Mountain Rescue

Debate between Tim Farron and Ben Maguire

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Westminster Hall

[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.

Farming and Inheritance Tax

Debate between Tim Farron and Ben Maguire

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron]

I am going to crack on now and not take any more interventions because, with help from Members on either side, I have already taken up nine minutes of this place’s time.

I want to give the House a final run-through of some of the consequences of the terrible failure of the Conservative Government on farming. In the last five years alone, livestock farm incomes have dropped by 41%. Year on year, there has been a drop in sheep numbers of over 4%, and a 6% annual drop in the number of dairy farms. We lost 440 dairy farms last year alone. So that is where we are, and that is before we get into trade deals or the attack on rural services, healthcare and dentistry. I am also going to quickly make a reference to Brexit because, without a doubt, our leaving the European Union and the terrible deal that the Conservative Government signed us up to have had the biggest impact of all on agriculture.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you would think that the new Labour Government had a massive open goal in front of them, given what they inherited from the Conservatives. They had a massive open goal, with no goalkeeper between the posts, but somehow the ball ended up in row Z. I find it almost impossible to countenance how they have managed to fluff that opportunity.

I want to talk about two people in my constituency who gave me a really useful insight into the family farm tax in the last couple of days. Both of them gave me four separate case studies. The first was a land adviser who talked to me about four farms. Their story was about shrinking businesses as a result of the family farm tax, and about the potential reduction in the value of land, which would mean that they would not be able to invest in their businesses and there would not be the tax yield that the Government were banking on. Another, a local accountant, gave me four anonymised case studies of local family farms in my communities. Of those family farms, only one was earning above the minimum wage, and three were earning significantly below the minimum wage. In those four cases, two would have to sell parts of their farm and two would have to sell their entire farm to pay the inheritance tax.

The next question is: who would those farms be sold to? The hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) spoke a moment or two ago about the proportion of farmland being sold into private hands, into private equity and so on. Farms will go into those hands even more—as if a neighbouring farmer is going to buy that land when they are in the same predicament.

We are seeing hard-working farmers, on less than the minimum wage, having to sell off their land to private equity. Is that a very Labour thing to do? The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) spoke about Labour not getting the working class in the countryside, and this is a perfect example. It is not too late for Labour to learn.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

It seems clear that, as with the winter fuel allowance changes, the Government have missed their target here. As my hon. Friend rightly says, it seems obvious that large landowners will have the ways and means to avoid this tax. Does he agree that there should be some form of working farm test?

[Tim Farron]

Yes, and the Government should have been thinking about these things. We heard from the Minister that lots of planning and diligence went into this before it came out of the Chancellor’s mouth on Budget day, but it does not feel like it, because there is a whole range of issues that could have been considered in advance.

There is something that will do more immediate harm to farming than even the inheritance tax changes, and that is the Government’s decision to summarily reduce basic payments by 76% in a single year. This will have a direct impact, in particular, on tenant farmers who rely on that money and will end up missing their rent payments. We will see evictions as a consequence.

The Government have trumpeted the £5 billion over two years, which my basic maths tells me is £2.5 billion a year. I am always careful, or nervous, about making confident predictions, particularly in this place, but my confident prediction is that they will not spend that budget. If the basic payments are cut by 76% without the new schemes being up and running to replace them, the Government will not spend that money. By underspending, this Government will end up in the same mess as the last one.