Lake District MP fears mountain rescue teams face 'huge' bill

The Mines Rescue Service (now a commercial organization that mostly does training but does maintain a rescue service) could do all of these mine-related tasks (and indeed are probably the only option for most coal mines and other mines with dangerous atmospheres), but the costs would be considerable.
 
This is the legislation: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2026/9780348279955

It's already been laid before both Houses of Parliament, but isn't yet law. I am not sure what the process is for bringing Statutory Instruments into law.

It says at bottom of that link "A full impact assessment has not been produced by this instrument as no significant impact on the private, voluntary or public sector is foreseen. " That's clearly incorrect, as this discussion shows. I would write to my MP, but having done so several times I know that she's completely useless.
 
ChrisB said:
This is the legislation: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2026/9780348279955

It's already been laid before both Houses of Parliament, but isn't yet law. I am not sure what the process is for bringing Statutory Instruments into law.

It says at bottom of that link "A full impact assessment has not been produced by this instrument as no significant impact on the private, voluntary or public sector is foreseen. " That's clearly incorrect, as this discussion shows. I would write to my MP, but having done so several times I know that she's completely useless.
Click to expand...
Writing to MPs is a good idea.

If this is a concern, could BCA/BCRC produce a letter that could be used for individual cavers, clubs and regional councils to contact their local MP's.
That way we would get a more national coverage for town and country alike.

Judging by what is normally decided in the London centric parliamentary bubble, it is highly likely that possible consequences haven't been thought through.
 
Whilst we chatter amongst ourselves, action is being taken - see https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...C8-1693-434C-A8D8-6CC6D9FE8A14/MountainRescue . The PUS for Transport response to the debate is at 3.49pm just over 3/4 of the way down the page. As would be expected, nothing positive, but at least the point has been raised with 'force'.

PS - it also looks like the impact of the change only applies to those who have 'medical' training (c.f. doctors, paramedics, nurses) and provide first aid under an organisation. It does not cover one of those persons giving first aid accidentally happening on a event.
 
Bob Mehew said:
...The PUS for Transport response to the debate is at 3.49pm ....
Click to expand...

Here's the response:
Many hon. Members have raised concerns about potential regulatory changes that may affect the work of mountain rescue, principally, the removal of regulatory exemptions around Care Quality Commission registration. The Care Quality Commission will commence a consultation from 8 May to 12 June, which will provide further opportunities for groups and individuals affected to discuss their concerns. I hope that I can offer some reassurance to hon. Members that that will include a separate stream specifically for mountain rescue, made up of focus groups and wider engagement. That feedback will then inform how the changes will be implemented to avoid such groups being disproportionately impacted, including through new guidance being developed by the CQC.
 
martinr said:
including through new guidance being developed by the CQC.
Click to expand...
That's not actually encouraging - for CQC guidance to be relevant to rescue teams, they would need to be brought into the scope. The consultation is a good opportunity to make comment.
 
The legislation is only looking at organisations offering cover for events, it's due to an expected increase in terrorism thanks to current world situation (see explanatory note on bottom of your own link - "sporting and cultural events"). The amendments don't come into force until 7th September 2026
 
Last edited:
The point that needs to be grasped, and put in a very general way, is that providing 'services' to 'clients' creates a legal relationship between the parties, even if not a business or commercial one because no contract is involved. The essence of a business contract is being paid or receiving any other "considation" for doing or providing something. Liability can also arise without a contract, like a car accident involving unrelated drivers.

When things go wrong, as they sometimes do, situations can lead to a claim against the provider which is where insurance comes in, hopefully.

To try to stop things going wrong in the first place, legislation has put in place a lot of "compliance" intended to stop unqualified people getting themselves into risky situations. For example, you need licence to drive a car, medical registration to work as a GP, and professional qualifications and appropriate work experience just to lay out cones on a highway or dig up the pavement.

Another of those compliances involves the CQC to regulate providers of "care". This isn't going to go away for good reason, so just get over it.
 
There's a level of proportionality though, isn't there?

I don't think anyone is arguing that volunteer teams should be doing event medical cover for the London Marathon, but do you really need to be a CQC audited event medicine provider to help out at a local fell race?

You could argue so, but many fell races couldn't afford that, rescue teams would lose out on an income stream, and would probably end up being called anyway as event medical providers just aren't well suited for operating on mountains.

One of the key strengths of volunteer rescue teams is that they aren't "at work", so can sidestep a lot of that legislative and policy complexity. Asking them to undertake an expensive and demanding CQC audit aimed at professional organisations feels like demanding that a charity bakesale is audited by the food standards agency.
 
Smaller events (<2000, no booze) are not specifically required to have Medical cover, but are required to have qualified First-Aiders present, at a minimum of 2, and thereafter 2 per 1000 attendees. A lot of rural events would probably fall below the 2000/dry threshold and therefore unlikely to be unaffected by the legislation. Rescue teams could still attend larger events to provide auxiliary first aid cover, under the direction of a CQC-accredited Medical organisation. It would be the organisers responsibility to ensure the appropriate level of response.
 
Problem (with the legislation) for rescue teams is that most of them include medical professionals, but they aren't employed, so (to some extent) will have to wait and see how it is actually implemented.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top