Mountain Rescue

Debate between Helen Maguire and Lisa Smart

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.

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

Debate between Helen Maguire and Lisa Smart

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

We have had an extremely powerful debate. I will address a number of the points raised, but I want to start by talking about how the revelations of recent weeks and months have been shattering for the British public and deeply, deeply distressing for many of those directly impacted.

We have listened to the gut-wrenching stories of abuse endured by vulnerable women and girls. We were reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) that we are, in many cases, talking about children. We have learned of the arrogance and cruelty of rich, powerful men who felt that no rules applied to them and who made a mockery of our values and laws. We have seen laid bare the hollowness of a political establishment that was manipulated so easily and that treated state secrets like cheap gossip.

Public trust has been catastrophically undermined by the Epstein saga, and we are now at a crossroads in our public life. If Parliament does not act with courage, faith in our institutions will suffer even more permanent harm, and they will remain under intense public suspicion and unease. To start to repair the damage, we must uncover the full and unvarnished truth. Critical to that process is demanding that every relevant Department comes clean and shares what was known about Mountbatten-Windsor’s appointment as special representative for trade and investment. What concerns were raised ahead of his appointment, did his suitability come into question, and what risks were identified throughout that process? The British people deserve to know what behaviour was tolerated, and by whom.

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

On that point, I have been contacted by a constituent who played a public role in the middle east. They said that during their time in that role, they had to go through incredible checks—background checks and so on. Does my hon. Friend agree that the release of these files would enable us to see whether the same background checks that are applied to citizens like us in public life are applied to the royal family?

[Lisa Smart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention, and to her constituent who has contacted her about that important point. My view, and the view of the Liberal Democrats, is that we should get to the bottom of how this role was created and the vetting that was done before the appointment, in order to understand the extent—or lack of extent—of that vetting. If somebody is being paid from the public purse, they should be held to an extremely high standard and there should be transparency about their role and the creation of that role, so I very much agree with my hon. Friend.

The public deserve to know whether sections of their Government at the time put in place systems to shield Mountbatten-Windsor from accountability, even at a cost to the national interest. Of course the police must undertake their work unimpeded, and of course anybody who has committed a crime should face justice if they are found to have committed that crime, but a police investigation—no matter what prosecution it leads to—is not enough. It is essential for the strength of our constitution and our social fabric that we go further and clean up the broken system that facilitated this scandal in the first place.

Call for General Election

Debate between Helen Maguire and Lisa Smart

Monday 12th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lisa Smart]

No Government is perfect, but I am immensely proud—and will be to my dying day—that some of my friends in a same-sex relationship can get married, when they were not allowed to do so under the previous Labour Government. I am immensely proud—I say this as a school governor for 20 years—that the kids who need the most support get it through the pupil premium. And I am immensely proud, that that showed that a grown-up, consensual coalition Government can work. The hon. Member will know—I am sure he read Alistair Darling’s budgetary plans in the run-up to the 2010 election—that the then Labour Government planned to cut more than either the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives. So although I did not agree with everything the 2010 to 2015 Government did—no sane person possibly could—I am proud that we delivered what so many people wanted and needed. There is always work for every Government to do.

The million or so members of the public who signed this petition, including 1,987 of my Hazel Grove constituents, are calling for a change via a general election. They are feeling frustrated and disappointed that this Government have failed to deliver the change that they promised at the 2024 election.

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

In my constituency of Epsom and Ewell, more than 1,500 people have signed this petition; I hear regularly on the doorstep how disgruntled and frustrated they are. They are tired of working so hard and barely making ends meet. Although the Conservatives left a complete mess, Labour has simply not delivered either. People are not any feeling better off. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must grow the economy? A great way to do that would be to have a bespoke customs union with Europe.

[Lisa Smart]

I am delighted that I am not going to be the first Liberal Democrat to mention a bespoke customs union with the EU. I strongly agree with my hon. Friend on that point; it is the biggest single lever that the Government could pull to boost growth in our economy.

Recently, we have seen the Government U-turn—rightly, in some cases—including on the family farm tax, following 14 months of calls for change from farmers, the Lib Dems and others. That has been alongside U-turns on winter fuel and benefit reform, to name just two others. I understand why a million people are underwhelmed. The Government have introduced a growth-crushing jobs tax that has stretched their manifesto pledge not to raise income tax on working people. As a result, jobs are being lost, economic growth is flatlining and the Government are not showing a clear enough vision to get us out of this mess.

While the Government now increasingly acknowledge that Brexit has been detrimental to economic growth, they have failed to take sufficiently meaningful action to address that reality. The figures are stark. According to the House of Commons Library, as of 2025 Brexit is costing British tax payers £90 billion annually in lost tax revenue. That is billions of pounds not funding our public services. The Government must move beyond merely attributing blame on Brexit and begin implementing solutions.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) mentioned, we Liberal Democrats are urging the Government to negotiate a new UK-EU customs union, which could raise more than £25 billion annually for the Exchequer. A customs union would be the most effective means of dismantling trade barriers and stimulating economic growth. We must be far more ambitious in securing the best possible arrangements for UK relations with the EU—our largest trading partner.