Rescue services, currently provided free, should be paid for by walkers and climbers, according to suggestions on the Treasury website. Photo: MoD
The coalition Government’s first major exercise in crowdsourcing has produced a plethora of calls to make mountaineers, climbers and hillwalkers pay for rescue.
More than 44,000 people have blessed David Cameron and Nick Clegg with their ideas on how to save the country cash, and it’s not good news for mountain lovers.
If the ideas in the Treasury’s Spending Challenge were to be taken up by George Osborne, hillwalkers and climbers would have to take out compulsory insurance or pay for any rescue service they used. No fewer than eight separate posters on the Government website suggest participants in ‘dangerous activities’ such as climbing and playing rugby should bear the costs of any mishaps.
Other suggestions include the scrapping of the proposed privatisation of search and rescue helicopter provision – already put on hold by the coalition; the merging of mountain rescue with the fire, ambulance and Coastguard service, and the scrapping of the urban search and rescue teams.
One suggestion likely to find more favour with the mountain community is to grant VAT exemptions to volunteer charities on their vehicle costs, maintenance, insurance and protective clothing and to provide them with road tax exemption. The unnamed proponent says these charities could then spend more time on supporting their prime purpose rather than fund raising. There would be a small cost to the Treasury but a big boost to charities.
This would chime with mountain rescuers themselves who have been campaigning for years to be treated on a par with the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, which does enjoy VAT exemption.
More contentious suggestions include the proposal to build more reservoirs in the Highlands, Wales, and the North-West; remove administrative powers from national park authorities; abolish Natural England, and scrap the all-England coastal path.
There is also a proposal to force all civil servants to wear a hat and carry an umbrella. Men would have to don a bowler hat and women a smart business hat, with a corresponding boost to the economy and in particular the millinery industry.
The Treasury says of its Spending Challenge: “The process was open for the first few weeks to public sector workers alone. This is because they see what’s going on in their department and workplace, and know where there are opportunities to make savings.
“On 9 July, we opened the challenge to everyone – and received over 44,000 responses.
“We’re now asking you to look at the ideas we received and rate them to help give us an indication of which ideas you, the general public, think have potential. The chance to rate ideas will close at the end of August.”
The Spending Challenge suggestions can be seen on the Treasury website.
rhodesy
18 August 2010I get the impression that a couple of those calling for us to need insurance are "numpties" who don't realise that Mountain Rescue is not funded by the government.
As for those with the idea to merge the emergency services - that is one of the daftest things I've ever heard. In no way would that cut costs, billions of pounds would have to be spent on training
paul burke
19 August 2010If you had published this on April the 1st, it would have been funny!.
I take it that 44,000 people have commented about all ways to save money not just on the rescue helicopter front.
Iam looking forward to rating the ideas at the end of the month. ( I will be voting for the bowler hats!)
Jhimmy
19 August 2010I have no problems what-so-ever in accepting to pay for my rescue! Do you expect a garage to come and fix your car on the roadside for nothing? No. You pay the RAC or AA a yearly fee.
What is so sinister in charging people to be rescued? I've said all along that people will buy £300 jackets, £200 boots, £250 mobile and then EXPECT to be rescued by volunteers for nothing!
Today is a "I want the moon on the stick and I want it now" society. Few are willing to learn the trade of long mountainous walks. It's buy a GPS and follow a track.
It's OK to say lets encourage more walkers on the hills, but who pays for the extra infrastructure to cope with the consequences?
Genuine accidents do occur to even experienced walkers, but getting lost without map, compass, etc is plainly stupid and being rescued for free by nice smiling MRT is certainly no deterrent the next time they do it again.
Times are changing. Many things I've held dear are changing and I don't like. But, I've always held that my own personal safety is paramount on the hills and mountains and maybe that's why I've never needed rescuing in the last 40 years.
Alison
19 August 2010"Scrapping Urban Search teams" What a very odd suggestion. I'm not sure how you can scrap a group of unfunded volunteers in the first place; but if you did, then polide overtime bills would rocket.
Ian
19 August 2010Afraid I'm with Jhimmy on this one. Many of those heading to the hills just now don't accept they are undertaking something dangerous (amply demonstrated by rocking up a munro in jeans/trainers/pacamacs etc with pages torn out of road atlases - we've all seen it).
By insisting people take out insurance for these activities, the message that walkers, mountaineers, climbers etc have been churning out for years - to plan for the inherent risk - might actually start to get through.
It doesn't have to preclude people from enjoying the hills, newbies would just need to go up with an insured group or just someone with more experience, treating the insurance the same as if they were adding another driver to their car.
Perhaps, Rhodesy, a more appropriate application of the term 'numpties' is to those wandering up the hills in flip-flops and a t shirt and wondering why they're wet/cold or their ankle's broken and find they need rescuing?
simon
19 August 2010woo hoo great ideas there. Lets merge the free MR service we have now with the Police, Fire,Ambulance and HMCG - so it will start to cost - then they can cut its funding
DOH !!
Its about time joe public realised that you cant charge walkers for a free service. police OT bills are already being frozen and cuts of 20-40 % are on the cards.
The reliance on the volunteer rescue services is going to increase not decrease - and all for zero cost to the taxpayer.
Lastly 44,000 replies from a population of 60 million - not even 1% have showed any interest
rhodesy
19 August 2010"Perhaps, Rhodesy, a more appropriate application of the term 'numpties' is to those wandering up the hills in flip-flops and a t shirt and wondering why they're wet/cold or their ankle's broken and find they need rescuing?
"
Ian, you're dead right, they're numpties too.
stan
20 August 2010I say go one better, ban mountain access altogether.
No seriously go with me on this, if we don't allow anyone access to the hills no one will be injured. Better still we can confine everyone to their homes and have food delivered by conveyor and all will be well.
Where is the boundary, is it the car park, 20 feet from the car park, 100?
People make mistakes lets not judge them for having a misplaced sense of adventure. Take your part, educate the "those wandering up the hills in flip-flops and a t shirt" numpties instead of looking down your noses at them.
I don;t mean to be inflammatory, but the mountains are for everyone and rescue should be a right not an expense, be it on the highest peaks or in the local park.
andyr
20 August 2010I too favour a rescue 'fee'. It may not be enforceable as many will say the're not able to pay.
Obviously the MRT would not say 'no pay, no resue' so leaving someone in distress on the mountain. However being rescued by some very professional people at no small risk or inconvenience to themselves should not go unrewarded.
Insurance could not be enforced either unless laws and inspectors were brought in, horror.
You put yourself at risk through this recreation and accidents can happen to even the best and most prepared of us, we should all be ready to pay if we are in this position. A 'cost statement' should be presented if there is serious fault by the rescued, I do not see how this could be made payable without additional unwanted legislation
Stan, rescue is not a right, you have not earned it, there is a right to life but that means no one should take it from you, not that you should be guaranteed to keep it.
R Webb
21 August 2010Motorists to pay for the havoc they cause? Of course not, but folk taking responsibility for their health and saving the NHS a fortune are fair game.
As said above - Numpties.
T
23 August 2010As most of my time as an MR volunteer - i.e. working for free - in a moorland area has been spent saving the taxpayer thousands by either (a) searching for missing vulnerable people (the old, the very young, the depressed) or (b) assisting the ambulance service in retrieving all manner of people (generally not hillwalkers) from steep woodland and Pennine ravines - I struggle to see how some of the above is anything but absolute nonsense.
Even if MR teams gained government funding (not the case unless in Scotland) the math is pretty damn simple. It might cost five figures per year to run a typical MR team, but would the taxpayer rather pick up the bill and fund police and ambulance services to do what MR does for the non-mountaineering public.
Kev M
27 August 2010I will happily support the idea that participants in ‘dangerous activities’ such as climbing and playing rugby should bear the costs of any mishaps. Two minor conditions:
1. Let's have a National Insurance rebate on people who save the NHS billions of pounds by participating in healthy activities such as climbing and playing rugby.
2. Let's start by charging people full rescue costs for the most dangerous part of a day on the hill - driving to the car park at the bottom.