Lisa Smart MP: speeches

Speeches

• 8 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Stephen Yaxley-Lennon has publicly thanked the donors who funded the recent Unite the Kingdom marches, which needed a significant police presence. We have heard mention several times this afternoon of equality before the law, so does the Home Secretary agree that the laws regarding the reporting of donations, both from the UK and from overseas, apply to members of all political parties equally?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Rail Freight · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman has, in his customary way, championed the needs of his constituents and the whole of Northern Ireland. I agree that rail freight is a very good thing of which there should be more. I am very keen to hear what the Minister has to say.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Rail Freight · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the role of rail freight in the transport network. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. Compared with many other aspects of the transport network, rail freight rarely gets the attention I feel it deserves, yet it can help us to achieve so much of what so many of us say we want for our communities, our economy and our planet. From cleaner air and less congested roads to building new homes and a more resilient economy, rail freight is not a niche industry concern but a national infrastructure priority. The Tarmac site at Bredbury in my Hazel Grove constituency receives daily freight trains carrying construction materials from the Peak district, North Yorkshire and south Wales. I was lucky enough to be invited to visit last year and don my hi-vis. What struck me was how tangible the benefits were. I was joined by Huw Merriman from the Rail Freight Group and Chris Swan, among others, from the great team at the Tarmac facility. A single train delivery to that site can provide enough materials to build up to 30 new homes and, in doing so, removes around 60 HGV movements from the A6 and the surrounding residential streets. That is 60 fewer lorries on roads that my constituents use every day to get to work, school or the shops. The north-west is one of the busiest regions in the country for rail freight. Aggregates move daily from Peak district quarries through my constituency and beyond. Container trains run on the west coast main line bound for Scotland, Trafford Park and Seaforth in Merseyside. Those flows matter not just to the industries that depend on them, but to every driver who would otherwise be sharing a road with the lorries that would replace them.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Rail Freight · Hansard source

  More

  I am glad the hon. Gentleman raises the question of those working in the rail freight industry. It is vital to all of us that those employed in the industry have safe and sanitary working conditions. We should applaud the work they do to keep the industry going. In the UK, we have consistently prioritised passenger services, and freight is often squeezed around and between them. The fundamental problem is the speed differential. A freight train typically runs at 60 to 75 mph, a limit set in the 1960s and barely reviewed since, while inter-city passenger trains run at 100 to 125 mph. That gap consumes enormous amounts of capacity. The Netherlands recognised that problem and built the Betuweroute, a dedicated freight-only railway completed this century, running directly from the ports of Rotterdam into Germany and relieving pressure on the existing network. We have no equivalent. The second barrier is electrification. Nearly all rail freight in the UK is diesel-hauled. That is partly because our electrification coverage is derisory but also because electricity costs have perversely led some freight operators to switch back from electric to diesel traction. The west coast main line north of Warrington has inadequate power supplies for the current level of traffic. That is another reason why a lot of freight, and indeed the new London-to-Stirling Lumo open-access passenger service, is diesel rather than electric. In relative terms, even though the costs are not that high, agreement from the Treasury would be needed, and as far as I understand has not yet been obtained. It makes no sense for diesel trains to run on electrified railways because of power supply constraints. The third barrier is signalling. Modern digital in-cab signalling, also known as the European train control system, makes far better use of existing infrastructure by creating uniformity in how trains brake and accelerate. It is planned as part of the TransPennine route upgrade, but there is no clear roll-out plan more widely. Would the Minister confirm whether there are any additional plans to use that form of signalling in other parts of the train network? Rail freight supports our supply chain resilience, as it reduces road damage by replacing HGVs that cause disproportionately more wear on road surfaces than any other vehicle, but it also reduces congestion and supports key industries such as house building, which receives key supply chain components through rail freight. The materials needed to deliver the homes this country needs can move by rail at scale in a way that road haulage simply cannot replicate without adding to the gridlock on roads running through my constituency like the A6, Bents Lane or Stockport Road. The Lib Dems are committed to a national freight strategy. We want planning law to be changed so that new developments provide freight access to manufacturing and distribution facilities, building the infrastructure for a modal shift in the economy rather than trying to retrofit it later. For that strategy to work effectively, we also need a network that can accommodate rail freight. Freight operators need guaranteed access to train paths. They need capacity on the network to be actively planned and protected, not squeezed out incrementally as passenger demand grows. The Railways Bill creates Great British Railways, providing it with a duty to reserve capacity for its own services. Without explicit protections for freight, there is a real risk that freight corridors will be eroded over time. As currently drafted, the Bill could dilute the regulatory oversight of network capacity allocation in ways that could entrench the prioritisation of GBR’s own passenger services over private sector freight operators. The Government should be setting ambitious freight growth targets within GBR’s remit and outline plans on how to achieve them. That is why I urge the Minister to ensure the creation and protection of strategic freight corridors. There are also opportunities for improvement in my constituency. Enabling infrastructure works at Ashburys and Ardwick via Northern Powerhouse Rail would enable the much-needed tram train services to Marple. I would welcome the Minister’s assessment of how the Northern Powerhouse Rail programme can support freight and passenger ambitions in the north-west. Rail freight is already quietly doing a great amount of work every day in communities across the country. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about how the Government intend to match that ambition with action.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Rail Freight · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend gives yet another tourist advert for the beautiful area he represents. He is right that long-term thinking about investing in our infrastructure for our environment, our communities and our economy is good and sensible. That work with Kernow Connect sounds interesting and worth further exploration. As we continue to push towards net zero, as we must, that gap matters enormously. Moving freight off the roads and on to rail should be a core part of our decarbonisation programme, but we face several barriers to improving our rail freight network, and I am keen to hear from the Minister about the Government’s plans to address them.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Rail Freight · Hansard source

  More

  I agree on the importance of rail freight infrastructure. It really matters that the lines are in place and able to be used. I will talk about capacity and the importance of having dedicated rail paths for freight. I do not know the line the hon. Lady mentions, but perhaps I can visit her beautiful part of the world on my summer holidays.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Rail Freight · Hansard source

  More

  I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The way he lays out the scale of the impact of rail freight on his constituency and the neighbouring area shows its importance. I will come on to a couple of suggestions for the Government that I hope will address some of his point. Rail freight provides clear environmental benefits compared with the alternatives. Even when diesel-hauled, a freight train produces around 76% lower carbon emissions per tonne-kilometre than a lorry on the road. That figure improves dramatically with electrification, as electrically hauled freight cuts emissions further still, while also consuming far less track capacity because electric locomotives accelerate significantly better than diesel ones.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Rail Freight · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point about the positive impact that good rail freight infrastructure can have on passengers. We should not look at the two as separate entities; they work together and use some of the same infrastructure. More rail freight means fewer wagons on the road, so it is better for all passengers, whether in cars, wagons or on the railway. As has been shown, this goes beyond my local area. Rail freight prevents 7 million HGV journeys every year across our nation, according to the Rail Freight Group. That means less wear on our roads, because HGVs cause disproportionately more damage to road surfaces than any other vehicle. The cost of that falls on all of us as taxpayers. It also means less congestion on already overstretched routes, resulting in cleaner air in the towns and villages that lorries would otherwise have passed through. Rail freight can deliver real benefits to real communities, and we are still not using it nearly enough. According to independent research by Deloitte, rail freight currently contributes £2.5 billion in economic and social value to the country each year. Yet, according to the Rail Freight Group, the UK moves only about 7% of its freight by rail, which is less than half of the European average of 19%.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Rail Freight · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the hon. and learned Member’s insight based on his local understanding, and I strongly agree. For the Government to look at the whole of our rail infrastructure, not just that sitting on these islands, would be good for our economy, our environment and how we relate to our European neighbours and partners. We are moving more goods than ever across the country but the share going by rail is barely shifting, and we are falling further behind our European neighbours.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I thank members of the ISC and the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) for their work on this matter. I acknowledge again the women and girls who found the courage to come forward about the abuse that they endured at the hands of rich and powerful men. As we continue to discuss this matter, we must remember that those women are owed justice. When Peter Mandelson was appointed, UK Security Vetting advice was overridden. The then permanent secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office suggested that he was subject to constant pressure, and there is a line in today’s files suggesting that senior people expressed interest that the vetting process go smoothly. Given the Minister’s repeated assurances that there was no pressure from Government relating to vetting, what does he think that line refers to? We now know that Cabinet Ministers were privately praising and flattering Mandelson from before his appointment all the way until after his dismissal. Senior Ministers showed a staggering lack of judgment. Will the Chief Secretary explain why so much business relating to one of the most controversial public appointments in recent years appears to have been conducted over WhatsApp? It was private, informal and outside the official record. Government by WhatsApp, which the Lib Dems have continually called for an end to, must end, because informal messaging outside official channels creates accountability gaps that should trouble us all. Does the Chief Secretary agree that Government by WhatsApp must come to an end? Documents released today display concerning evidence that Peter Mandelson lobbied Ministers on behalf of his clients. That would appear to be a serious breach of the code of conduct for the other place, yet an initial reading of the files seems to suggest that many Ministers were pliant and responded warmly to him. Will the Minister confirm whether any Ministers reported their concerns about this seemingly egregious lobbying? The Government have outlined their plans for the removal of peerages Bill. At first glance, it is a narrow and woefully unambitious Bill that completely fails to rise to the moment. Will the Minister outline what it will take for the Government to make meaningful reforms to the second Chamber? Senior Cabinet Ministers asked Mandelson for advice on a range of issues, despite many of those issues falling outside the scope of his role. Issues of how we run this country stretch far beyond this scandal. The ministerial code, which should strongly inform the conduct of those who hold the highest offices in the land, continues to exist as guidance rather than the law. Ministers who breach it face no legal consequences. The Prime Minister can choose whether to act on the findings of independent advisers, which means that accountability is optional, and it is far from clear what consequences follow when rules are broken. Will the Government use this moment to bring forward legislation to enshrine the ministerial code in law?

• 19 May 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  This House did not pass the motion on the Humble Address so that Ministers could decide, four months later, which inconvenient information they would prefer that Parliament did not see. Given the ISC’s concerns that the Government are redacting information far too broadly, we must ensure that the Government are not just withholding documents and information from Parliament on their own say-so. Every day this pantomime drags on, public trust erodes further. Parliament asks for transparency, Epstein’s victims deserve justice and the public deserve answers, not redactions. The point is not that any Member of this House wants a junior civil servant’s personal data to be published, but that it is not the Government’s decision where the line is to be drawn. Given that documents on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s trade envoy role are also due to be laid before this House shortly, will the Minister confirm that he will personally ensure that those are produced without redaction, too?

• 19 May 2026 · High Speed 2 Reset · Hansard source

  More

  Before being elected to this place, I was a member of the independent panel for the community and environment fund and the business and local economy fund for HS2, which was responsible for disbursing funding to communities disrupted by the building of a whacking great railway line. Communities rightly and understandably get grumpy when large-scale infrastructure projects affect their communities but there is no obvious benefit to them—a railway line goes through, but there is no station for them to benefit from. What assurance can the Secretary of State give the House that she is looking at what can be learned positively from what has happened with HS2, and in particular at how we can strengthen and make clearer the link between community benefit and large-scale infrastructure projects when the immediate benefit is not obvious to those communities?

• 28 Apr 2026 · International Parental Child Abduction · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) on securing this important debate. I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak on an issue of such importance to many families across the country and beyond. Since being elected to this House, I have been approached by constituents whose situations have made it impossible for me to look away. I have met parents who have written to me asking for support so that our legal system will protect them and their children. Some parents have had their children moved by the other parent; others have fled violence. That includes two of my Hazel Grove constituents whom I will not name, because they are going through active legal cases. One of those parents fled Australia, and the other Poland, with their children because of domestic abuse and coercive control from their partners. In one case, the abuse was proven in court and it was so substantial that the other parent’s parents—the grandparents of the children—intervened. They felt that the children should be removed from that country for the safety of the children and this parent. Yet these families have found themselves caught in a legal framework that has not accounted for what they were living through and fleeing. The 1980 Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction was built on a sound principle: that a child who had been wrongfully removed from their country of habitual residence should be returned promptly. In the vast majority of cases, that is absolutely the right outcome, and the convention has served many thousands of families well over the decades. But the convention was drafted in 1980, and in the intervening 46 years our understanding of domestic abuse and many circumstances that had not been considered in the initial drafting of the legislation has changed enormously. I am very grateful for the work of the Hague Mothers, who have helped me to understand some of the issues around these cases. They are campaigning to end injustices caused by the 1980 Hague convention on international child abduction, particularly for mothers fleeing domestic abuse. I am also very grateful to constituents who have been to see me—both the “abductor” and the other parent, whose children have been abducted. The convention was originally aimed primarily at abducting fathers and was designed to ensure the quick and safe return of the child. However, there has now been a shift, and about 75% of the parents who are brought before the courts are mothers, with at least 75% of cases involving allegations of domestic abuse. No two families are the same, and no two cases can be identical, but it cannot be beyond the wit of humanity to find a way through with the interests of the children at its heart. The convention provides three defences against returning a child, one of which is that doing so would expose the child to “a grave risk” of “physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.” On paper, that sounds like an adequate safeguard. In practice, it has not always proven sufficient. If the abuse has been targeted not at the children, but at the other parent, that is where the legal wrangling can come. It has long been argued—the evidence bears this out—that one of the convention’s most significant shortcomings is that it failed to anticipate that some so-called abductors could be domestic abuse victims fleeing their abusers. A parent—often but not always the mother—who escapes to this country to protect themselves and their children from violence should not find themselves faced with a legal mechanism that treats them as a wrongdoer. Yet that is precisely the situation too many find themselves in. The challenges do not end there. When a child is taken to a non-convention country, which has not signed up to the Hague framework, the remedies available are even more limited. In those cases, it may be necessary to pursue legal proceedings in the country to which the child has been taken. For any parent, that prospect is daunting. Under section 1 of the Child Abduction Act 1984, it is a criminal offence for a connected person to take a child out of the UK without the appropriate consent, but there is no equivalent offence when someone takes a child abroad with consent and refuses to return them. That was identified by the Law Commission in 2014 and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead mentioned, it has taken until the Crime and Policing Bill to begin to address it. I welcome the legislation before Parliament to close the loophole, but the delay is worth noting because it has caused real harm to real families. I also want to raise the situation in Scotland, because the law there operates differently and creates significant disparities in the support available. Due to differences in criminal law, many parents whose children are wrongfully removed from Scotland cannot access the same assistance from the police as those in England and Wales. Police Scotland’s powers to prevent abduction are more limited, and some individual cases demonstrate with painful clarity the human cost of that inconsistency. I will turn briefly to the family court, because any discussion of international child abduction must acknowledge the domestic legal backdrop against which such cases are heard. A report published last year by the Public Accounts Committee made it plain that family court services were not operating as they should. Regional disparities are wide, waiting times are excessive, and too many children endure prolonged uncertainty when what they need is resolution. The Liberal Democrats have long called for meaningful reform. We are heartened by the results of the child-focused courts pilot, which saw significantly faster resolution of cases, with the backlog in pilot areas more than halved. The child-centric approach of the courts focused on the best interests of the child, rather than on adversarial process. That is exactly what the family court should embody. We welcome the decision to expand those courts across England and Wales. We will continue to hold the Government to account to ensure that roll-out is effective and that the benefits of the pilot are reproduced nationally. International abduction cases do not remain neatly within domestic borders; they require international co-operation, diplomatic engagement and, where the Hague convention does not apply, a willingness to pursue legal routes in foreign jurisdictions. The Government should ensure that resources, legal aid and consular support are in place to help families navigate those processes. Too many parents are left to do so without adequate assistance. The Liberal Democrats are therefore calling for the Crime and Policing Bill’s provisions to close the “consent to retain” loophole to be passed into law without delay. We want a serious review of the disparities between Scotland and the rest of the UK, so that all children receive the same standard of protection. We want to see the expansion of child-focused courts delivered with the rigour and resources needed to realise their potential. We want to see the Government ensure that parents facing international abduction—in particular those fleeing domestic abuse—have access to proper legal support and are not left to navigate complex cross-border legal systems alone. The law exists to protect children, and when a child is taken from a parent, or when a parent is forced to flee violence with a child in tow, our legal framework should be capable of reaching the right outcome. That means being honest about the limits of international conventions, updating domestic law where it has fallen behind, and ensuring that the family courts are fit for purpose.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chief Secretary for advance sight of his statement. The women and girls who spoke out against Jeffrey Epstein and those connected to him did so at enormous personal cost. We must never lose sight of the fact that their bravery is the reason we are having this conversation at all. The Prime Minister promised honesty, integrity and accountability. Instead, we have a tawdry saga of a political ally waved through despite serious security concerns, a senior civil servant forced out, and a Government who have descended into recrimination and infighting rather than dealing with the very serious issues the country faces. Parliament asked for transparency, and the public deserves answers. Every day this drags on, trust in our institutions erodes further. Even though Lord Mandelson has stepped away from the House of Lords, will the Government bring in formal legislation to revoke his peerage? Will the Chief Secretary confirm whether the Government plan to bring in further legislation for much-needed reform of the other place? The deputy Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), asked in business questions on Thursday about potential further redactions made on grounds other than national security or international relations. Will the Chief Secretary confirm that there have been no redactions in what he said will be sent to the Committee by the end of today? It has been reported that the Prime Minister is set to whip Labour MPs to oppose his referral to the Privileges Committee. Even Boris Johnson did not block his MPs from voting for scrutiny. Labour MPs must surely be given a free vote and not be forced into feeling like accomplices to a cover up. Will the Chief Secretary confirm whether Labour MPs will be whipped on tomorrow’s vote or not?

• 23 Apr 2026 · Ministerial Code · Hansard source

  More

  At Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, when asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), the Prime Minister failed to deny that he knew that his team were lobbying for a head of mission role for Matthew Doyle, and that they were doing so with his authority. Under the ministerial code, he has clear duties of transparency to this House. For No. 10 to ask the Foreign Office to find a plum diplomatic job for another Labour mate who was friends with a convicted sex offender, let alone to then keep it secret from the Foreign Secretary, is completely shocking. The Prime Minister has shown another catastrophic lack of judgment. Will the Minister ensure that an inquiry is launched by the Cabinet Secretary to determine who did the lobbying and why, and what the Prime Minister knew and when?

• 23 Apr 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I am here subbing for my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean), who, as has already been mentioned, welcomed his new daughter late last Thursday. I am very pleased to tell the House that mum Gemma and baby Lyla are both doing very well indeed. Yesterday, the Public Accounts Committee published a report that raises serious concerns about the resilience of the new hospital programme. This project has already been riddled with delays and spiralling costs, and it now faces further risk from a volatile global economy. The Office for National Statistics inflation figures, which were also released yesterday, add to the concerns, as they confirm what many feared: “Trumpflation” is having an effect on our economy. UK prices rose by 3.3% in the 12 months to March, driven largely by the biggest increase in fuel costs for over three years—a direct consequence of Trump’s reckless war in Iran and the effective closure of the strait of Hormuz. Capital infrastructure projects, such as the new hospital programme, are acutely vulnerable to exactly that kind of supply disruption and inflationary pressure. In my area, Stepping Hill hospital already faces a £130 million repair backlog, crumbling buildings, flooded corridors and years of broken promises. Will the Government make time for a debate on the impact of global economic instability on UK investment and public infrastructure, and on their plan to ensure that patients, including those depending on hospitals such as Stepping Hill, are not left waiting even longer for the facilities they need?

• 23 Apr 2026 · National Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  Earlier this year, the NATO Secretary-General said: “We are not at war, but we are not at peace either.” Trump’s reckless war in Iran has shown how vulnerable our country is to external shocks, while Putin’s imperial ambitions pose a once-in-a-generation threat to our security and our way of life. The UK is not resilient or prepared enough for future shocks and threats. We have seen press reports this week describing the risk of shortages of certain foods and medicines, brought about by Trump’s idiotic actions in Iran. What specific steps are the Government taking to address those potential shortages, and how does the Minister plan to communicate with the public to ensure that our constituents are not left without information or support, should the availability of the medicine they need fall victim to Trump’s foolishness?

• 22 Apr 2026 · Stockport Green Belt · Hansard source

  More

  I present this petition on behalf of the residents of the constituency of Hazel Grove. It accompanies a similar petition for the residents of the constituency of Cheadle, presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison), with over 3,000 signatures. The petition states: The petition of residents of the constituency of Hazel Grove, Declares that the green belt across Stockport and Hazel Grove should be preserved; further declares that brownfield sites should be prioritised for new developments; and further declares that adequate school places, transport provision, and GP capacity should be guaranteed for any new developments. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to roll back its doubled mandatory housebuilding target for Stockport and thereby allow Stockport Council to deliver a Local Plan that protects the area’s green belt whilst developing the homes our communities need. And the petitioners remain, etc. [P003183]

• 22 Apr 2026 · Mountain Rescue · Hansard source

  More

  If only for a correction of my pronunciation, I would welcome an intervention.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Mountain Rescue · Hansard source

  More

  We have had a particularly strong debate this afternoon. We have reminded one another that mountain rescue teams are a vital part of our emergency infrastructure, and we believe that their importance will only grow. We want our communities to be out enjoying our great outdoors, because it belongs to all of us. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) reminded us of the value of being outdoors for all of us, but also the need to respect nature. We had a number of really excellent contributions from across the Chamber today. The hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), my fellow Greater Manchester MP, reminded us that mountain rescue teams are out 24/7 and available 365 days a year. He also raised an important point about the expiry dates on medicines. That was a very well-made point. We had some interventions from the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) and my hon. Friends the Members for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) and for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), who reminded us of the existence of lowland rescue, the importance of the mental health of the volunteers who are involved and the burdens of the CQC regulations. As he often does, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) brought the very important perspective from Northern Ireland. He talked about the importance of that long-term, sustainable strategic funding for rescue services. I am grateful to him. The hon. Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) made such an important point about how, in some parts of the country, mountain rescue teams are the only emergency service working. That was an extremely well-made point. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale reminded us that the cost can be extremely high for those who volunteer their time and their energy, and he was absolutely right to pay tribute to Chris Lewis. I join others in sending my condolences to the whole community, because that loss will be felt keenly. Several hon. and right hon. Members made the point about the need to have a single point of contact. The Minister here is not able to speak on behalf of all of her colleagues, which made the point very well. The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) helped me to understand the correct pronunciation of Eryri, and reminded us just how dangerous it can be to spend time in the outdoors in places that might look absolutely banging on social media but are deeply inappropriate to spend time in for someone who is not a professional and does not have the back-up. I just want to spend a moment on the risk-taking behaviour of the Front-Bench colleagues who are here today and were able to speak from first-hand experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) got stuck up an Italian mountain, but had a very good outcome. We are delighted that he is here to join us today. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), told us that he learned his lessons in youth, and reminded us that overconfidence in youth is not a new phenomenon—it is not something that has only been brought about by social media. The shadow Minister described those who volunteer for mountain rescue services as self-sufficient and tough. He is absolutely right to do so, but we should not rely on that sort of person and that sort of organisation to do it all for themselves. It is a real sign of strength to ask for help, so I save particular thanks for those people from Mountain Rescue England and Wales, and my local mountain rescue teams—some of whom are in the Public Gallery today—who took the time to contact me and to brief a number of Members. They have made a massive difference to our country, and I am so grateful. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Government support for mountain rescue.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Mountain Rescue · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Mountain Rescue · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving a shout-out to those involved in lowland rescue. I know there is a whole search and rescue community, including those who look at caves and other environments, and I am glad that he gave me the opportunity to thank all those involved in the great work of lowland rescue. As climate change leads to more extreme weather events, rescue teams are increasingly a de facto fourth emergency service. The 24% rise in call-outs over five years reflects the growing popularity of outdoor activities. That is to be welcomed, but it puts real pressure on rescue teams, and social media is a significant driver. The chief executive officer of Mountain Rescue England and Wales, Mike Park, has spoken of a shift in the types of visitors to upland areas, as people are drawn to locations by striking footage online without always understanding the conditions or the hazards involved. Chief superintendent of North Wales Police Owain Llewellyn described an “almost unprecedented” rise in visitors to the Eryri national park as a direct result of social media posts and a corresponding increase in call-outs.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Mountain Rescue · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for mountain rescue. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I know that many colleagues across the House and people in our communities share a deep appreciation for the extraordinary work that mountain rescue teams do. While Hazel Grove, the finest constituency in the land, has no mountains, we do have hills, and we have a good number of mountain rescue volunteers. Alongside their day jobs, these volunteers have chosen to train to an extremely high standard and to place themselves in some of the most dangerous conditions imaginable in their spare time, so that when someone in the hills—near me, that means the Peaks—gets into trouble, they can respond and save them from dire situations. That deserves far more recognition than it currently receives. This winter alone, we have seen time and again the lifesaving and critical service that mountain rescue teams provide, from Snowdonia to the Lake district to the Peak district. Responding to call-outs in severe weather and scarily dangerous conditions, volunteers risk their own safety every time they respond. These services are significant: Mountain Rescue England and Wales co-ordinates 47 volunteer mountain rescue teams operating across eight regional bodies, which together cover some of the most challenging and remote terrain in the country.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Mountain Rescue · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the intervention. We need to use whatever technology exists to make the work of mountain rescue volunteers even more effective. I will come on to talk about the work they do to find people who are missing, but drone technology can certainly help with that, and we should welcome it. The sheer scale of the teams’ operations is remarkable. According to the latest annual review, in 2024 mountain rescue teams responded to almost 4,000 call-outs, resulting in over 3,000 deployments—a 24% increase on 2019. It was also the first year in which teams went zero days without a single call-out. That meant that every single day of the year, somewhere in England or Wales a mountain rescue team was called upon. Behind those rescues are over 3,000 volunteers, who have given over 167,000 hours of their time in a single year. Their work goes well beyond what many people imagine: volunteers rescue climbers and lost walkers, yes, but they also provide first aid, support ambulance trusts in major incidents, assist in flood responses and help police with searches for missing people on and off the hills.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Mountain Rescue · Hansard source

  More

  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.