Mountain Rescue

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Westminster Hall

[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.