Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

Keir Mather Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I am beyond grateful to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for bringing this debate to the Chamber; I am sure you agree, Sir Alec, that it has been a useful one informed by honest exchanges. I want to be clear with hon. Members and with the CROs who I know will be watching the debate about how we got to this moment and what happens next.

For those observing the debate who might be wondering exactly who we have been talking about, let me briefly explain who coastguard rescue officers are. Put simply, they are the people who are there when we need them most. They are the modern face of a volunteering tradition that goes back to the early 20th century. CROs could rescue us or our loved ones if we are trapped in rising water. They rescue people trapped on cliffs, stuck in mud or struggling in our seas. They also manage helicopter landing sites and assist the police in searching for missing people. They persevere through some of the most traumatic experiences imaginable, recovering people who it has not been possible to save in order to afford them proper dignity and respect. In short, they are some of the most selfless people in our country, and I personally thank them all for their service.

[Mr Carmichael]

I am grateful to the Minister for his recognition; I am sure that his words will have been heard and appreciated. Some 17% of CROs are now members of the GMB. The threshold for voluntary recognition by the agency would be 10%. As a Labour Minister, does he agree with me, a Liberal Democrat, that this would be a good moment for the MCA to recognise the GMB as a union for CROs?

[Keir Mather]

I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution and for the points he made earlier, which I will address. I am pleased to say that I have met the GMB and spoken to it about the increase in its membership resulting from this decision, and I am happy to work with it on an ongoing basis. The right hon. Member’s suggestion speaks to a recognition of worker status. I will identify later what I believe are some drawbacks of that approach, but he is welcome to intervene again at that point to address anything else.

I want to address some of the specific points that have been made. First, let me pick up on what the right hon. Member said about not being allowed to meet in his coastguard centre, which I find very concerning. That was echoed in a couple of comments by hon. Members across the Chamber, and I would be grateful if they could share those instances with me so that I can form a fuller picture of those experiences when they occur.

The right hon. Member spoke specifically about the impact on his rural and island constituency—a point that was made eloquently by many Members of Parliament who represent Scottish constituencies. A CRO in this country volunteers an average of three and a half hours a month, but many will volunteer 35 hours a month, especially in rural or island constituencies where they have to respond to the frequent call-outs that the right hon. Member described. I am very cognisant of that disparity, but also of the differences in experience that underpin how CROs are approaching this matter.

The right hon. Member raised serious points about consultation and engagement from the MCA. We take complaints incredibly seriously and have well-established processes and policies in place to review and investigate concerns. He mentioned sharing some anonymous testimony with me, and I would be grateful if he did so.

My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) mentioned death in service and injury benefit. The CRS injury benefit compensation scheme is for volunteers. It provides and, importantly, will continue to provide compensation for loss of earnings where a volunteer member of the CRS is injured or develops an illness or disease as a result of an authorised duty. That includes provision for compensation for dependants in the event of death. I am glad that my hon. Friend has allowed me to put that point on the record.

My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) asked a specific question about HMRC disturbance allowances. I am happy to take that away and write to her on the specifics. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) is right to point to the fact that, although CROs work on a volunteer operating model, these are people responding to emergency situations who wear the badge of a Government agency and do phenomenal work, and they should be perceived as such. In that sense, she is right to say that it does not do justice to the scale of their contribution.

A number of points were made about how the retained firefighter model could map on to CRO status. The work of retained firefighters has a number of characteristics that might cause severe complications for CROs were the model to be mapped across, which hon. Members should be cognisant of. Retained fire service people are employees; it is important to bear in mind that they have contractual limitations, such as to live a certain distance from the station. They also have to respond within five to seven minutes, depending on the station, to an emergency. That would create very a different system around mutuality of obligation for the CRS. Those are important considerations to bear in mind.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked specifically what engagements have taken place, so I will list them for him. I know that there has been a debate about whether the engagement goes far enough, and about the character of the consultation, but for the benefit of the record, there have been two town halls, a virtual meeting, a recorded video and five updates on CRS online, alongside a pattern of regular engagement on other issues such as equipment assurance, training, exercising and post-incident follow-up.

Another important issue that was raised is the modelling of the potential impacts. An impact assessment combined incident demand, CRS survey data, demographic and employment information, and financial analysis to identify where potential reductions in CRO availability are most likely to occur.

[Jim Shannon]

I know that the Minister is responsive to our requests, so will he take the time to speak to the regions, particularly Northern Ireland? We have the same issues, but we sometimes feel at a distance.

[Keir Mather]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about CROs across the United Kingdom feeling that their voice is heard. I will take that point away and ensure that it informs my engagement going forward, but, for the benefit of the House, I want to speak a little more about the modelling of potential impacts.

The risk assessment also focused on which workforce groups may be most affected and where any resulting loss of capacity would pose the greatest risk to operational resource and service delivery. The individual circumstances of CROs are diverse, and it would not be possible to model all the possible ways that 3,000 people could respond to the changes. Since the announcement was made, 29 CROs have left the service. Three of them stated that they did so because of the change, although that is not to say that others did not do so, nor that they have not reported it—I would not want to argue that. I hope that that information is useful.

The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) and others made broader points about operational resilience. I reassure them that His Majesty’s Coastguard has contingency plans and measures in place and continues to draw on the full UK search and rescue system, including aviation assets, the RNLI and independent lifeboats.

Turning back to the situation we face today, as many Members will know, on 14 January the Court of Appeal handed down a judgment that changed the status of CROs. For many years, the MCA provided the option of hourly remuneration to recognise the impact of such important work. I note that such an arrangement was not, and is not, typical for the voluntary sector. Although not all CROs chose to claim that remuneration, because the MCA had provided regular payments to CROs following call outs and because the remuneration was beyond reimbursement for their expenses, the court deemed them to be workers under the Employment Rights Act 1996.

That judgment has fundamentally changed the nature of the role of CROs. Those who had signed up on the basis that they were volunteers and could be a CRO alongside their primary employment are now suddenly classed as workers, meaning that they could be subject to liabilities and responsibilities that they did not sign up for. To be clear on what the change could mean, worker designation could push CROs into new tax brackets or put them in breach of primary employment contracts, if they are not allowed to undertake other paid work. We have worked hard and expressly to avoid those threats to people continuing to work as CROs. The judgment clarified the law, which must now be upheld.

[Brendan O’Hara]

As the Minister knows, the changes of duty will come into place in September. He will be aware of the feelings of Members across this House and their opposition to the changes. The Department for Transport has the power to suspend the change; it does not have to take place. Will the Minister take the opportunity to suspend the change to allow meaningful negotiations to take place, rather than bulldozing the change through?

[Keir Mather]

I am committed to continuing to engage with CROs, trade unions and Members of Parliament on that important issue. The risks I just outlined around worker status exist now and it is important to consider that ahead of any implementation date, irrespective of whether that is in September, later in the year or at some other point. I will come back to the specific point about timing at the end of my remarks.

If we believe that CROs should retain the right to remain as volunteers, the existing model of remuneration cannot legally stay the same. I reassure Members that my officials and I have worked tirelessly but, regrettably, at this stage we have been unable to identify any legally robust option to continue payments beyond out-of-pocket expenses. Any alternative would carry a high likelihood of further legal challenge and could still be judged to be creating a wage/work bargain. Any carve-out would require new and complex primary legislation that would take far longer to implement than the immediate action that the judgment demands. I sincerely wish there were, but there is no simple solution to this situation.

[Steff Aquarone]

Might I gently suggest that it would be easier for colleagues to understand the Government’s conclusions on this advice if we were able to see it? Would the Minister consider placing a copy in the House of Commons Library, along with the two surveys that I believe were undertaken?

[Keir Mather]

I have heard the hon. Gentleman’s point. I will have a conversation with my officials about what is appropriate to share with MPs, who I know are doing their level best to represent their constituents in this difficult matter.

[Andrew George]

All the Minister’s points apply to retained firefighters. He cannot say that we cannot appropriately transpose that framework agreement between the MCA and CROs simply because they have to be called out within five to seven minutes. Those kinds of details can be altered simply by using the framework. If it is possible in the case of retained firefighters, there is no reason why it cannot be transposed to the CROs.

[Keir Mather]

Those considerations and how they would affect the lives of CROs are not immaterial, although I know that the hon. Gentleman is not saying they are. It is my understanding, although I am happy to be corrected if this is not the case, that to transpose that relevant scheme into a wholly different part of the voluntary sector would have primary legislative implications. We would need to work through them; it could not be done simply by wishing to do it.

I have set out why the MCA was compelled to accept the court’s judgment. Having done so, it needed to take immediate action to comply. Based on operational judgments and the desire to continue to preserve the important volunteer model, the recommendation was to move to a pure volunteer system that paid expenses, so that CROs did not have to choose between being a CRO and their primary employment. That was never a perfect decision, but to do nothing was not an option. As that decision has been communicated to CROs, it is only natural too that it would not and could not be a perfect fit for all who serve, which has been powerfully articulated today.

In the time since the decision was made, I have listened to and reflected on the points made by colleagues, including during this debate. I understand the very real concerns that have been raised about the potential impact of this change on the operational capacity of the coastguard rescue service. I hope that I have gone some way to addressing those concerns, but it is important to recognise that the alternative—moving to a worker model—would require a fundamentally different model and would likely lead to CROs having to leave the service, which would not in itself necessarily guarantee response capacity.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Will the Minister give way?

[Keir Mather]

I am afraid that I will not take any more interventions; I have to get through my remarks.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

It is about impact assessments.

[Keir Mather]

I have given way plenty of times.

This is a complex challenge that we must all work through together. We do not want employers to be unable to continue to support their employees to volunteer. We do not want to see CROs tangled in a mire of employment obligations that make the choice of going to a rescue a difficult one. We all understand that the court judgment changed the legal status of CROs, and that treating people who signed up to be volunteers as workers does not necessarily solve the problems they face, and in fact could create many new ones, but we also all recognise the tremendous contributions of these volunteers. We have heard powerful testimonies about the sacrifices that they make day in, day out.

I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for allowing these issues to be so comprehensively discussed, and fellow Members for their excellent points. I assure them that the debate has resonated strongly with me. I will reflect on what has been raised and I will consider in the long term how our coastguard volunteers can be recognised. I have heard the deep concerns of the CRO community, and I want to carry on working with them, trade unions and colleagues across the House in the future to work through these issues. I thank everybody for their contributions today.