending to 2.6% of GDP next year, with further ambitions. As he says, this is in direct recognition of how important it is to invest in RSDs. He will appreciate that I cannot comment further on Milroy today, but I am sure he will note my previous remarks.

[Steve Barclay]

Could the Minister perhaps write to me?

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I will write to the right hon. Gentleman when we have a further update.

I am not familiar with the Guardian front page that he mentioned, but I will dig it out of an archive. I am sure he will appreciate that it is from a bit before I started paying attention to these things.

We agree that our reserves are a vital source of expertise, and they are a critical link, as the right hon. Gentleman and others have noted, to industry and wider society. Reserves are central to the credibility of our deterrence, the defence of our homeland, our warfighting readiness and our ability to fight a protracted conflict.

There is a consensus in many areas that there has been too much complacency for too long, as well as a failure to appreciate the importance of our reserves, a failure to make the most of them and a failure to invest in them. That is borne out in the data, which the right hon. Member will be familiar with. When I left the Army in 2020, our volunteer reserve force was around 30,000, and it was 26,000 by the time of the last election, so when we came into Government we were determined to turn the situation around.

Our strategic defence review has highlighted the need for the reserve force to have increased scale, greater access to specialist skills and greater workforce agility, which is really important. We have accepted the recommendations and committed to the 20% increase in the medium term, as the right hon. Member notes, as well as a number of sweeping reforms to grow our strategic reserve.

I will quickly provide an update on those two lines of work.

[Steve Barclay]

I say this very gently, because there is huge agreement on this, but I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the Public Accounts Committee, which has a majority of Labour members, says no movement is expected on that until the next decade—so not this Parliament. Does she agree on that, or does she think her colleagues are wrong?

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

Like many in the MOD, I like a challenge. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman recognises that I very much mean what I say when I talk about the importance of the reserves and how that is linked to numbers.

I want to address some of the criticisms that have come our way. At one point last year, almost 700 of our reservists were mobilised. Currently, there are 25,770 men and women in the Army Reserve. They have contributed to seven major operations across Europe, helping to resettle eligible Afghans and training Ukrainian forces—that is all incredibly vital work. A small fall in the active reserve last year does not necessarily represent a continuation of the hollowing out of the reserve force we have seen over many years.

Before Putin ordered his tanks into Ukraine in 2022, we had just under 30,000 reservists. Despite the fact we have seen how important reservists have been to the defence of Ukraine, and how much that conflict has underscored to many of us the necessity of mass in the modern battlefield—as opposed to conflicts we have engaged in elsewhere—we still saw reservist numbers dwindle. Indeed, by the second anniversary of that invasion, we had already lost another 3,000 reservists.

Since the last election, as the right hon. Gentleman can see, this Government have taken the actions needed to stem that bleeding. We are achieving progress, although I appreciate that he is urging us to go further and faster. We are introducing multiple reforms to fix the foundations. For example, we are unblocking the pipeline from regular to reserve service by removing the requirement that someone has to leave the armed forces before they can join the reserves. And our recruitment reform operation, Invector, is helping to drive up applications and enhance training throughout.

We have also increased the retirement age and brought in greater flexibility around mandatory retirement. We have introduced a pan-defence skills framework to bring renewed vigour to skills mapping, which will enable the MOD to better target the civilian expertise we need and recruit accordingly. We are also improving and building the digital infrastructure we need to manage, track and keep in touch with our reservists. Since last July, we have turned around the shrinking volunteer force and are starting to see green shoots of fresh growth, with renewed purpose and what I hope all will agree is a bright future.

That brings me to the second strand, which is our Strategic Reserve. The suite of reforms that we initiated through our Armed Forces Bill will update the Reserve Forces Act 1996 and strengthen the Government’s ability to generate and maintain a larger and more capable Strategic Reserve.

We had faced a number of legislative constraints that impeded our work to enlarge the Strategic Reserve, so we are dismantling them, block by block. Most notably, we are putting in place a new recall power to lower the threshold of warlike operations, to introduce a number of adjustments to expand the scope of recall powers, and indeed to raise the recall age from 55 to 65 for other ranks, for those who wish to be recalled. We are also harmonising recall liability across our three services. There are historical quirks that we are determined to get after, grasp the nettle and fix.

To heighten the readiness of our Strategic Reserve, we have advanced plans to kick-start annual training for the ex-regular element of the Strategic Reserve, which will include a programme of employer outreach and a range of employer incentives to help facilitate it. We also have plans to modernise the administrative digital infrastructure that underpins our Strategic Reserve by January 2027, which again is in line with the SDR commitment.

We are also addressing structural governance weaknesses. We are establishing a single Reserve Forces and Cadets Association to take over the functions of the 13 regional associations that currently exist. Again, that addresses recommendations made in multiple independent reviews, and it will strengthen governance.

Last year, the Reserves Continuous Attitude Survey identified people’s top motivations for joining and serving in the reserves: a desire to serve our country, to overcome challenges and to develop as an individual. I know from my own experience, and from the experience of many others here in Parliament, that our armed forces are unparalleled in their ability to tick those three boxes, and I encourage anybody who loves their country, is ambitious and wants to have an adventure to get involved.

For our part, the Government are getting on with the job of building a bigger and more capable reserve force, and a bigger and more capable Strategic Reserve. We were clear in the SDR that reaching these goals will take time, as the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire mentioned, but we have the plans in place. We are reforming the legislation and taking action, all backed by our commitment to deliver the biggest uplift in defence spending since the cold war.

I conclude by putting on record the Government’s appreciation, which I am sure is shared by Members from parties across this House, of the commitment and service of all those who step forward to serve in our reserves. I can only reiterate, based on my own experience, how integral they are to many military operations, both here at home and abroad. They are committed, and they bring a fantastic enthusiasm and perspective. They also bring a huge depth of knowledge and skills that we might not have within the regulars, and a patriotic desire to serve. I thank them very much for their service.

Question put and agreed to.

11:28

Sitting suspended.

Mountain Rescue

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Emma Lewell in the Chair]

10:44

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for mountain rescue.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I know that many colleagues across the House and people in our communities share a deep appreciation for the extraordinary work that mountain rescue teams do. While Hazel Grove, the finest constituency in the land, has no mountains, we do have hills, and we have a good number of mountain rescue volunteers. Alongside their day jobs, these volunteers have chosen to train to an extremely high standard and to place themselves in some of the most dangerous conditions imaginable in their spare time, so that when someone in the hills—near me, that means the Peaks—gets into trouble, they can respond and save them from dire situations. That deserves far more recognition than it currently receives.

This winter alone, we have seen time and again the lifesaving and critical service that mountain rescue teams provide, from Snowdonia to the Lake district to the Peak district. Responding to call-outs in severe weather and scarily dangerous conditions, volunteers risk their own safety every time they respond. These services are significant: Mountain Rescue England and Wales co-ordinates 47 volunteer mountain rescue teams operating across eight regional bodies, which together cover some of the most challenging and remote terrain in the country.

[Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)]

On that point about working in remote environments, does the hon. Member agree that we should be looking to integrate more drone technology to support mountain rescue, and will she join me in praising the work that Flyby Technology has been doing in this space?

[Lisa Smart]

I am grateful for the intervention. We need to use whatever technology exists to make the work of mountain rescue volunteers even more effective. I will come on to talk about the work they do to find people who are missing, but drone technology can certainly help with that, and we should welcome it.

The sheer scale of the teams’ operations is remarkable. According to the latest annual review, in 2024 mountain rescue teams responded to almost 4,000 call-outs, resulting in over 3,000 deployments—a 24% increase on 2019. It was also the first year in which teams went zero days without a single call-out. That meant that every single day of the year, somewhere in England or Wales a mountain rescue team was called upon.

Behind those rescues are over 3,000 volunteers, who have given over 167,000 hours of their time in a single year. Their work goes well beyond what many people imagine: volunteers rescue climbers and lost walkers, yes, but they also provide first aid, support ambulance trusts in major incidents, assist in flood responses and help police with searches for missing people on and off the hills.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

My hon. Friend will know that down in leafy Oxfordshire, we have far fewer mountains in our proximity than she does, but we do have rolling countryside and hazardous waterways. Lowland rescue plays a really important role as the counterpart to mountain rescue. It is also a charitable, volunteer-led organisation. Will she join me in praising its work to find vulnerable people and make sure they come home safely?

[Lisa Smart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving a shout-out to those involved in lowland rescue. I know there is a whole search and rescue community, including those who look at caves and other environments, and I am glad that he gave me the opportunity to thank all those involved in the great work of lowland rescue.

As climate change leads to more extreme weather events, rescue teams are increasingly a de facto fourth emergency service. The 24% rise in call-outs over five years reflects the growing popularity of outdoor activities. That is to be welcomed, but it puts real pressure on rescue teams, and social media is a significant driver. The chief executive officer of Mountain Rescue England and Wales, Mike Park, has spoken of a shift in the types of visitors to upland areas, as people are drawn to locations by striking footage online without always understanding the conditions or the hazards involved. Chief superintendent of North Wales Police Owain Llewellyn described an “almost unprecedented” rise in visitors to the Eryri national park as a direct result of social media posts and a corresponding increase in call-outs.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lisa Smart]

If only for a correction of my pronunciation, I would welcome an intervention.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I thank the hon. Lady very much for mentioning Owain Llewellyn of North Wales Police. Of course we see immense increases in the population present in the North Wales Police region; given the present police funding arrangements, it is very challenging to deal with those tourism pressures, which are only increasing. Does she agree that, alongside volunteer rescue teams, the funding for all emergency services needs to reflect the reality of population pressures?

[Lisa Smart]

I strongly agree with the right hon. Lady on making sure that all our emergency services are properly resourced to do the job that we rightly expect them to do. I also agree that the organisation of our police forces across our whole country should reflect the differing needs in urban and rural areas—although there are some overlaps—and that police should be resourced to address them.

The British Mountaineering Council has been direct about what the increase in outdoor activity means for teams. It has warned that the current situation is “not sustainable” and has raised serious concerns about volunteer wellbeing and the risk that teams could reach a point where they are unable to respond safely to every call. That is not a scenario that any of us should be willing to accept.

Mountain rescue teams in England and Wales receive no direct Government funding. They rely entirely on donations, fundraising and legacies, and each team costs between £50,000 and £100,000 a year to run. In the year ending December 2024, Mountain Rescue England and Wales had total income of just over £1.2 million, against expenditure of nearly £1.3 million, so it is already running at a deficit while managing nearly 3,800 emergencies in a single year. Compare that with Scotland, where the Scottish Government provides £300,000 a year to be shared between 27 teams. Notably, that grant was introduced in 2003 under the Scottish Liberal Democrat-Labour coalition. That demonstrates that when political will exists, direct public investment in these services is entirely achievable.

The previous UK Government did provide occasional grants to mountain rescue teams in England and Wales, including in 2020, when 11 teams received one-off grants totalling just under £150,000, and this Government have taken some positive steps. The 2025 autumn Budget included the exemption of search and rescue vehicles from vehicle excise duty but, although that was warmly received, it does not address the structural funding gap that these organisations face.

In June last year, the all-party parliamentary group for volunteer search and rescue was established, and it has since set out a clear case for what further Government action should look like. The most significant proposal is that search and rescue volunteers should receive the same status as Army reservists and special constables. That would result in paid leave from employers for search and rescue training and recompense for loss of earnings when attending a call-out during working hours, because at present, a volunteer responding to a call-out on a random weekday afternoon may be losing wages to do so. That is a real barrier to recruitment and retention that the Government have the power to address. The APPG has also called for Crown indemnity insurance cover for search and rescue teams, a dedicated Minister to engage with volunteer search and rescue groups and a VAT exemption on vehicles, building on last year’s vehicle excise duty announcement. The Liberal Democrats fully support those proposals.

There is one issue in particular that I want to raise, which requires urgent action. It was brought directly to my attention by a member of the Kinder Mountain Rescue Team; along with the Glossop team, that team covers my Hazel Grove constituency and the surrounding areas, which include some of the best walking routes in existence. At a Delegated Legislation Committee last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) raised some changes being made to Care Quality Commission registration during a discussion on amendments to the Health and Social Care Act 2008. The Government have moved to regulate independent medical care at temporary sporting and cultural events. Previous exemptions that allowed some medical providers to operate without CQC registration have been removed.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

I did indeed make that point in a Delegated Legislation Committee. Our key concern is that rescue cover is not exempt, and mountain rescue teams have therefore said that they will not be able to provide cover at many events, including fell races and mountain biking events, that outdoor enthusiasts like me enjoy. We should be encouraging individuals to participate in these events, and at the moment, they are not going to take place.

[Lisa Smart]

strongly agree with my hon. Friend’s point. We understand the reasons behind the regulations—they follow on from the Manchester Arena inquiry, which raised important concerns about the provision of healthcare at sporting and cultural events—but we do not want the unintended consequences to mean that it is difficult for mountain rescue teams to offer support and cover for events.

Steps to regulate and improve the way in which healthcare at sporting and cultural events is provided should be welcomed. Public safety should always be a priority. However, the regulations will have severe unintended consequences for mountain rescue. Many teams provide medical cover at fell races, mountain bike events and other outdoor sporting activities; they do not charge, but they typically receive donations in return—income that helps to sustain the broader work of the team. Nationally, covering such events raises more than £200,000 annually, and that vital funding allows voluntary teams to provide their free rescue services.

Under the new rules, providing that cover now requires CQC registration, and the regulations go further than many might assume. Even when rescue cover is provided by non-healthcare professionals or team members holding the remote rescue medical technician qualification, or when advice from a healthcare professional is merely available over the phone, it would constitute a requirement for registration and inspection, according to the CQC. That is surely disproportionate overreach.

The medical director for Mountain Rescue England and Wales, Dr Alistair Morris, stated that the cost and administrative burden of registration would outweigh the financial benefit that teams receive from the donations. His assessment is that most mountain rescue teams will just stop providing cover at these events as a result. Dr Oliver Pratt contacted me recently to raise those concerns, as well as concerns about how the requirements would affect the Kinder Mountain Rescue Team, who are represented in the Public Gallery today.

The consequences of teams withdrawing from event cover go beyond lost income, because without a mountain rescue presence at these events, teams would be forced to scramble from their homes should an injury occur. That lengthens response times, with potentially serious implications for patient outcomes. No commercial event medical company provides full rescue cover in remote terrain, so the local mountain rescue team would be called out anyway, but would likely arrive later and be less well prepared. There is also a broader loss: attendance at local events raises the profile of teams in the outdoor community, provides opportunities for education and the promotion of safe practice on the hills, and helps with volunteer recruitment. The regulations risk severing that connection entirely.

When this issue was raised in Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), stated that he did

“not want small events…to be overregulated”

or

“volunteers to be over-burdened with financial registration fees”—[Official Report, Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee, 15 April 2026; c. 9.]

He promised to look into that point with the CQC. We welcome that intention, but an intention is not yet a solution. Mountain Rescue England and Wales has formally requested an exemption for rescue cover, and that request remains unanswered. The Minister responding to today’s debate is not responsible for this piece of delegated health and social care legislation, but I would welcome her meeting mountain rescue representatives and working to bring forward that exemption. I am grateful that the CQC has written to me ahead of this debate, and I welcome its commitment to dedicated engagement with mountain rescue teams; but teams planning their events season now need greater clarity, faster. Guidance is not the same as the exemption that Mountain Rescue England and Wales has requested.

Mountain rescue teams are a vital part of our emergency infrastructure, and we should all want them to thrive, not have their ability to do so held back by legislative overreach. I look forward to the debate.

14:43

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart); as a fellow Greater Manchester MP, I share her determination that our constituents should be able to enjoy the nearby countryside safely and responsibly. I hope she agrees that, whether it is the Peak district, on her side of Greater Manchester, or Winter hill, on mine, we have some of the best natural landscapes our country has to offer.

As an officer of the APPGs on outdoor learning and on outdoor recreation and access to nature, as well as a passionate outdoor pursuits enthusiast, I know from my own experience that, sadly, mountain rescue teams do not always get the attention they deserve in this place. However, when things go wrong, it is local mountain rescue volunteers who are relied on to get people out of trouble—volunteers giving up their time, often in the worst weather, at all hours, day and night.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

The hon. Member is making an excellent speech. I have participated many a time in the Allendale challenge up in Northumberland to raise money for the North of Tyne Mountain Rescue Team. I thank all the volunteers who get involved, wherever in the country they are helping out. Since it is volunteers who are giving up their time, one of the key recommendations of the report from the APPG for volunteer rescue services was for the Government to recognise the mental health and wellbeing challenges they face. Does the hon. Member agree that it would be worthy of the Government to look at how they can support volunteers through the challenges they face when they are assisting in rescue efforts, wherever they are in the country?

[Phil Brickell]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point about mental health support for volunteers, and I will come to that shortly.

Volunteers are giving up their time to keep others safe. Our mountain rescue teams respond to thousands of incidents every year, from missing persons to injured walkers, and support the response to floods and major incidents. As has been recognised, they are largely—almost exclusively—funded by donations. The same people who are rescuing others are out raising the very money they need to fund their vehicles and equipment and to support their training. That places a heavy burden on those volunteers and their communities.

That is why I was delighted back in the autumn when the Chancellor confirmed she had heeded my calls and those of others here today to exempt mountain rescue vehicles from vehicle excise duty. That practical step will save each team thousands of pounds, show some recognition of the roles that teams play and allow them to rightly focus their fundraising efforts—in Bolton’s case, on the £60,000 a year it costs to maintain their vehicles and kit.

I know from speaking to the brilliant Bolton Mountain Rescue Team, which is based out of an old stable block at Ladybridge Hall in Heaton, that that exemption will make a significant difference. Since its formation in 1968, Bolton mountain rescue has covered a wide and varied terrain: almost 310 square miles stretching from Darwen to Manchester airport and from Wigan to Manchester. Its work is not limited to remote moorland: the team is regularly called out to search for missing people, support police operations, respond to incidents in urban fringe areas and assist during severe weather events. Indeed, over the Easter weekend, it was on site at the annual Rivington Pike race, one of the most historic fell races in the country, which saw more than 350 runners from across the north-west and beyond participate in a sprint to the pike and then back down to the finish line on Lever Park Avenue in Horwich.

Mountain rescue teams are on call 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Members hold down full-time jobs and have families and other commitments, and they drop everything when that call comes in. I hope colleagues will join me in recognising the brilliant and selfless work they undertake. Mountain rescue teams such as mine in Bolton have our back, so it is only right that we should have theirs.

I would therefore like to gently press the Minister on four areas where she might work with colleagues across Government on additional support for mountain rescue teams. First, although I welcome the event healthcare standard, which was launched this month following the Manchester Arena inquiry and was mentioned by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, I have flagged concerns to the Minister’s counterpart in the Department of Health and Social Care, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), that the requirements may have unintended adverse impacts on mountain rescue teams.

Under that standard, regulated organisations that comprise healthcare professionals would need to register with the Care Quality Commission. Prior to that requirement, temporary sporting events such as fell races and local mountain bike events, which are covered by mountain rescue, were excluded. Mountain rescue teams will be brought within the regulated perimeter, with all the administrative requirements that come with that. Will the Minister therefore work with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that the new requirements on healthcare professionals, as they apply to mountain rescue teams, are proportionate and do not impose a disproportionate cost? I will happily share more information with her after the debate.

Secondly, mountain rescue teams across England and Wales are collectively spending around £450,000 a year on insurance covering public liability, employer’s liability, vehicles, medical malpractice and trustees’ responsibilities. On top of that, individual teams often have to pay individual costs locally for buildings, equipment and extra personnel. That is a huge amount to raise through charitable means, and it is hard to justify when these teams are in reality part of our emergency response framework. Extending Crown indemnity, as has been mentioned, or a similar statutory insurance arrangement to mountain rescue teams would make an immediate difference. It would free up resources that could be directly reinvested in life-saving capability, helping my constituents and people across the country who find themselves in peril, often with no other emergency service able to reach them.

Thirdly, let me flag rehabilitation. Mountain rescue volunteers operate in difficult and often dangerous environments, with steep terrain and frequent poor weather. They take part in physically demanding rescues, and the risks are real. If a police officer or member of the armed forces is injured in the line of duty, they have access to established services. Bizarrely, mountain rescue volunteers do not have the same support. Allowing our mountain rescue teams to access existing rehab services is a simple, practical step the Government could take to support them. It would not require new structures or significant funding; it would just recognise that these volunteers face comparable risks and deserve comparable support when something goes wrong. I urge the Minister to look into that proposal as a priority.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for outlining those additional benefits, which would definitely be useful for mountain rescue teams. Does he agree they should also be extended to lowland rescue?

[Phil Brickell]

The hon. Member makes a very good point; we do not have lowland rescue in Bolton, but I do not see why not. Those volunteers are also hard-working and deserve similar support when they go through a traumatic episode.

Finally, on medical supplies, teams such as Bolton mountain rescue are required to carry a full complement of drugs to treat casualties in the field. However, because incidents are unpredictable, a lot of that stock expires before it can be used. Every year, that means more fundraising to replace perfectly good medication that has simply reached the end of its shelf life. There is already an arrangement for swapping out medical gases; extending that to drugs, by allowing unused supplies to be exchanged through the NHS, would save thousands of pounds, reduce waste and ensure that teams always have safe, in-date medication available. Again, I know this falls outside the remit of the Department for Transport, but can the Minister look into that issue with her DHSC counterparts?

Taken together, those proposals would make a real, tangible difference to teams on the ground. At the moment, frankly, too much of the burden still falls on volunteers and their communities. Teams such as Bolton mountain rescue are doing extraordinary work, often with limited resources, because they are committed to helping others. We should be helping them.

14:52

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I give a special thanks to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for not only introducing the debate but doing so exceptionally well. I also thank the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) for his thoughtful proposals, to which the Minister will hopefully give some response.

In her introduction, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove spoke about the bravery and dedication of our mountain rescue teams, and I am sure the Minister—it is always a pleasure to see her in her place—will encourage us to support all mountain rescue teams across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

We stand today at a crossroads in public safety. In the hills and valleys of Northern Ireland, from the granite peaks of the Mournes to the wild expanses of the Sperrin mountains, a silent, professional and entirely voluntary army is keeping us safe. However, while their dedication is limitless, their resources are not.

I want to highlight what we do in Northern Ireland and some of the things we are involved with, and also to make a plea to the Minister. We have not only mountain rescue teams but a K9 search and rescue team; they do exceptional work in finding missing people, and their dedication is incredibly impressive.

For decades, teams such as Mourne mountain rescue and North West mountain rescue have operated on the generosity of the general public. They are tasked by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and integrated into our emergency response, yet they remain charities, forced to shake buckets to pay for the fuel in their Land Rovers and the technology in their radios. We have been told about the Barnett consequential; it is not the Minsiter’s responsibility, but I want to mention it. It is the mechanism that ensures that Northern Ireland receives its fair share of UK-wide spending. When Westminster increases funding for emergency services or health in England, for which I am always grateful and thank the Minister and Government, Barnett consequentials go on to our block grant. The problem with the money that comes is that there is no direct link; although the money arrives at Stormont, it is not necessarily earmarked for the rescuers on the mountainside. That needs to be done centrally in Westminster.

Currently, the Department of Justice back home provides roughly £100,000 to be shared among nine different search and rescue groups. To put that into perspective, a single new rescue base for the Mourne mountains has spiralled in cost to over £1 million, so that money does not even scrape the scab—if I can use that word—of what is needed. As in the case of the rest of the United Kingdom, we are not simply asking for a handout—it is not about that. We are asking for strategic investment, and we need to have it, especially when we look at the cost of the Mourne mountain rescue base that is being put together.

We need a dedicated, ringfenced portion of Barnett-derived funding that is specifically allocated to Northern Ireland search and rescue. My request to the Minister is, when it comes to the allocation of money through the Barnett consequential, can she ensure through discussion with the relevant Minister that money is specifically earmarked for mountain rescue back home?

Volunteers should be training to save lives, not spending their weekends writing grant applications or worrying about whether they can afford to replace an aging ambulance. We have seen the Scottish Government provide significant, reliable annual grants for their teams, which the hon. Member for Hazel Grove referred to in her introduction. It is time that rescue teams throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland were put on that solid footing, and not the slippery slope of making do with what they are currently clinging on to.

When someone is lost in the dark, or injured on a cliff edge, they do not ask about the funding model of the person coming to save them; they just want help. Our volunteers provide that help without hesitation, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It is time that our Minister and Government showed the same level of commitment. I am not saying that commitment has not been given, but we need to step up strategically in relation to where we are. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove set that out incredibly well in her introduction. Let us use the resources we have to ensure that those who save others do not have to save themselves from financial ruin.

14:58

[Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. In Stirling and Strathallan we are served by three outstanding teams: Lomond Mountain Rescue Team, based in Drymen; Killin mountain rescue, operating from Killin and Callender; and Ochils mountain rescue, operating from a neighbouring constituency, but also on the hills that dominate the backdrop of the city of Stirling. Those teams are made up of highly trained volunteers—people with jobs, families and everyday lives—who are ready to respond at a moment’s notice, often in the most difficult conditions and terrain in the country.

Such teams are not an add-on to the emergency services; they are the emergency services in certain areas. They have the medical training to treat people on the mountain, but crucially they are the only ones who can get them off the mountain, to safety and further treatment.

I want to talk about some specific issues that have been raised through the volunteer rescue services all-party parliamentary group. The steps the Government are taking to regulate independent medical care at temporary sporting and cultural events are welcome and necessary. But mountain rescue teams are not properly part of the conversation, and are perhaps being unintentionally captured by an approach that was never designed with them in mind. The consequences, as we have heard, can be significant. These teams are facing new layers of bureaucracy, increased administrative requirements and potential financial liabilities that simply do not sit easily with a volunteer model.

As we have heard, the reality is that many teams are now considering stepping back from providing event cover altogether. That matters for two reasons. First, those events are a key source of fundraising for teams that rely heavily on public support to fund their operations. Secondly, it has an impact on public safety. If mountain rescue is not present at events, it is no longer able to provide immediate care. Instead, it is called out later, often when situations have become more serious. Some 10% to 15% of the UK’s geography is such that mountain rescue is the primary emergency service, because the police, ambulance and fire services cannot operate effectively in that terrain. So there is a clear and reasonable ask here: that we give serious reconsideration to how this new approach applies to mountain rescue.

There is also a wider lesson. If we want to avoid situations like this in the future, we need to involve mountain rescue and the wider search and rescue community much earlier in the policymaking process. They must be part of the conversation from the outset. Search and rescue services interface across multiple—[Interruption.]

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

Order. The sitting is suspended for a Division in the House.

15:00

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

15:10

On resuming—

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

The sitting is resumed. The debate may now continue until 4.15 pm. I call Chris Kane.

[Chris Kane]

Thank you, Ms Lewell, for calling me back. Please give me one second to find out where I was—is it still Tuesday?

As I was saying, if we want to avoid such situations in the future, we need to involve mountain rescue and the wider search and rescue community much earlier in the policymaking process. They must be part of the conversation from the outset. Search and rescue services interface across multiple parts of Government—Transport, Health, the Home Office, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Cabinet Office all have a role. From the perspective of those delivering the service, that can feel fragmented.

There is a strong case for a single point of contact within Government—a clear champion who understands the role of volunteer search and rescue, and who can bring the different strands together. The Cabinet Office, given its co-ordinating role, might be a sensible place to consider having that, because ultimately, this comes back to people: highly skilled volunteers giving up their time, raising their own funds and stepping in when people need them most. They do not do it for recognition, but they deserve support.

When something goes wrong on the mountain, what matters is simple: that someone comes—and whether it is in Stirling and Strathallan or any difficult terrain anywhere in the country, they always do. For that they have our thanks and support, and I hope a commitment from the Minister to engage in the specific asks that our volunteer rescue teams have around Care Quality Commission registration and other issues. The Minister is always welcome at a future meeting of the APPG for volunteer rescue services to hear more.

15:15

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell; I am sure you will give us guidance if and when the Divisions come again, but it is a pleasure either way. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for leading this debate so eloquently and bringing this important issue to the attention of everybody in the Chamber. It is an honour to follow the excellent speeches given by the hon. Members for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and to precede the excellent speeches I am sure we will hear in the moments ahead.

For those of us in the Lake district, the mountain rescue service is undoubtedly the fourth emergency service. That is demonstrated in a very pictorial way, really, in the centre of Kendal: just north of the town centre, Busher Walk is a small street where the police station, ambulance station, fire station and Kendal mountain rescue headquarters all sit within a few yards of each other. They work very closely together, and the mountain rescue team are deeply valued, respected and seen as a partner by the other three emergency services. Of course, the difference is that the mountain rescue team are entirely made up of volunteers.

Across the county of Cumbria, we have 12 mountain rescue teams. Five of those are directly in my constituency: Coniston, Ambleside and Langdale, Kendal, Kirkby Stephen and Patterdale. An honourable mention goes to my constituency neighbour, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), who is a member of the Patterdale team. As a Minister, he is unable to participate in this debate.

I also pay tribute to those working as part of the Keswick Mountain Rescue Team. Keswick is not in my patch, but it certainly serves a good chunk of it and we are very grateful. I will also mention the Bay Search and Rescue team, who look after the lowlands—as my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), who is no longer in his place, referred to earlier—of the very dangerous and treacherous Morecambe bay sands. On top of that, we are served admirably by the North West air ambulance service and the Great North air ambulance service, which I was delighted to run my first London marathon for five years ago. It provides a wonderful service, and does so with the support of volunteers.

Mountain rescue teams have provided roughly 80 years of service to our country. Much has changed in that time, not least that, back in the 1940s, to raise the alarm that something had happened, one member of the team who had somehow found out that something was wrong on the fell would literally run around the town or village knocking on doors to get members of the team out to respond. Today, highly trained specialists have technical communication facilities available to them. Nevertheless, they still have in common—with each other, and with back then—the fact that they are volunteers who are dedicated and who are of their communities. They save lives and serve us admirably, and we are incredibly grateful to them.

In Cumbria, we have 20 million visitors a year. By our reckoning, that makes us the second most visited destination in the country after London. The lakes is a world heritage site. We have dozens and dozens of beautiful mountains and valleys—places that are utterly spectacular yet often dangerous. Volunteers working on call for mountain rescue teams put themselves at risk daily, and they balance the service they provide with their other lives, often in full-time occupations.

I almost hesitate to highlight, because it is such a grim and recent memory, that people who volunteer for mountain rescue teams not only often deal with the most tragic of circumstances but can sometimes fall victim to them. Our friend Chris Lewis, of the Patterdale Mountain Rescue Team, died in 2023. He had sustained serious injuries 18 months earlier when he was called out, as part of a team, to an incident on Red Screes near the Kirkstone pass. That is a reminder that those people who freely give up their time risk their lives for us on a regular basis. I pay tribute to Chris and everybody else who puts themselves out there to keep us safe.

I observe that since covid—other hon. Members have mentioned this—we have seen a change in the relationship between the people of our country and the lakes in particular, as well as the dales and other places. In many ways, that is very positive—people have chosen the outdoors and got a taste for the countryside, often without a lifetime of background in how to operate in a safe and sensible way.

I am proud to be an officer of the all-party group for volunteer rescue services and I am chair of the all-party group on outdoor learning, of which the hon. Member for Bolton West is an important and valued member, and vice-chair. I very much value working with him and others in that capacity.

I cannot overstate the value of being in the outdoors for people’s physical and mental resilience throughout life. We ought to be really pleased about that uptick in people, particularly younger people, wanting to take exercise and explore the fells, and yet a “but” is attached to that: mountain rescue teams report a significant increase in the number of call-outs over the past five years by people who are not familiar with the fells. Often they are younger people, sometimes not adequately prepared or without the right kit, and sometimes just not realising that the weather on the flat in Glenridding might not be the same as the weather on the top of Helvellyn. The consequences can be utterly fatal.

Those are the challenges that our wonderful mountain rescue teams have to deal with, on top of the fact—this is a subject for another Westminster Hall debate perhaps—that excessive second home ownership in the Lake district means that the resident population is not as big as it used to be, and the reservoir of people who could volunteer to be in mountain rescue is smaller than it once was. Those teams have more to do and a harder job to find and recruit the people to do it.

Mountain rescue teams, however, now face a new challenge. It has been referred to already, but I want to add my words. A proposed amendment to the Health and Social Care Act 2008 that stems, understandably, from the Manchester Arena bombing inquiry, would require any organisation providing first aid with a medical professional to register with the CQC. Mountain rescue teams not only respond to emergency call-outs, but provide valuable support to fell races, mountain bike races, country shows and so on. I know that myself—I am a regular participant in fell races and I must have done the Grasmere fell race 20 times now, as well as the Ambleside and Coniston races. Because of my knee injury, I had to miss last year’s Grasmere fell race, and I was missed—I got a text from one of the other participants, who was very sad that I was not taking part, because that meant this year his chances of coming last had become a little greater.

I utterly value the intervention and support of the mountain rescue teams in keeping us safe. We reckon, however, that CQC registration could cost an estimated £10,000 to £20,000 in total, admin charges included, for each of those mountain rescue teams. That is five in my patch, 12 across Cumbria and, I think, 47 across the whole country. That would mean that those volunteer-led teams simply could not sustain their level of operation. They would have to withdraw from those events entirely, and the events would have to take on professional and much more expensive cover by people who would not be able to get up the fell anyway. As has been mentioned by others, mountain rescue would still be called out if someone ended up involved in an accident halfway up or at the top.

All we ask of the Minister—I have also written to the Minister for Health Innovation and Safety on this point—is for the Government to introduce a proportionate, risk-based exemption for volunteer mountain rescue teams, so that vital community services are protected without disproportionate regulatory burdens.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I fully endorse and support what my hon. Friend is saying. My brilliant Cornish search and rescue team have asked me to attend this debate to make exactly the same point, that if they are not exempted from that CQC registration requirement, they will face thousands of pounds in costs and lots of time in bureaucracy. Frankly, many of them would not continue in the search and rescue service, and we would see a huge gap. They provide a valuable service, as we have heard, so I join my hon. Friend in urging the Minister to look again at that. If she cannot provide an assurance to us, to our constituents and to our brilliant search and rescue and mountain rescue teams, I hope that she and her colleagues can come back to us later.

[Tim Farron]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend, who makes excellent points on behalf of his own communities in Cornwall.

I will finish by saying that we have written to the Minister for Health Innovation and Safety, because the issue is to do with the Health and Social Care Act. We are pleased to see this Minister in her place—she does a great job—but it gives a bit of a picture of one of the problems that we face on this issue: mountain rescue does not really have a home, and it needs one. We need a Minister who is specifically responsible for mountain rescue and indeed for other search and rescue provision. I urge, via the Minister present, that to happen.

Many of the things we have all asked today have been about sending messages to the Minister, or through the Minister to the Health Department, and we hope that they will be heard. I simply say to the Minister: “Let’s not needlessly place a burden on our outstanding search and rescue teams.” Our mountain rescue volunteers put themselves at risk to keep us safe. They deserve our gratitude and practical support. Let us help them, not hinder them.

15:25

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) on securing this debate, because it has been very interesting. There have been speakers from every nation and region of the United Kingdom. This issue is significant to us all.

I beg your patience, Ms Lewell, but I will, of course refer to Eryri, which is the mountain region that I represent much of. It is one of the busiest and most hazardous mountain regions within the United Kingdom. In 2025, we had around 600,000 visitors. Sadly, however, there are fatal incidents every year, due to falls, exposure and incidents in water. Of course, it is the mountain rescue volunteers who play such a key role in interacting with the emergency services, in rescuing people and in dealing with dangerous incidents, many of which are tragic.

I will refer to just two of them today. In February, there were two very young men—they were aged 19 and 20 —from Norfolk who tragically died on Yr Wyddfa, the Snowdon range, after a really huge winter search and rescue operation that involved multiple rescue teams, in conditions that involved snow and ice, and severe exposure. We have to recognise the diligence and the commitment of the people who go out in such difficult circumstances.

There are also falls from ridges and from scrambles, particularly in the areas that are risky in Snowdonia, or Eryri. I will put those areas on the record, because it is important that people are alert to the risks there. I am talking about places such as Crib Goch and Tryfan, where there is no marked path. I am also talking about the Watkin Path pools, where—sadly—two young women died last June. I am also talking about Glyder Fach and Glyder Fawr.

Such deaths are so difficult for the people involved with the search and rescue teams, but my heart goes out to the families of people who have lost loved ones. This area is very important; it is full of leisure activity and is part of our economy in north Wales. The emergency services and the volunteer rescue services both play their part in making the places that I have mentioned as safe as possible. There are 11 mountain rescue teams in Wales. Six of them are in my constituency: Llanberis, Aberglaslyn, South Snowdonia, Aberdyfi, North East Wales, the North Wales Cave Rescue Organisation, and Ogwen, which is in the Bangor Aberconwy constituency, but serves the same mountain massif.

In addition, and to give people an idea of how significant the rescue services are in my constituency, there are the RNLI stations at Porthdinllaen, Abersoch, Pwllheli, Criccieth, Barmouth and Aberdyfi. Again, they all serve the leisure industry of tourism, which is so critical to the constituency. We have the search and rescue helicopters at Dinas Dinlle, which are run by Bristow on behalf of the coastguard.

Of course, this situation is demanding for the police as well. Earlier in the debate, it was mentioned that the population in parts of a constituency can go up by five times in the high season. That is not reflected in police funding, but none the less it is something that the police have to respond to.

We should also notice, of course, the timing of this debate, given that we will soon have the May bank holidays. For many of us here in Westminster Hall, if the weather is good, those bank holidays will be some of the busiest times that we have in the season, and they will probably also be times in which the search and rescue teams will be called out.

I will talk particularly about two of the rescue teams operating in my constituency. First, there is Llanberis, who are the busiest rescue team in the United Kingdom. Last year, they responded to 360 call-outs, which was 10% of all the incidents in England and Wales in 2025. Of course, they work with other rescue teams as well, but their busiest day last year was 12 July, when 716 incidents were recorded in north Wales. Sadly, the number of fatalities is rising too—from 18 in 2024 to 23 in 2025. Evidently, the work that these teams do is absolutely critical, but the sheer pressure on them as they perform their role needs to be recognised, both in the UK Government and in the Welsh Government, as well as the fact that they are so critical for our local economy.

There is another rescue team that I want to mention. It told me that although all the mountain rescue teams face funding challenges, when it comes to North Wales Cave Rescue Organisation—the problem is in the name—it is far less visible than the other rescue teams. I have seen the areas that it has to deal with in my constituency: we have old mines, slate caverns, quarries and natural caves over towards the east of north Wales.

Again, I am going to put those on the record because these places seem to attract people. Blaenau Ffestiniog’s old slate caverns attract people on social media and are extremely dangerous; I want to use this debate to put that warning out. In Cwmorthin, Rhosydd and Wrysgan, people can go on what sounds like a wonderful adventure underground—from one side of the mountain to the other through the caverns—but it is extremely dangerous. People are putting themselves and others at risk. It is not a glamorous activity for Instagram and not something that people should do without professionals and experts.

I am a member of the APPG and I support its manifesto. I welcome the Minister to her place, but I am very much aware that she can speak only on behalf of the Department for Transport. What we are talking about today cuts across many Government Departments and the message needs to go back to them.

My final point, as raised by Owain Llewellyn of North Wales police, is about whether we can find a way of addressing the temptation that people feel through social media. I referred to Instagram, where people see wonderful pictures and want to emulate them and be part of that lifestyle. Can we somehow have a conversation with the social media platform providers about how to get across to people that although it looks so good on a phone or on a device, “You need to be safe, because for your families, it could be a disaster”—and of course for the teams that come out?

I want to express my greatest appreciation and gratitude to all those involved in the voluntary rescue. Without them, I do not know how we would keep people safe in such wonderful and precious places.

14:30

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for her passionate, articulate exposition of the great work that mountain rescue does in her constituency. We also heard the passion for mountain rescue and the great outdoors from the hon. Members for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane), and from the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), and a few others who intervened.

I too have a passion for the great outdoors and mountain walking. I spent a bit of the recess that we just had doing some of that in south Wales. It is often quite hard to articulate exactly why walking up a hill or a mountain is so tempting. Of course there is the reason that it is there, but beyond that it is the combination of the satisfaction of having done so, the exhilaration of overcoming a challenge and pushing one’s own boundaries. But the risk that we have heard about today underlines the importance of our all respecting the hills and mountains and the great outdoors more widely. With greater numbers seeking enjoyment of it, but with skills such as paper map reading and compass navigation not necessarily what they were, mountain rescue will continue to play an essential role, particularly as even those with reasonable experience in mountain environments can get things wrong, experience bad luck or get into bad habits.

Alas, I know that only too well myself. A combination of bad habits and a bit of bad luck meant that I needed to be rescued by mountain rescue in Italy, when 36 hours on the side of a mountain with no food and water turned into the not entirely welcome exhilaration of being winched on to a helicopter and then spending 27 hours in an Italian hospital. Thanks to mountain rescue, I lived to tell the tale and learned from my experience. I have significantly added to my previous experience and made sure that when I do these things, I have better risk mitigations. I pay tribute to that particular branch of the Italian mountain rescue, as well as the mountain rescue teams who have saved so many people in this country.

I join my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) in his comments on Lowland Rescue Oxfordshire, which was honoured to receive the Queen’s Award for Voluntary Service. Between its creation in 2008 and 2022 its volunteers attended more than 600 incidents, equating to more than 18,000 hours deployed on searches, both in and out of Oxfordshire. They were initially focused on foot search, but they expanded their skills to incorporate water rescue, dog search and drone search.

As we have heard, mountain rescue teams are a de facto fourth emergency service, especially during major incidents such as flooding and heavy snowfall, yet they do not have the equivalent funding streams or protections of other services. As climate change leads to more serious weather events in the UK we will, alas, come to rely on mountain rescue services more and more—and that reliance will not be reserved just for avid hikers, climbers, mountain bikers or other forms of adventure, but for whole communities, as flooding events become more common. In some teams, annual call-outs now exceed 150 to 300 incidents. As we have heard, drivers of the growth in those incident numbers include an increase in outdoor recreation and tourism, social media-driven locations attracting increased numbers of inexperienced visitors, and the impact of climate change on weather-related incidents.

The accounts of Mountain Rescue England and Wales show a total income of approximately £1.25 million in 2024, with the majority coming from donations and charitable activities rather than Government support. Since 2011, the UK Government have provided grant funding, historically around £200,000 to £250,000 per year across the whole UK. That funding is project-based rather than being core funding, and is primarily for equipment and training, rather than operational sustainability. That is a challenge faced by many other third-sector organisations—charities, museums and so on—where the grant funding system is focused on capital rather than operational sustainability.

As we heard from the hon. Member for Stirling and Strathallan, Scotland operates a distinct model. The Scottish Government provide direct annual grant funding to Scottish Mountain Rescue in recognition of its team’s role in delivering land-based search and rescue on behalf of Police Scotland. That includes an annual grant totalling more than £300,000 per year, which is distributed to teams via an agreed formula; allocation reflects call-out volume, team size and assets, including funding in the Scottish Government’s fairer funding pilot, providing assurance of continued funding until at least March 2027 and giving those organisations the ability to plan ahead.

[Chris Kane]

As a former council leader, I always say that the Scottish Government have to keep on top of what that figure is and invest in it, because volumes can change, and the amount of money is never enough to do all the work required. They need a robust approach to ensuring that the funding model is adapting and changing, particularly with all the additional costs and fees. They have to make sure that they are investing enough, and that requires constant vigilance to make sure that they have done so. Does the hon. Member agree?

[Olly Glover]

The hon. Gentleman’s ask is entirely legitimate and justified. We hope that the current Scottish Government will, in the first instance, build on the wonderful achievement of the Scottish Liberal Democrat-Labour coalition in 2003 of introducing a Scottish Mountain Rescue grant.

In terms of our asks of the Minister, it is clear that the Government need to better support mountain rescue teams. At the very least, the Government need to ensure that they are not adding pressure through cumbersome bureaucracy and administrative costs that stretch their finances further. That is the risk of the current interpretation of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 and the impact they will have on mountain rescue teams. Those regulations are very serious, and we understand that they came from the findings of the inquiry into the Manchester Arena bombings, but their implementation should be proportionate to the risk and the nature of the organisations concerned.

Mountain rescue teams have been in touch with Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament to raise concerns over the impact those regulations will have on their ability to provide services at temporary sporting events in remote locations, such as fell races or mountain bike events. They have emphatically said that, as things stand, the regulations will mean that they cease providing rescue cover at those events, due to excessive administrative burden and costs. Without cover at events, mountain rescue teams will be forced to scramble from their homes should an injury occur, increasing the wait time for patients, with potentially catastrophic implications for patients’ health. We hope that the Government will heed the calls from mountain rescue teams and the Liberal Democrats for a carve-out for rescue cover. Steps should be taken to ensure that that change is as smooth as possible, and that the negative impact of the cost is mitigated as far as possible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) raised these concerns in Committee with the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), who stated that he did

“not want small events…to be overregulated”

or

“volunteers to be over-burdened with financial registration fees”—[Official Report, Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee, 15 April 2026; c. 9.]

He promised to look into the issue with the Care Quality Commission. The Minister present today is not responsible for this piece of delegated legislation, but I hope she will be able to assist with those discussions in the Department of Health and Social Care, and that she, with the Department, will consider some of the ideas put forward for supporting mountain rescue services if the changes are enacted.

If the changes take effect, they will be catastrophic for many mountain rescue services. It is essential that Government support via other routes is ramped up to mitigate the impact, so that mountain rescue can continue to provide the critical functions we have heard about in the debate.

15:44

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

Thank you for agreeing to chair this important debate, Ms Lewell. Like others, I congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) on securing it.

We have heard a huge amount of unanimity across the political divide about our support for mountain rescue and the analysis of some of the challenges that it faces. Frankly, mountain rescue is easy to ignore because it operates by definition in remote areas, but there is something else: it is operated by people who are typically self-sufficient, independent and tough volunteers, and as a result it is a self-sufficient, independent and tough organisation. Those are not typically the kind of people who put their hands up and say they want the Government to do something for them, but—and this is an important “but”—when someone needs mountain rescue, it is the most important organisation in the world.

There seems to be a qualification for being on the Front Bench at the moment. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) was stuck out on a mountain in Italy for 48 hours, and look where that has got him. I was an idiot myself when I was in my teens: I got stuck up above the snowline on a mountain overnight, with no equipment at all, wearing trainers. Unfortunately, that was before the days of mobile phones, and I just had to survive; I managed to climb down the following day. By the sounds of it, there is a link between risk taking and political careers, but I hope that both of us have learned our lessons; I look forward to further anecdotes from the Minister.

We need mountain rescue, and we know that demand is increasing. We have heard about the 26 teams in Scottish Mountain Rescue, which in 2025 had 1,270 call-outs and assisted more than 900 people. It is worth remembering that that took more than 39,000 hours of volunteer time. We heard from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) about the many English mountain rescue teams—five, I think, in his constituency—and we heard from the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) about Welsh mountain rescue. Like her, I want to raise the profile of Llanberis Mountain Rescue Team. In my former career, I was the managing director of Go Ape, working in outdoor recreation—often out in the mountains—and the Llanberis team was responsible for training for the mountain leader qualifications. It is at the heart of this country’s very good training and outdoor education, and was responsible for responding to 10% of all call-outs last year. There is plenty to support and give plaudits for.

We have heard a number of arguments that more should be done regarding funding, and some of those arguments no doubt have merit, but we should be careful what we wish for with volunteer organisations. When I think, off the top of my head, about the most loved, must trusted and most supported organisations in our country, I think of the RNLI, the Air Ambulance Service, the hospice movement and mountain rescue. They have something important in common: they are not adjuncts of the state. They grow up from their local community, and they are therefore supported by, loved by and close to their community. It would be a terrible disservice to mountain rescue if, through some misplaced wish to support it, we brought it into the confines of the state.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

The hon. Gentleman makes an argument that I have heard before—that, to maintain certain rescue services, they must not be vulnerable to policy decisions making cuts to public services. There is a “but” though, as those services must have sufficient funding to survive. The RNLI is a very well loved and established charity, but it is much more difficult for some of the smaller charities. It is important that we move forward knowing that we need to maintain these services, even though we may have different funding models.

[Jerome Mayhew]

That is a reasonable point, but the key argument made by all hon. Members today is about the state getting in the way through regulatory oversight. That may be by mistake, as I think it probably is genuine oversight in this case—that is, the draft Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, which were debated in Committee on 15 April. Real concerns have been expressed by Members across the political divide about the potential impact of the draft regulations on mountain rescue.

Those concerns were articulated in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), who is medically qualified and was previously a medical member of mountain rescue. She set out concerns about the impact on mountain rescue, the application of treatment by volunteers and the requirement to be registered with the Care Quality Commission. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale estimated that it would cost each organisation between £10,000 and £20,000 for regulation. There will be a clear impact upon onsite healthcare on the mountainside, but also on sports events, fell running, mountain bike events—which I used to attend—and music festivals. We want high quality care, but as Members from across the political divide have argued, the regulations need to be proportionate. I hope that the Minister is about to announce that there will be an exemption for mountain rescue. We wait on her speech with bated breath.

That is just one example of regulatory burden; there are others. We should aim to have proportionate regulation. We should aim to reduce the regulatory burden in terms of bureaucracy while increasing the effectiveness of light-touch regulation to provide care and support when it is needed. The draft regulations appear to be the exact opposite, so I will be interested in the Minister’s response.

I have a final point, though it is really an observation. On the increased demand for mountain rescue, we have to ask, “Why?”. It may be in part because of changed attitudes to how we live our lives as a response to covid and the lockdown, and a reassessment of the rat race. People want to get out, experience adventure, get closer to the outdoors and to nature more generally. If so, without hesitation I applaud and encourage, as we all should, that increased demand and appetite for the outdoors.

There is an attitude on social media, however, where we seem to laud “extreme” activities, making very dangerous and difficult activities seem accessible and desirable to people like me when I was a teenager in my trainers. There is a concern that that attitude underplays the risk associated with those activities, when professional training is needed to build the layers of experience that make one capable of undertaking and surviving them. There is a balance to be struck between encouraging interest, involvement and engagement, and reinforcing the need for personal responsibility for one’s own safety—a responsibility that one addresses through training, experience and risk mitigation and management structures.

We are lucky to have mountain rescue. Finance will always be a challenge. I accept that improvements can be made, but I repeat my caution about the need to stay close to one’s community. At the very least, the Government should not make matters worse with heavy-handed or stupid regulation. We seem to have an example of that going through Parliament right now. The Government have the opportunity, through the Minister, to address the sector’s very real concerns, and I look forward to her comments.

15:49

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I am pleased to be able to respond on behalf of my hon. Friend the Minister for Aviation, Maritime and Decarbonisation. I thank hon. Members from across the House for their thoughtful contributions and for shining a light on the vital work of volunteer mountain rescue teams. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) who secured this debate and in doing so has provided not only an opportunity to consider the challenges facing mountain rescue, but to recognise and celebrate the extraordinary contribution that those volunteers make to our national resilience. Of course, I acknowledge not only mountain rescue, but also lowland rescue, cave rescue, independent lifeboats and lifeguards for the vital work that they do.

Like the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, I very much enjoy the Peak district’s magnificent hills. I thank the Kinder Mountain Rescue Team who keep people safe on those hills, which are such a wonderful attraction for walkers, fell runners, mountain bikers and climbers, but can also change very quickly, particularly at the top of Kinder Scout. When the clouds come down, it can become quite a frightening and disorienting place.

Many hon. Members have raised concerns about potential regulatory changes that may affect the work of mountain rescue, principally, the removal of regulatory exemptions around Care Quality Commission registration. The Care Quality Commission will commence a consultation from 8 May to 12 June, which will provide further opportunities for groups and individuals affected to discuss their concerns. I hope that I can offer some reassurance to hon. Members that that will include a separate stream specifically for mountain rescue, made up of focus groups and wider engagement. That feedback will then inform how the changes will be implemented to avoid such groups being disproportionately impacted, including through new guidance being developed by the CQC.

[Jerome Mayhew]

That sounds like progress in the right direction, but can the Minister address the absolute cost of registration, which we have assessed as being between £10,000 and £20,000 per organisation? How will that be reduced by the Government’s actions?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I understand the concern that the hon. Member and other hon. Members have raised but, as he will appreciate, that falls outside my Department’s remit. However, I will ask my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to respond on that point and on other questions that have been raised. I note the request for a meeting from the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, and I will ensure that that is drawn to their attention.

Search and rescue in the United Kingdom is, at its heart, a collective national endeavour. It is not delivered by any single organisation or Department acting alone, but by a partnership that brings together Government, emergency services, charities, local responders and, critically, thousands of committed volunteers who stand ready day and night to help people in distress.

I am glad to say that, while I have not had to be rescued from a mountain, I have witnessed a rescue and had the opportunity to enjoy the hills thanks to support, help and guidance from the national mountain rescue centre, which I believe is probably in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts). That is a really wonderful place that has some fantastic staff who can guide people through some of the trickier aspects of conquering Tryfan or, indeed, any of the other hills in Eryri.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the many hundreds and thousands of volunteers up and down this country, some of whom I will be meeting again this weekend on Sunday as I join them on a training exercise in Warwickshire. I pay tribute not only to the work they do in the search and rescue, but to the other organisations that they get out for and help. They drove the vehicle for our local Father Christmas, who went round raising money for local charities in Bedworth this year; that is where I joined them for the first time. I thank the Minister for her kind words about the volunteers and the fantastic work that search and rescue does up and down this country.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. Indeed, I met Warwickshire search and rescue when Lowland Rescue visited the House of Commons earlier this year or late last year.

The partnership embodied in UK Search and Rescue, or UKSAR, brings together Government Departments, statutory responders and voluntary organisations from across the United Kingdom. Through its strategic board and operators group, it provides a forum that supports alignment between policy, operational delivery and those who respond on the ground. It is an important mechanism for ensuring that different parts of the SAR system—maritime, inland and specialist—can work together effectively while respecting the different responsibilities and remits that apply.

Through UKSAR, a wide range of workstreams are taken forward to support volunteer search and rescue organisations. As has already been acknowledged, they include mountain rescue, lowland rescue, cave rescue, independent lifeboats and others that collectively form the backbone of our national response capability. That work spans interoperability, national operating guidance, medical response, volunteer support and the recognition of SAR organisation. While much of that work is necessarily technical and often unseen, its purpose is simple: to support volunteers to operate safely, professionally and effectively when the public needs them most. UKSAR has provided guidance on insurance for voluntary organisations, which is available on gov.uk. Indemnity requires a much wider discussion across Government, but I will ensure that the question about insurance is addressed by my colleagues.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) recognised that responsibility for different aspects of search and rescue sits across Government. Inland search and rescue is not within my Department’s direct policy remit. However, that does not lessen the depth of respect that we have for those who deliver these vital services, nor does it diminish the importance of recognising the practical support that Government can provide where it is appropriate to do so. It is very welcome that the APPG for volunteer rescue services is bringing the issues facing services to our attention. I am sure that the Minister with responsibility for search and rescue will respond to my hon. Friend’s kind invitation to join a future meeting.

In that context, it is right to highlight some of the tangible progress that has been made in recent years to support volunteer SAR organisations across the UK through the work of UKSAR. A significant milestone was announced in the recent Budget, as has been acknowledged in the debate: a vehicle excise duty exemption for volunteer search and rescue services. That exemption will apply to mountain rescue, lowland rescue, cave rescue, independent lifeboats and the RNLI. It is the outcome of sustained and collaborative work led by UKSAR and the all-party parliamentary group for SAR volunteers, and it reflects a clear recognition of both the public value of search and rescue volunteers and the practical costs they bear in carrying out their vital work.

Volunteer SAR organisations have also benefited from the VAT rebates introduced in 2015, which remain an important element of financial support. In addition, practical enablers are in place to assist operations on the ground, including access to radio spectrum at reduced or nil cost. That access allows teams to operate compatible communications during incidents, improving safety, co-ordination and effectiveness through the UKSAR band plan. Those measures might not always attract attention—they sound a bit techy—but they matter enormously to those who rely on them in the field.

[Jim Shannon]

First of all, I thank the Minister for those suggestions and for the direct help from Government. I know that this is not in the Minister’s remit, but I ask her to ringfence the moneys being sent to Northern Ireland in Barnett consequentials, because if they are ringfenced, they go to where they should be.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I note the hon. Member’s question, and I understand that support is provided to mountain rescue services within Northern Ireland, but that is a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly.

As a number of hon. Members have rightly said, it is important to recognise that resilience is not only about equipment or interoperability; it is about people. Search and rescue can be physically demanding, and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) mentioned a search and rescue volunteer who sadly lost his life. I certainly offer my condolences to him and his community, who will have been affected by that terrible incident. We know that it can be incredibly physically demanding work, but it can also be emotionally challenging, particularly for volunteers who balance the responsibility alongside family life and employment. That is why mental health and wellbeing principles for SAR volunteers have now been published on gov.uk, setting out expectations and guidance to support those who so often run towards risk on behalf of others.

All that sits alongside the central truth that has been reflected throughout the debate: volunteers lie at the very heart of search and rescue in the UK, and nowhere is that more evident than in mountain rescue. Mountain rescue volunteers operate in some of the most challenging conditions that our country offers: remote terrain, hostile weather, long and often complex incidents, frequently far from the spotlight and always without expectation of reward. They respond at night, in severe weather and in circumstances that demand both technical excellence and personal resilience, and many do so at considerable personal cost, stepping away from families and working lives at a moment’s notice, carrying responsibilities that most of us thankfully never have to shoulder. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), who, as has been mentioned already, volunteers with the Patterdale Mountain Rescue Team.

It is right that we acknowledge the pressures that volunteers face. As we have already heard, demand is rising, incidents are increasingly complex and volunteers are balancing that extraordinary service with the realities of modern life, including cost of living pressures and the cumulative emotional impact of repeated exposure to traumatic incidents. Those challenges are real, and they deserve to be recognised honestly and respectfully. Despite those pressures, mountain rescue volunteers and volunteer search and rescue teams more broadly continue to respond with professionalism, humility and compassion. They are not a peripheral part of our emergency response system; they are one of its greatest strengths, and they exemplify public service in its truest sense. I am proud to be here on behalf of the Minister responsible for maritime search and rescue, and I am proud of the volunteers and supporting organisations that form such an important part of the UK search and rescue community. I pay tribute to those who respond on the frontline and to those working behind the scenes to ensure these life-saving services continue to be there whenever they are needed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) asked a number of questions in support of Bolton Mountain Rescue Team, which I know does vital work in his area. I concur that Winter hill and Rivington pike offer many beautiful walking routes. He raised a number of questions about the high cost of insurance, access to rehabilitation services, and medical supplies. Although those issues are not within my Department’s remit, I will ensure that they are drawn to the attention of relevant ministerial colleagues who can write to him on those matters. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) called for greater support for mountain rescue, and I hope I have set out how the Government are responding to the needs of the mountain rescue community.

The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) represent some of the UK’s highest and most popular mountain regions. They rightly drew attention to the dangers of exploring not only the fells and ridges, but caves and quarries, particularly if doing so without proper equipment and without knowledge and guidance.

Social media does bring our wild places to wider attention, but we know that it is also leading to more people, particularly younger people, putting themselves in danger. That means that we need to look carefully at the channels that we use to ensure that safety guidance and warnings reach the people who need to see them. There is of course experience in Government of doing that—I speak as the Minister with responsibility for road safety, where we are trying to reach young men aged 17 to 24, who are particularly at risk. We are using completely different channels than perhaps we would have used in the past, because we know that we can reach them better through social media or YouTube or other methods. Perhaps the same can be applied to the sorts of warnings we are offering about the hills, mountains and caves.

I conclude by once again thanking hon. Members for raising these important issues. I thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove for securing today’s debate and giving the House the opportunity not only to debate Government support, but to recognise and celebrate the remarkable contribution of our mountain rescue volunteers.

16:06

[Lisa Smart]

We have had a particularly strong debate this afternoon. We have reminded one another that mountain rescue teams are a vital part of our emergency infrastructure, and we believe that their importance will only grow. We want our communities to be out enjoying our great outdoors, because it belongs to all of us. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) reminded us of the value of being outdoors for all of us, but also the need to respect nature.

We had a number of really excellent contributions from across the Chamber today. The hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), my fellow Greater Manchester MP, reminded us that mountain rescue teams are out 24/7 and available 365 days a year. He also raised an important point about the expiry dates on medicines. That was a very well-made point.

We had some interventions from the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) and my hon. Friends the Members for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) and for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), who reminded us of the existence of lowland rescue, the importance of the mental health of the volunteers who are involved and the burdens of the CQC regulations.

As he often does, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) brought the very important perspective from Northern Ireland. He talked about the importance of that long-term, sustainable strategic funding for rescue services. I am grateful to him.

The hon. Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) made such an important point about how, in some parts of the country, mountain rescue teams are the only emergency service working. That was an extremely well-made point.

My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale reminded us that the cost can be extremely high for those who volunteer their time and their energy, and he was absolutely right to pay tribute to Chris Lewis. I join others in sending my condolences to the whole community, because that loss will be felt keenly.

Several hon. and right hon. Members made the point about the need to have a single point of contact. The Minister here is not able to speak on behalf of all of her colleagues, which made the point very well. The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) helped me to understand the correct pronunciation of Eryri, and reminded us just how dangerous it can be to spend time in the outdoors in places that might look absolutely banging on social media but are deeply inappropriate to spend time in for someone who is not a professional and does not have the back-up.

I just want to spend a moment on the risk-taking behaviour of the Front-Bench colleagues who are here today and were able to speak from first-hand experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) got stuck up an Italian mountain, but had a very good outcome. We are delighted that he is here to join us today. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), told us that he learned his lessons in youth, and reminded us that overconfidence in youth is not a new phenomenon—it is not something that has only been brought about by social media.

The shadow Minister described those who volunteer for mountain rescue services as self-sufficient and tough. He is absolutely right to do so, but we should not rely on that sort of person and that sort of organisation to do it all for themselves. It is a real sign of strength to ask for help, so I save particular thanks for those people from Mountain Rescue England and Wales, and my local mountain rescue teams—some of whom are in the Public Gallery today—who took the time to contact me and to brief a number of Members. They have made a massive difference to our country, and I am so grateful.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for mountain rescue.

Osteoporosis and Bone Health

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Westminster Hall

16:11

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered osteoporosis and bone health.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. As a practising physiotherapist, I have seen at first hand the profound and often devastating impact that osteoporosis can have on not only the health, but the independence and livelihood of an individual and the lives of those who care for them. For too long, osteoporosis has been dismissed as an unavoidable consequence of ageing, and we have normalised the gradual stoop, the loss of height, and the curvature of the spine. We all recognise the familiar road sign depicting an elderly couple bent double, yet we rarely stop to question what it truly represents.

In reality, it is not a benign or natural process. It is often the visible consequence of repeated, preventable spinal fractures, where the bone of the spine collapses under pressure. This is not an unavoidable decline; it is, in many cases, a preventable harm.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Constituents such as Susan have suffered pain and changes to their life because of osteoporosis. Does the hon. Member share the concern of both Susan and I: that we will not see proper fracture liaison services in overlooked rural areas without a fully funded implementation plan to end the postcode lottery for these services?

[Sonia Kumar]

I believe that we should be rolling those services out across the entire country, and I will come on to that in the rest of my speech. I am sure that the Minister will also comment on that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady and thank her for the work that she did on this before she came to this place. We are very much indebted to her. Does she agree that the fact that this condition affects one in two women and one in four men over the age of 50 means that there should be greater awareness? The fact that there are some 72,000 people living with osteoporosis in Northern Ireland alone highlights the need to ensure that people know that they can do some things themselves, and that calcium and vitamin D could make such a difference to their quality of life as they age—I speak as one who is ageing quickly.

[Sonia Kumar]

The hon. Member comes to this with a lot of experience. I agree that people do not know what osteoporosis is, which is why we are having this debate. It is important to discuss what it actually is. For those less familiar with it, osteoporosis is a disease characterised by low bone mass and a structural deterioration of bone tissue, resulting in an increase in bone fragility and a susceptibility to fractures. Osteoporosis is asymptomatic and often remains undiagnosed until a fragility fracture occurs. It develops silently, without symptoms, until the moment that it declares itself—a fall from a standing height causes a fracture, or a twist or even a cough causes a low-grade insufficiency fracture. Normal stress has an abnormal effect on the bone. The bone is able to withstand the stress, but because it is of such poor quality, it then crumbles.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. I was diagnosed with pre-osteoporosis when I suffered a minor injury from playing tennis, so for the last eight years I have been taking Adcal tablets regularly. I was proud recently to welcome a new state-of-the-art physical activity hub in Bedworth in my constituency, which will help residents to stay active and stop the symptoms of conditions such as osteoporosis. I would therefore like the Minister to address how the Government will make better use of our growing physiotherapy workforce—

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

Order.

16:15

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

16:25

On resuming—

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

Order. The debate may now continue until 4.55 pm.

[Rachel Taylor]

As someone who is taking medication to ward off the progression of osteoporosis, I was delighted to welcome Bedford’s new state-of-the-art physical activity hub, which will help residents to stay active and stop their osteoporosis developing. I would like the Minister to explain how the Government will make better use of the growing physiotherapy workforce to deliver early intervention, fracture prevention and rehabilitation in the community in places such as the Bedford physical activity hub.

[Sonia Kumar]

If someone says physio, I am always going to say, “Yes, yes, yes,” behind them. I agree with my hon. Friend that we should roll out physiotherapists and the multidisciplinary teams required to help those with osteoporosis. I also thank her for highlighting the importance of taking bone-sparing medication. Many people in the UK do not take it because they do not understand its importance.

More than 3.2 million people in England now live with osteoporosis, including just over 2.5 million women. One in two women over 50 will suffer a fracture caused by osteoporosis, as will one in five men. In terms of years lost to premature mortality and disability, those fractures are the fourth most consequential medical condition in the country. At any given time, around 7% of NHS beds are occupied by patients with fragility fractures, many of them because early warning signs were missed and opportunities to intervene were lost. Behind those figures are lives changed in an instant.

It is not just older people. One young woman told me:

“I thought my bones were something I wouldn’t have to think about until I was much older”,

only to find herself dealing with low bone density in her twenties after medical treatment. Some risk factors for osteoporosis include smoking, alcohol misuse, previous fragility fractures, low body mass index and long-term steroid use. Every single one of those factors needs to be looked after. We cannot look at osteoporosis as a one-condition problem; we must look at the whole lifestyle.

Through the work of the all-party parliamentary group on osteoporosis and bone health, which I chair, I heard from patients whose stories are not easily forgotten. A woman in her early sixties fractured her wrist after a minor fall. She was treated and discharged, but no one joined the dots. Within two years, she had suffered multiple further fractures, including to her spine. She now lives with constant pain from repeated spinal fractures, affecting everything from how she breathes to how she moves.

I think of those who never recover their independence —of people who go into hospital with a hip fracture and never come home. For many, that fracture marks the beginning of the end, with over a quarter dying within one year. What unites these stories is not bad luck, and they are not isolated tragedies. They are systemic failures: a missed referral, an overlooked warning sign, treatment not initiated, and a second fracture that should not have happened. That is why it is essential that, after a first fracture, every patient is identified, assessed and supported on to an appropriate treatment plan. One fracture must not become many.

Too often, the fall that brings someone into hospital is treated as a single event, rather than as an accumulation of undiagnosed and untreated conditions. We therefore miss the opportunity to change the course of someone’s life. Through the work of the APPG on osteoporosis and bone health, I have also seen stark variations in access to treatment across the country. Prescribing rates for critical second-line therapy are three and a half times higher in areas where GPs can prescribe it freely compared with areas where there is a need for specialist referral. A report has also found that GPs in more affluent areas are much more likely to be able to prescribe freely than their counterparts in the most deprived areas.

For people in many parts of the country, the barriers do not stop at the prescription pad. When shared care arrangements are not in place and GPs cannot prescribe, patients must attend hospital for routine injections that could be delivered safely in the community. As the Government develop the neighbourhood health service, there is a real opportunity for a multidisciplinary team approach to bone health, one that includes at its heart our allied health professionals, including physiotherapists, dieticians, occupational therapists, falls teams, consultants and advanced practice clinicians. Prevention, prevention, prevention is the key. The importance of a holistic approach is essential to prevention for those who may be susceptible to poor bone health. We should help those people lead healthier lives by stopping smoking, reducing alcohol intake and increasing exercise.

Talking of prevention, I need to welcome the Government’s commitment to fracture liaison services, which are the gold standard for fracture care and play an important role in identifying, assessing and treating osteoporosis in people over the age of 50 with a fracture. FLSs reduce fracture rates by up to 40%, and will prevent 74,000 fractures over five years, including 31,000 hip fractures. FLSs are also incredible value for money, breaking even within 18 to 24 months, with a return on investment over five years of £1.88 for every £1. Preventable osteoporotic fractures contribute to 1.5 million days off sick, costing employers £142 million in sick pay.

I also welcome the new DEXA—dual energy X-ray absorptiometry—scanners that the Minister’s Department has delivered, and the Government’s commitment to ending the postcode lottery for fracture prevention services. The Minister understands the scale of what is at stake. This must be only the start of managing osteoporosis and bone health.

Looking ahead, we know that the challenges will grow. By 2047, an estimated 4 million people in England will be living with osteoporosis, an increase of more than 700,000 on today’s figures. We know the scale of the problem, we know the treatments, and we have the evidence. What we have lacked for too long is urgency. There has been clear progress, and the Minister deserves credit for that.

I have three recommendations for the Department. First, we should roll out fracture liaison services to all parts of England. We are a Labour Government, and reducing inequalities is in our blood. We pledged to end this postcode lottery by 2030, and it is crucial that we deliver that. Secondly, we should introduce questions about bone density and osteoporosis in the health check for over-40s. Such pre-emptive measures, including risk stratification, lifestyle advice and early intervention where appropriate, can help people to deal with these issues before they become too serious. Thirdly, we should introduce targeted case finding and proactive bone health management for those aged 70 and above, particularly those at high risk of falls. That should include timely access to DEXA scanning, community-based treatment pathways, and co-ordinated fall prevention to help reduce fractures and associated mortality.

Osteoporosis is not an unavoidable consequence of ageing. It is a condition that we can prevent, predict and treat, yet for too many and for too long the first sign —the fracture—is missed. We know what works and we have the tools. Under the 14 years of the previous Conservative Government, we were missing consistency, urgency and the willingness to act. If we get this right, prevent the first fracture and intervene decisively after it, and ensure equal access to care regardless of postcode, we will not only save the NHS significant cost, but preserve something far more valuable: people’s independence, dignity and quality of life.

I hope that the Minister will consider my three recommendations and meet me to discuss them further. Osteoporosis is not just a clinical issue; it is a test of whether our health system truly prioritises the long-term health of everyone across the United Kingdom, and not reactive, short-term measures.

16:35

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) for securing this important debate. She continues to work as a physiotherapist alongside her role as a serving MP, so she brings a wealth of valuable professional clinical experience and knowledge to this debate. I would be very happy to meet her afterwards to discuss her three recommendations.

I also thank her for her as the chair of the APPG on osteoporosis and bone health. As an MP for 21 years, I have done lots of work on APPGs, and I am—as I know our Chair today is—a big supporter of all APPGs. The work they do is so important and can really make changes to policy. My hon. Friend’s APPG does important work in raising awareness of osteoporosis, advocating for improvements to the care that patients receive, and promoting behavioural and system changes that are designed to strengthen bones and prevent osteoporosis.

Osteoporosis is estimated to affect more than 3 million people in the UK, and each year over half a million patients present to hospitals with fragility fractures. It is important that we acknowledge the significant impact that osteoporosis can have on individuals and their loved ones. It can seriously impact every aspect of a person’s life, as we have heard, and has a significant impact on the NHS and the wider economy. We hear too often—as we have today—of patients experiencing painful fractures that could have been prevented, of patients living in fear of having further fractures, and the impact that that has on their independence, wellbeing and quality of life. We recognise the importance of bone health and the benefits that early identification of people at risk of osteoporosis and the prevention of fragility fractures can bring.

The 10-year health plan sets out a vision for a health and care system that delivers more personalised, integrated and proactive care for people with long-term and complex conditions, including osteoporosis and other musculoskeletal conditions. More tests and scans delivered in the community, better joined-up working between services and greater use of technology will all support people in the management of osteoporosis. The neighbourhood health service, supported by the neighbourhood health framework that we published last month, will ensure that people can better access care that is joined up, personalised and designed to proactively meet their needs. Initiatives such as Diagnosis Connect will also directly refer patients to specialist charities at the point of diagnosis for personalised advice, information, guidance and support.

Resources are already in place to help support healthcare professionals in the early diagnosis of osteoporosis, such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical knowledge summary on osteoporosis and the prevention of fragility fractures. The Royal College of General Practitioners also has an e-learning module for GPs on the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis, developed in collaboration with the Royal Osteoporosis Society—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley was telling me that she was the chair or the president of the society.

[Sonia Kumar]

indicated dissent.

[Mrs Hodgson]

It must have been another body—I am giving her jobs that she has never had.

That e-module is designed to support the early diagnosis of osteoporosis by highlighting which groups are at higher risk of osteoporosis and fragility fractures.

Progress is being made on increasing early diagnosis and management of osteoporosis. Last year, more than 16,000 extra bone density—or DEXA—scans were delivered compared with the previous year, but we recognise there is still much more we can do. That is why on 1 March, the Government announced funding for 20 new DEXA scanners across England, supported by £2.4 million of investment. Tens of thousands of patients will benefit from faster access to bone scans as a result, and it will help ensure that people with bone conditions, such as osteoporosis, get diagnosed earlier.

Fracture liaison services can play a vital role in reducing the risk of refracture, improving quality of life and increasing years lived in good health, which is what we all want to see. The Government and NHS England support the clinical case for services that help prevent fragility fractures and support the patients who sustain them. We are committed to rolling out fracture liaison services to every part of the country by 2030. Integrated care boards remain well placed to make decisions according to local need. The renewed women’s health strategy published last week sets an expectation that ICBs prioritise community-based models when commissioning new fracture prevention services.

However, we need to be honest about the scale of the action needed, the challenges faced across the health and care system, and that change will not be possible overnight. Musculoskeletal community services have the longest waiting lists of all adult community services in England. We know that patients, including those with osteoporosis, are waiting too long for care and treatment, and that needs to change.

To support people with MSK conditions, such as osteoporosis, to access services when they need them, we are delivering the “Getting it right first time” MSK community delivery programme, which is working to transform MSK community services, reduce MSK community waiting times, improve data and metrics, and implement referral pathways to wider support services. As part of a major transformation of the NHS under the 10-year health plan, patients with MSK conditions, such as osteoporosis, will also soon be able to bypass their GPs and directly access community services, including physiotherapy, pain management and orthopaedics, in the NHS app.

The landmark change will deliver faster treatment for the flare-up of existing conditions, while enabling GPs to focus on more complex cases, reducing pressure on hospitals and freeing up GP practices. As we have heard, osteoporosis affects around one in three women, compared with one in five men. We know that women are at greater risk of osteoporosis due to the decrease in oestrogen production at the menopause, which accelerates bone loss.

Since 2022, two new drugs have been recommended by NICE for the treatment of osteoporosis in post-menopausal women. I was so glad to hear the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), who said she had taken some of those new medications. They help to strengthen bones and prevent bone loss, reducing the risk of fractures. The renewed women’s health strategy published last week sets out our ambition to support healthy ageing, maintain independence and improve quality of life for women, while also reducing avoidable pressure on hospital services.

Turning to work and health, the Government are committed to supporting disabled people and those with health conditions, including MSK conditions such as osteoporosis, with their employment journey. We therefore have a range of specialist initiatives to support individuals to stay in work and get back to work. We are joining up health and employment support around the individual through the WorkWell programme, MSK hubs, the MSK community delivery programme, and the individual placement and support in primary care initiative. Measures also include support from work coaches and disability employment advisers in jobcentres, and access to work grants.

We also recognise the benefits of physical activity in improving bone strength and reducing the risk of fractures. We are exploring ways to expand access to MSK physical activity hubs in the community, enabling the delivery of evidence-based physical activity interventions for individuals with MSK conditions. By aligning with employment support at local level, this project will seek to improve both health and work outcomes for people with MSK conditions, such as osteoporosis, while prioritising those experiencing unmet MSK health needs and living in areas of deprivation, with the aim of addressing health inequalities.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley again for securing this important debate and all the work she does in this area, and I thank other hon. Members for being present and for raising insightful points during the debate. I hope hon. Members are reassured by some of the measures I have outlined. I recognise that we must go further, but I reaffirm the Government’s commitment to support the millions of people in the UK who are living with osteoporosis to ensure that they get the support they need, including improved diagnosis and management. I look forward to meeting with my hon. Friend.

Question put and agreed to.

Car Insurance Industry: Fraud

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Westminster Hall

16:46

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of fraud in the car insurance industry.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. Before I start, I thank the Minister; the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier); and my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) for being here to respond to the debate. This issue cuts across several Departments, and my main ask is for a co-ordinated response to it across Government.

I will touch on many types of fraud in the car insurance industry, but I want particularly to draw the Minister’s attention to paid ad spoofing, which came to my attention after a constituent fell afoul of the scam. Because their case is yet to come to court, I cannot give any specifics of it—I can reassure you, Ms Lewell, that I have checked the content of my speech with the Clerks—but it is typical of the problem.

On its website, the Association of British Insurers describes paid ad spoofing as follows:

“Paid Ad Spoofing involves scammers who use paid advert spoof websites to appear at the top of search engines usually to trick drivers into thinking they will be directed to the website of the genuine insurer. Scammers target motorists when they’re most vulnerable after road traffic accidents. When a driver uses their smartphone to start initiating a claim from the roadside, they may be directed to the website of an unscrupulous firm instead of their insurer. Scammers will ask for personal details to provide ‘support services’ and potentially make a claim. They use psychological tactics to befriend, reassure and pressure victims, while all the time collecting personal information for financial gain.”

Let us imagine a scenario: you are driving along in a blame-free manner, and some idiot pulls out of a side road and hits you. It is unfortunate, but these things happen. Nevertheless, you are very shaken up. You both pull over and agree to swap insurance details. If your car is not moveable, you will need to arrange for it to be towed away. You do not have your insurance details on you, but you know the company you are insured with, so you google their phone number. You see your insurance company and its logo at the top of the results. You ring and you get through to someone who sounds very sympathetic, and they arrange to tow your car away.

Over the next few days, you are repeatedly in touch with them. They convince you that you need to hire a car, they sort out your repairs and they send you paperwork to sign for all those things. At no point do they tell you they are not your insurance company, but the reality is that they are not, and the fees that have been racked up for the tow truck, the repairs and the car hire are potentially excessive. They may also have invited you to see a doctor, maybe in a hotel or other obscure location, and convinced you that there is a valid claim for whiplash or other injury as well.

What is the problem with all this? Basically, behind the fake ad is an organisation that will claim for all these costs in a court case, based on the fact that it was not your fault. If they lose that court case, you are on the hook for the exorbitant costs. On top of that, you will have had an accident and failed to tell your insurance company, and there are potential legal ramifications of that as well.

I have been shocked to find out that there are qualified solicitors working for no win, no fee firms involved in this type of scam. These firms are fully registered with the Solicitors Regulation Authority. How can that possibly be ethical? It is clearly dishonest, and for that reason I would argue it is barely legal.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is setting out an extraordinary situation. I want to draw her attention to another real challenge facing drivers: collisions with people who are not insured. Uninsured drivers cost the economy £1 billion a year, and they are disproportionately likely to be involved in collisions, speeding and hit-and-run incidents. That is why I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill last year to increase penalties, and I was delighted to see the Government take up that call for action in their road safety strategy. Is the hon. Lady aware of the massive issue of uninsured drivers, as well as the scams she is reporting on, and does she welcome further action on it?

[Helen Morgan]

I am aware, because I was once hit by an uninsured driver. It is incredibly stressful not knowing how to get the car fixed and whether it is going to be written off. I was very young and did not know how I was going to afford to deal with that problem. I welcome any measures to deal with uninsured drivers. At the heart of this issue is the fact that insurance fraud is not a victimless crime. The victim is put through an extremely stressful time, and everyone else pays through higher premiums. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue.

Let me return to my point about solicitors, who are supposedly bound by the ethical codes of their regulator. I am a chartered accountant. In every profession, there are individuals who let us down from time to time, but there are clearly described ethical standards to which members of our organisation should adhere. We must undertake annual training on spotting problematic ethical situations, which for an accountant may not always be clearcut.

I know that other professional bodies have a similar approach to this issue—yet a solicitor can work for a firm benefiting from this type of scam activity, and the firm might be fully registered with the Solicitors Regulation Authority. I argue that the SRA needs to up its game, because those individuals are bringing their profession into disrepute, seemingly with the blessing of the organisation that is supposed to uphold standards. Will the Minister have conversations with her colleagues across the Government to deal with this problem? Surely, people in this country should be able to trust a legal professional, and the Government should be taking steps to ensure that the profession has its house in order.

There is a related point: the websites and search engines that host these paid ads are clearly designed to defraud and mislead. When will we hold the tech companies to account for the content that they host? Surely, they should have a duty to do a basic level of due diligence on the ads they place at the top of their search results. The online world is a free-for-all, where some of the most powerful companies in the world absolutely disregard basic levels of morality so long as they are paid. What can be done to introduce some sort of regulation to crack down on fraud and prevent it from happening in the first place—essentially, when it is perpetuated online? The only people who are not paying anything are the owners of the companies that host the problem.

As I said in response to the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), fraud is not a victimless crime. In the case of motor insurance fraud, every driver is paying in the form of increased insurance premiums. When someone is the victim of a scam, they are left shaken, with their confidence knocked, and potentially significantly out of pocket too. My constituent is a retired professional. The realisation that they have fallen victim to a scam has had a profound effect on their self-esteem.

Paid ad spoofing is not the only type of motor insurance fraud. I thank the ABI, Aviva, Admiral and the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers for getting in touch in advance of this debate and providing briefings. Fraud remains the single greatest threat facing the UK, accounting for about 44% of all crime reported in England and Wales. It continues to pose a serious and systemic challenge to the insurance industry, and ultimately to honest motorists and consumers who are forced to pay the price.

In 2024 alone, £1.16 billion of fraudulent general insurance claims were identified, which was a further increase on the already staggering £1.14 billion detected the year before. Motor insurance remains the area most affected, with insurers uncovering more than 51,700 fraudulent motor claims worth £576 million. That is 5% higher than in 2023 and represents more than half of all detected insurance fraud.

The ABI has written to me to say that insurers are investing heavily to tackle the problem. Its members spend more than £200 million each year to combat fraud, including funding the Insurance Fraud Bureau, which leads the fight against organised insurance crime, and the insurance fraud enforcement department in the City of London police. Unsurprisingly, motor insurance fraud is the most prominent focus of investigation and enforcement activity. However, I argue that, in the case of paid ad spoofing, where there are properly registered firms clogging up the courts with excessive claims that could have been sorted out through the normal insurance settlement process, those organisations are operating in plain sight. I urge fraud specialists to investigate that.

Other types of fraud are equally serious. One of the most concerning trends is the rise of ghost broking, which is a crime where fraudsters sell fake or invalid car insurance policies to unsuspecting customers. Criminals obtain policies using false information to reduce premiums, then manipulate documentation to make those policies appear legitimate. The consequences for their victims are severe. Many believe that they are fully insured, only to find that they hold no valid cover under UK law. That often only comes to light when they are stopped by the police or attempt to make a claim following an accident. Drivers caught without valid insurance face vehicle seizure, potentially unlimited fines and even driving bans. Victims are then left to cover repair costs themselves and find new insurance, often at a much higher premium.

Although ghost broking was once carried out face to face, social media has transformed its reach. Fraudsters now routinely target people online, with younger drivers particularly at risk. That group are more likely to seek cheaper insurance options and engage with sellers via social media platforms. The scale of the problem is deeply concerning. Data published by Aviva in November 2025 shows that ghost broking cases have risen by 22% over the past two years. Almost one in three people surveyed reported buying car insurance through social media, and 84% of those who purchased a fake policy online suffered serious negative consequences, including police intervention and identity theft.

On average, those victims lose around £2,000, excluding the additional costs of fines, vehicle seizure, legal consequences and higher future premiums. That is a heavy burden to place on people who believed they were just doing the right thing. Again, the social media and online companies who host those adverts are the only ones not paying the price. I repeat my concern that this area is effectively unregulated.

As I have said, fraud is not a victimless crime. It drives up premiums for everyone and leaves individuals facing financial and legal consequences through no fault of their own. Tackling it effectively requires robust enforcement, proactive investigation and a willingness to change harmful practices wherever they occur, particularly when they are happening in full view of the system.

In the interests of time, and because many of them have been well rehearsed over the years, I have not touched on the other types of fraud for which we all must pay: fake claims, orchestrated crashes and even inflated claims, which large numbers of people admit to even though it is a criminal offence. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, particularly regarding the unethical practices of some in the legal profession and the steps that can be taken to prevent online giants helping to perpetuate this problem. I particularly look forward to her describing how we can look at this problem across Government, because I fear that it is falling between the stalls of the various Departments that have an interest in it.

16:59

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is again a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. We are going for a hat trick this afternoon, and we are on a roll.

I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for allowing me to come and highlight the pressures my constituents are facing. I thank her for her incredibly detailed speech. I will give some stats for Northern Ireland—I always give a Northern Ireland perspective—so that hon. Members understand why the issue of fraud in the car insurance industry is so important to us.

We are often told that the high cost of living in Northern Ireland is a product of global markets or unavoidable inflation, but there is a hidden tax on our driveways: a fraud premium that every honest motorist is forced to pay. Fraud is not a victimless, white collar crime; it is a systemic crisis that is pricing our citizens—especially our youth—off the road.

Let us look at some of the cold, hard facts from Northern Ireland. The 2025 Police Service of Northern Ireland annual report showed that motor insurance was the single largest motoring offence group detected in the last year. We are talking about 6,453 detections—17%, or nearly a fifth, of all motoring offences in Northern Ireland, which gives hon. Members an idea of the problem. Behind that number are thousands of people who think it is acceptable to drive without valid cover or to lie on an application to save a few pounds, but saving a few pounds for the individual means a massive loss for the collective—for everyone else.

Across the United Kingdom, motor insurance fraud is a staggering £576 million industry—that is massive. In practical terms, it adds roughly £50 to every single one of our premiums. That is £50 stolen from our pockets by ghost brokers on social media, those who front the policies and those who stage crash-for-cash scams. The situation in Northern Ireland is particularly dire. Although England and Wales have seen some reforms, we remain a litigious outlier. A shocking 40% of claims in Northern Ireland reach the courts, compared with just 3.5% here in the mainland. The environment of high legal costs and high settlements creates a perfect storm for fraud to thrive.

The real victims are not the big insurance corporations, but our young people— people such as my grandchild, who is just starting to drive. As of January 2026, the average premium for a young driver in Northern Ireland is £1,470. That is for third party, fire and theft; fully comprehensive insurance is over £3,000, with a black box—a box in the car that tells the company if the person is doing something they should not be doing. If they do something they should not be doing, their insurance is withdrawn. Those are the second highest premiums in the whole of the United Kingdom, surpassed only by London. We are effectively telling our young people and students that mobility is a luxury that they can no longer afford, because we have not clamped down hard enough on the dishonest few.

We cannot continue to treat insurance fraud as a victimless shortcut. It is not—the stats tell us that. In Northern Ireland, many young people want to drive but find that the premiums are too expensive, never mind the cost of the car. It does not matter how expensive the car is; if they get third party, fire and theft, the whole cost is in their insurance. That is a drain on our economy, a burden on our police and a direct tax on the honest driver.

I believe, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire said, that it is time for stricter enforcement, better education and a refusal to accept that fraud is just part of the system. The Government must prosecute to the fullest extent of the law all those who have broken the law and who have driven up prices for law-abiding citizens. We must also stop the insurers from capitalising on this through higher premiums, but that is a debate for another day.

17:04

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I genuinely thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing the debate. I will confine my remarks to ghost broking, which she referred to. I gave a speech on that subject at the Association of British Insurers last year, and I have a keen interest in it, given that I had a career in counter-fraud.

The first point that I want to make is about the nature of the phantom protection that consumers so often receive when they purchase ghost car insurance cover. I am increasingly concerned about the use of AI in fabricating insurance documents. They look genuine to many consumers, so we really must ensure that there is consumer awareness around such uses of AI.

I am also concerned that, with ghost broking in particular, there are some instances where it is operating at scale. It is not just the product of a few rogue actors operating from their basements, or something like that; often, it is a systematised attack used by organised crime groups to target vulnerable groups. I will talk next about what I see as systemic predation and the predatory behaviour of some of these ghost brokers.

Let us imagine a young driver, aged about 17 or 18. They might have a little C1 or another small car, something with a 1.0 litre engine, and they might have their very first job after leaving home—a job that they depend on for their way of life and livelihood. They need that car to get to work. We all know about the very high premiums that young drivers face, so many of them unfortunately fall into the hands of ghost brokers. They face many different losses: not only the loss of their premium but, if they were to unfortunately become involved in an accident, the consequences for their personal finances. The effect of uninsured driving is very much a double whammy, especially for young drivers in such circumstances.

We heard from the hon. Member for North Shropshire that these ghost brokers increasingly operate on social media. I really believe that the Financial Conduct Authority can go further, with Ofcom and some of the social media platforms, to call out that behaviour. There is a conversation to be had about the verification process that social media platforms go through when they receive advertising revenue. Those platforms—be they Meta, TikTok or whatever—should not be making money from ghost broking ads.

The ABI was spot on in trying to create greater consumer awareness of this problem. I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to join me in saying a very common Yorkshire phrase: “If it’s too good to be true, it probably is.” That really applies to many of the policies sold by ghost brokers. The ABI has called for greater consumer awareness of the risk of ghost broking, and I encourage my hon. Friend the Minister to join me in supporting that call today.

I am concerned about the statistics from the ABI that show an upward trajectory in ghost broking—for example, there has been a 22% increase in ghost broking over the last couple of years. In addition, there are over 50,000 motor insurance scams, worth half a billion pounds in total, and up to half of all fraudulent claims could feature some aspect of ghost broking. Really staggeringly, around three in 10 young drivers have purchased insurance from illegal sellers on social media, and the average loss per victim is around £2,000, even though an annual premium is obviously less than that. This means that, for many years, many drivers have been going about on the roads uninsured.

The final issue with ghost broking that I want to talk about is the “second wave” that I have heard about anecdotally from those in the sector. Once the ghost broker is there, then, like a vampire, they have got their victim and they steal some of their identity. They then resell that identity, or part of it, for the purposes of identity theft later on. Not only have uninsured drivers, including young drivers, bought the ghost broker’s policy—that is, they lost their premium and have been uninsured; they may even have been in an accident or whatever—but some years down the line, they might become a victim of identity theft too.

We must have a conversation about having a specific offence of identity theft. Although this does not relate to car insurance, I will briefly tell Members the story of a constituent who served abroad in the armed forces and who had his identity stolen. He found out that mobile phone contracts had been taken out in his name, and I worked with him to get his credit file back on track and to get some of this expunged—some of the credit reference agencies were very slow in righting this wrong.

In the end, there was no financial loss to my constituent, but it had a big impact on his life. He was serving overseas and his credit file had been wrecked; when his partner then found a perfect family home for them, he unfortunately realised he could not get a mortgage. He had come back from deployment, and he knew he would be in the UK for a year or two, so he wanted to use that time to settle into a family home. That was his dream—he had been apart from his girlfriend for some time—but he could not do that because his credit file had been wrecked. I had to sort that out with him, and it was all the consequence of his identity having been stolen.

Identity theft is not a victimless crime. It is particularly acute when it comes to car insurance, but we must tackle it in all its forms. As part of the next iteration of the Government’s fraud strategy, I would welcome a specific offence of identity theft. The Computer Misuse Act 1990 is a broad vehicle according to some of the police I speak to, and it would be beneficial to have a specific offence of identity theft.

[Peter Swallow]

At the start of his speech, my hon. Friend mentioned the involvement of AI in this. That issue was raised with me by the Thames Valley police roads team, which said it is now quite possible for uninsured drivers to use AI to generate a fake insurance document at the roadside, and in that way to prevent the police from tackling this crime. I detect that my hon. Friend may know more about this than me, so I encourage him to say a little more about it before he wraps up his excellent speech.

[Mr Charters]

I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that example. Large language models can be in one’s pocket, and such documents can be generated even without internet connectivity. When I was in the counter-fraud sector, I used some of the AI models that criminals had in order to create hypothetical, fabricated documents. My team created some of those documents—bank statements and identity documents—and showed them to me alongside real documents—and I, an experienced fraud practitioner, could not tell the difference with my eyes. We are now having to use digital tools to detect AI manipulation; sometimes the eye of the beholder is insufficient to detect that a document has been fabricated by AI. As a fraud practitioner, one has to stay one step ahead of the fraudsters. I invite the police to think about how they could do that, using AI themselves to detect documents fabricated by AI.

It has been a hearty discussion today. I call on the FCA to work closely with Ofcom and social media companies to quickly put a stop to the revenue connected to many of these ads, because that would curtail a lot of this activity. We have to have much greater verification in place when it comes to ads relating to insurance, and the social media platforms have to do something very simple: check that the originator of the ad is actually registered by the FCA.

I hope that some of these straightforward calls can be answered, and that the Minister will join me in saying that if something is too good to be true, it probably is. We need greater consumer awareness when it comes to car insurance fraud more generally.

17:14

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing the debate. The cases she referred to make the point that everybody’s insurance premium is going up as a result of this terrible activity.

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of fraud within the car insurance industry more broadly, and not just ghost brokers, which have been referred to already. I want to look at this issue through the lens of a constituent’s case that is all too real.

In July last year, Nicholas, from Cullompton, had his Škoda Octavia parked outside when another driver reversed into it. The damage was noticeable, but it was fairly minor: a golf ball-sized dent to the bumper and a cracked number plate. The car had been knocked forward no more than 12 inches from where it was parked.

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

Order. Could the hon. Member reassure me that there are no ongoing legal proceedings in relation to the case he is referring to?

[Richard Foord]

Yes, I can.

The car was damaged, but thankfully the third-party driver did exactly the right thing: they came forward immediately with no dispute, no exaggeration and no injury. Like anyone else in this situation, Nicholas contacted his insurance company to arrange for repairs, and the insurer appointed a mechanic from a local partner in Exeter, who took up the job.

At the mechanic’s premises, Nicholas signed a form allowing a visual inspection of the car. There was no need for the car to be taken apart, so he was shocked four days later to be sent photos of his car in pieces, with parts having been stripped off. What should have been a simple repair job ended up being a nightmare for Nicholas and his wife, who were provided with a suspicious inspection document marked up with supposed football-sized dents that did not exist.

Nicholas and his wife were told quite bluntly that the car was a write-off and that it was destined to be scrapped. That raised alarm bells for Nicholas, as he knew there was nowhere near that much damage and he had taken photos at the time of the incident to prove it. He told the mechanic who brought him the document that whoever had made the assessment needed their eyes tested. In response, the mechanic chuckled and said he could only tell him what he had been told.

Nicholas was running out of options, due to the insurance company’s refusal to hear him out, but he wanted to save his car from the scrapyard enough that he got in touch with my casework team. When we got in touch with the insurer, it was suddenly prepared to arrange for a second opinion. The independent assessor found that the car was indeed not a write-off and could be repaired; in fact, they revealed that the original assessment, which had amounted to £3,600, included a respray of the bonnet and the replacement of a towbar—Nicholas was not aware his car even had a towbar. Following that second opinion, the cost was reduced to less than £2,000—much less than the initial estimate. Nicholas is still driving his Škoda today; it is unaltered, roadworthy and in much the same condition as when the insurance company claimed it needed to be scrapped. He will continue to do so for the next four or five years, and good on him. My car is approaching its 20th birthday next year and has 207,000 miles on the clock.

So what went wrong for Nicholas? Well, at best this was negligence, but at worst it raises troubling questions about incentives in the system. Are insurers or their contractors advantaged financially by declaring vehicles to be write-offs? Do customers face premium increases simply for having a write-off claim on their record? And why was the insurance company so willing to challenge my constituent when his extensive photographic evidence ought to have been enough?

Nicholas pursued those questions through a complaint to the ombudsman; after four months of chasing, he was merely offered £100, with no comment regarding the case. By its own admission, the ombudsman is plainly overburdened, but delay and process congestion cannot justify failing to interrogate in this case.

The insurer was Saga, whose slogan is “Experience is everything”. My constituent’s experience tells of his own saga—a saga of insurance companies deferring to third-party contractors and of customers pressured to submit false classifications. We need greater oversight to ensure that insurers properly audit the firms they commission. There must be greater transparency around write-off decisions, including mandatory disclosure of financial incentives tied to total-loss classification. We must ensure that the ombudsman has the resources and the duty to examine evidence rigorously.

This debate is plainly not about one car, one insurer or one constituent. If practices like this are occurring across the country, we must act to restore trust in the system, because everybody’s insurance premium will otherwise be pushed upwards.

17:20

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under you this afternoon, Ms Lewell, and I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this important debate. We have heard quite a lot of depressing stories about how people have been scammed and ripped off, and all colleagues will agree that more needs to be done to tackle fraud and spoofing in the car insurance industry.

Whether it is crash-for-cash scams, ghost broking or paid ad spoofing, our constituents are all being ripped off on so many levels; not just the cost itself, but the increase in insurance premiums. These practices are also harming the insurers and our wider financial services industry. The Minister will therefore agree with everyone in the room that more needs to be done to tackle this problem, but I hope she will reflect on colleagues’ comments about whether the Government are actually going far enough to tackle it.

To give some context, fraud is a threat that is becoming more prevalent every year. In 2024, fraud accounted for 44% of all crime reported in England and Wales, with about £1.16 billion of fraudulent general insurance claims identified. On the car insurance industry specifically, a 2024 report from the Association of British Insurers said:

“Motor insurance continues to be the area where insurers see the most illicit claims occurring, and they detected 51,700 motor scams worth £576 million.”

The ABI’s data suggested that that accounted for 53% of all fraudulent claims that year. It is safe to say that there is an issue that needs to be rectified, that we need to do more to protect our constituents and that we need to work closely with the industry to resolve this issue.

The thrust of this debate is paid ad spoofing, which is a very problematic but less well-known practice affecting the car insurance industry. According to the ABI, four in five people have never heard of it, so it is welcome that we have the opportunity to discuss it and raise its profile today. As the hon. Member for North Shropshire set out, paid ad spoofing is when fraudsters mimic legitimate businesses. They pay for ads to appear in search results when a customer searches for a legitimate service.

In the context of car insurance, the ads usually refer to unscrupulous claims and accident management businesses, and tend to relate to those who have been involved in an accident. As Direct Line states, the practice relies on

“the fact that in the aftermath of an accident, you might not be as vigilant as you’d otherwise be, searching quickly on your mobile and clicking on the first option you see.”

Fundamentally, these organisations are relying on a consumer believing they are dealing with their own insurer. They then arrange various services that the consumer’s insurer would provide, adding more cost to the process. This is all done with the aim of recovering costs from the insurer, but if the insurer challenges the charges, the drivers are the ones left to pick up the bill.

Understandably, those affected—such as the constituents of the hon. Member for North Shropshire—feel ripped off, and the companies that pretend to support them are actually exploiting them. The last Conservative Government understood that, which is why we instructed the Financial Conduct Authority to become responsible for claims management companies in 2019. As a result, firms must be authorised by the FCA to carry out their activities, and repeated violations will result in their authorisation being removed. It also means that customers can escalate complaints to the financial services ombudsman.

However, I understand that accident management activities are currently unregulated, so will the Minister outline whether the Government are considering regulating those activities of claims management companies? I would also be grateful if she could provide an assessment of the resolution process for customers, and whether she thinks improvements need to be made.

The other central issue is how these practices are allowed in the first place. Fraud is often complicated and involves many different actors. Consumers and insurers have a part to play in tackling it, but the actors, such as technology firms and social media platforms, should also bear responsibility; after all, they are the delivery mechanism for this fraud.

We should acknowledge that some technology firms have taken action, and Google is a good example. In 2021, it required companies advertising financial services to demonstrate that they are authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority, which is a positive step. But more needs to be done, and we need a joined-up approach.

The Government’s fraud strategy was an opportunity to do that. Although it is broadly welcome and recognises the role of technology firms in tackling fraud, not one of its action points requires change from them. Could the Minister set out why that decision was taken and what steps she is taking to ensure that responsibility is correctly allocated when it comes to fraud?

Fraud in the car insurance industry is a serious issue, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Shropshire for bringing it up. Fraud in general is becoming an issue of national security, and we need to get a handle on it. The Government should continue working with all actors to stop these practices, and we will support them when they try to do so. Consumers also need to remain vigilant to these practices.

I conclude by flagging to my constituents in Wyre Forest the current advice on how to avoid paid ad spoofing. First, people need to check the website’s URL to ensure that it is their legitimate insurer. Secondly, they should save the phone number on their insurance policy document to their telephone. Thirdly, if people are unsure about who they are speaking to, they should hang up and check their insurance details—caveat emptor.

17:25

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing the debate and highlighting the impact that fraud can have and the devious tactics that fraudsters use. She also spoke about the interplay between those issues and the legal profession. I will address the people who run such platforms later on. I also want to thank other Members who contributed to this thoughtful and important debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters), as well as the shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord).

Car insurance is not a luxury; it is a legal requirement. For many businesses and families, it is essential to daily life, whether taking children to school, getting to work or caring for relatives. As has been said, fraud undermines confidence in the motor insurance market. It causes direct harm to consumers and drives up costs across the system. Those costs are ultimately paid by people who do the right thing by driving with insurance, as the hon. Member for Strangford rightly highlighted.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell pointed out that some drivers—far too many, in fact—do not get insurance, but drive regardless, which is a criminal offence. I regret to say that between 2019 and 2024, the cost of claims involving uninsured drivers increased by a huge 37%. As my hon. Friend said, that increases premiums for everyone else. The Government are considering how, in the light of its seriousness, the penalties should be strengthened for that offence. I hope that he can take from what I have just said that the Government take fraud extremely seriously.

Fraud is the largest crime type in the UK. It harms individuals and businesses, as well as costing our economy billions of pounds each year. It is increasingly driven by organised crime and enabled by technology, as hon. Members have highlighted. That is why fraud is a national security priority for this Government, and we will do what we must to protect the public. In honouring our manifesto commitment, the Government published the new and expanded fraud strategy in March, as we have heard. The central focus of the strategy is disruption: denying criminals the ability to commit fraud in the first place by targeting the tools and methods they use to reach victims. That means acting across the system of Government, law enforcement, regulators, financial institutions, technology companies and telecoms providers, because no single organisation can tackle fraud alone.

As part of the strategy, we are investing £31 million in a new online crime centre that will bring together the Government, law enforcement, GCHQ and industry to identify and address the technological enablers of fraud and deliver high-impact interventions. In practice, that means better data and real-time analysis so that we can identify patterns earlier and take faster action. That could mean taking down fraudulent websites, disrupting malicious advertising networks or supporting the freezing of accounts linked to fraud. Alongside that, we have launched a call for evidence on economic crime information sharing. We want to remove barriers that can prevent firms and agencies from acting on intelligence earlier so that suspected scam activity can be identified and stopped before more people are harmed.

Let me turn to paid ad spoofing and fraudulent advertising, which was raised by the hon. Member for North Shropshire. The Government recognise that paid-for advertising is being exploited by criminals to reach potential victims at scale. Spoofed ads are designed to look like they come from trusted brands, insurers, brokers, comparison sites and even public bodies. Those are particularly pernicious examples. As the hon. Member noted, they can be highly convincing. Indeed, to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer, they look too good to be true. They can appear at the top of search results and be targeted at people precisely when they are looking for help, as the shadow Economic Secretary explained.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer talked about ghost broking. My statistics might well be worse than the ones that he read out, because my understanding is that the Insurance Fraud Bureau thinks that ghost broking increased by 50% in the last two years. Whatever the exact statistic, there is a serious increase in the crime. My hon. Friend also highlighted a troubling example of identity theft and pointed to the links between ghost broking and follow-on activities. The story that he told was hard to hear.

All these things are not just consumer issues, but significant questions of responsibility and liability in the online ecosystem. If criminals can buy their way into prominence through paid advertising, we must ensure that the systems that place and profit from those adverts do not turn a blind eye. That is exactly why the Online Safety Act 2023 places duties on the largest social media platforms to tackle fraudulent adverts on their services. Ofcom is due to consult on those measures later this year. Once implemented, Ofcom will have the power to take robust enforcement action when it finds non-compliance, including fines of up to £18 million or 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is greater.

The Government have also launched a new partnership between the Home Office, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and industry: the online advertising taskforce. The purpose is to strengthen and maximise the adoption of transparency standards across the wider programmatic ecosystem so that bad actors can be identified, disrupted and, when appropriate, prosecuted. That work will report back in early 2027, and the Government have been clear that we will take legislative action within this Parliament if there are not sufficient improvements.

The hon. Member for North Shropshire and the shadow EST referred to claims management companies and legal professionals who associate themselves with such companies, and the links between them and car insurance fraud. The Ministry of Justice leads on elements of that agenda but, in some areas, the Financial Conduct Authority has responsibility. I hope the hon. Member will be reassured by the fact that there is ongoing dialogue on the issue between His Majesty’s Treasury and the MOJ to determine what might be done in this area. I hope she will agree that that addresses some of her important points.

I want to address specifically the link between online fraud and car insurance. Insurance fraud is a serious issue for all the reasons that I have noted, and it has been well covered in this debate. However, it has an interaction with online criminality. The spoofed ads that are used to harvest personal data, misdirect consumers to fake brokers and facilitate scams ultimately feed wider fraud, particularly serious forms of money laundering. The Government are working closely with the industry, regulators and consumer groups to close the gaps that criminals exploit. I should add that the FCA is alive to the issue of ghost broking and is looking into it specifically.

In October 2024, the Home Office launched the insurance fraud charter with key insurance firms to reduce insurance fraud. The charter supports stronger collaboration and shared action to prevent, detect and disrupt fraud, because the more effectively we tackle fraud at source, the more we protect consumers and the integrity of the market.

More broadly, the Government’s motor insurance taskforce, which published its final report in 2025, included actions for regulators, industry and the Government to tackle fraud, given the unfortunate role that fraudulent activity plays in increasing claim costs and, in turn, premiums for all consumers.

It is also important to be clear about the wider framework that supports this work. Financial institutions are required to maintain robust systems and controls to detect and prevent financial crime under the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017. Banks must report certain suspicious activity to the National Crime Agency under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and they may also freeze and block accounts if suspicious activity is detected. We have also recently introduced new rules allowing banks to delay and investigate suspicious payments for up to 72 hours, which supports the interception of suspicious payments, giving firms more time to prevent funds from reaching fraudsters in complex cases and helping to break the spell that fraudsters have over victims. As we have set out in the fraud strategy, we are reinforcing the system-wide response through the Online Crime Centre and improved information sharing so that suspected scam accounts can be spotted sooner and action taken more quickly.

I do not pretend that tackling fraud is simple. Fraudsters adapt quickly, and technology, including some of the technology that we have been talking about today, moves very fast, but the direction of travel is very clear. We are shifting from a reactive model, picking up the pieces after harm occurs, to a disruption model that targets the infrastructure that criminals rely on, including the online advertising routes they use to reach victims.

Through our fraud strategy, the Online Crime Centre, strong action on fraudulent advertising via the Online Safety Act, and further work through the online advertising taskforce, backed by a clear commitment to legislate if necessary, we are taking decisive action to protect the public and disrupt the criminals behind these crimes.

I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire again for raising these important issues. I reiterate that the Government recognise the importance of car insurance to people’s lives and livelihoods, and we are determined to tackle the fraud that drives up costs for honest motorists.

17:35

[Helen Morgan]

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this really interesting debate. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), as always, gave us a perspective on Northern Ireland and the eye-watering impact that the practice has there, particularly on young people. I know Northern Ireland is very rural, so I have some experience of how that feels. People are dependent on their cars, so the problem has a disproportionate impact on his area.

The hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) brought his professional insight into the issue of ghost broking and raised a number of additional issues, which really helped the debate along. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) highlighted some of the issues around subcontractors used by insurance companies.

I also thank the Minister, the shadow Minister—the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier)—and the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) for their really encouraging responses. I think everybody is on the same page in taking this issue seriously. The problem is that fraudsters are always one step ahead, but I look forward to seeing the results of the Government’s various measures. In particular, we will look at the interaction between the legal industry and the online industry—for want of a better word—and at how we can keep people safe from their instinct to trust what they can see when, all too often, that is not trustworthy and has been placed there by bad actors.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of fraud in the car insurance industry.

17:39

Sitting adjourned.