Contribution
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.