All-Party Parliamentary Group on Volunteer Rescue

[Pitlamp]

Yes - but they have to follow inflexible rules which don't always work ideally in a cave rescue situation.

If I had to excavate through a choke (for example) to help someone back to safety, I'd want to do it on my terms, based on a fair amount of experience of such things, rather than have to follow arbitrary rules imposed by someone in a cosy office somewhere. Bear in mind the first rule of first aid is to look after your own safety.

Cave rescue is often about problem solving on the fly (but applying techniques and equipment you've trained for) as I'm sure you know only too well Cave Troll from your own considerable CRT service. Sometimes it's necessary to think outside the box - and often with time pressure working against you.

The world of cave rescue has slowly become more bureaucratic over the years. In the days when the CRT used to have to kick all the drunks out of the pub on a Saturday night, to put their wet gear on from that day's hard trip, the job always seems to have got done. (Just an observation.)

 

[Steve Clark]

On the moral point (if moral is the right word?) -

There seems to be an acceptance in society that folks have the freedom to expose themselves to a level of risk in sport/recreation they are comfortable with. Whether this is cave diving, exposed rock climbing, horse riding or Sunday league football. The risks of a fatal accident cave diving could be in the 1:1000-10,000 range for a single dive. A broken leg or year long knee injury could be 1:1000 for a football match. Recent ridiculous example being one of our talented rock climbers who has climbed E7, broke his finger after being hit by a ball in the stand at a Cod Army match!

These levels of risk are totally unacceptable in the workplace in 2025. You would be aiming for 100-1000x less accident frequency. It’s just totally wrong to put someone to work exposed to a life changing risk, without finding alternatives and better working systems. They are exposed for a lot more hours, they often wouldn’t have the freedom to say no or adapt the system on the fly to avoid an accident. They risk their employment, other people and their companies reputation by making dynamic decisions and getting it wrong.

Cave rescue is infrequent, it’s budget limited, it’s in an exceptionally challenging environment. The folks that are out there doing it in the UK are doing it for the enjoyment and satisfaction of it. They are mostly operating in the top paragraph and enjoy doing it because of the things that go with that - freedom, adaption, innovation and genuine teamwork. Choice to do something dangerous to help others. Not a common opportunity in society today.

If cave rescue operated like work, you would have totally different people doing it. It would be more expensive, and invite so many problems I haven’t got the patience to write them down. Banning caving would be the logical business decision!

 

[Steve Clark]

If an organisation has a single employee or is headed by a self employed person, it has the same responsibilities to volunteers as it does or would to employees.

Does a typical CR organisation have any employees?

 

[hannahb]

Does a typical CR organisation have any employees?

I'm not sure. I had a vague memory that some members or key roles were reimbursed but I could be wrong.

I don't really have an opinion on whether rescue teams are better off being volunteers or employed. I do think it's important that both volunteers and employees have a right to be reasonably safe doing what they do.

 

[Steve Clark]

Actually, on reflection, I don't think having the discussion about the legal side of 'at work' and acts / regulations in this kind of public forum is a particularly good idea. The system as it stands seems to work really well. Interference is more likely to do harm than good.

 

[mikem]

Volunteers are there by choice, employees don't get that luxury

 

[Pitlamp]

Just replying to this Hannah: I do think it's important that both volunteers and employees have a right to be reasonably safe doing what they do.

I doubt anyone could disagree with that; it's a very useful comment. That's why, in many cases, experienced volunteers are better left to make their own (consensus) judgements of the best way to get the job done whilst also ensuring their own safety.

 

[hannahb]

There are considerable advantages to a team not being ‘at work’. Whilst I’m sure teams are using good judgement and do things as safely as they can, the reality is that if you want to lift the lid on Notts 2 whilst being paid, you’re gonna have to throw the Health & Safety at Work Act and all its secondary regulations out the window on Leck Fell road.

Diving rescue? Enlarging passages? Working in boulder chokes? Genuine risks. Everything about it is much better on a volunteer basis. Morally and legally.

I think this is absolute nonsense.

 

[2xw]

Actually, on reflection, I don't think having the discussion about the legal side of 'at work' and acts / regulations in this kind of public forum is a particularly good idea. The system as it stands seems to work really well. Interference is more likely to do harm than good.

Agreed. The UK caving community has a good track record of self sabotaging through officious self policing, mostly it seems to satisfy minority egos.

 

[Badlad]

In my experience APPGs are far more likely to support volunteer rescue organisations than try to do anything detrimental to them. That is the point of them. APPG members are exposed to the close contact lobbying of rescue organisation officials. It is a great step forward and a win win. It is those unexposed to the reality of volunteer rescue and ignorant that are likely to cause the problems some of you are concerned about.

 

[nickwilliams]

It is, I think, illuminating to consider when discussing matters such as those above, the International Standards Organisation (ISO) definition of "safety".

Safety = Freedom from unacceptable risk.

[This is actually a paraphrasing designed make it more effective across a broader range of circumstances: the actual wording in ISO Guide 51 is: freedom from risk... which is not tolerable.]

 

[Ed]

Why can't they be paid for their work though?

Because amongst other this, as volunteers we are exempt from legislation such as Health and Safety at work act......yes, HSE, advice to follow it ad best practice but it isn't legal binding.

Once reward, money or in kind, if involved it legally becomes "work " and then a whole new legislation etc kicks in.

 

[Stonedust]

In my experience APPGs are far more likely to support volunteer rescue organisations than try to do anything detrimental to them. That is the point of them. APPG members are exposed to the close contact lobbying of rescue organisation officials. It is a great step forward and a win win. It is those unexposed to the reality of volunteer rescue and ignorant that are likely to cause the problems some of you are concerned about.

Agreed. So which CRT is going to entertain a member of the APPG? A simple but interesting trip, no SRT for a beginner, throw in a squashed mars bar, show them the base and the kit, finish with a pint. Educational for them and good PR.

 

[hyweldavies]

Agreed. So which CRT is going to entertain a member of the APPG? A simple but interesting trip, no SRT for a beginner, throw in a squashed mars bar, show them the base and the kit, finish with a pint. Educational for them and good PR.

I seem to remember something along these lines was organised for a few MPs who'd been calling for a clamp-down on caving after a high profile rescue some years back. It seems they had a good trip, listened and learnt, and being better informed sensibly dropped their proposal. Presumably explaining the fact that rescues were performed by volunteer fellow cavers rather than being funded by the public purse considerable helped make the case.

 

[Badlad]

MPs attracted to an APPG will probably already hold an interest in volunteer rescue organisations. They are more likely to taken under the wing of MRTs. We took David Davis and David Rutley down Bar Pot to GG main chamber and back a few years ago. We got changed and had a tour around the CRO depot before setting off. David Davis was a member of the Alpine Club and in his 70s at the time. The BMC also do a guided walk once a year for MPs interested in climbing, access etc., or they did when the APPG on mountaineering, climbing and hill walking was active (now defunct I think).

 

[Pitlamp]

That was an extremely good bit of PR you organised with that one Badlad.

Hyweldavies - I remember CRO members many years ago taking the MP for Skipton on a caving trip because he'd been on about the sort of thing you mentioned in your post, which happily changed his mind.

 

[Inglesport]

An update -> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn047lx1jrno

An MP who helped set up a group to champion volunteer-run rescue services has said more support is needed to help with a growing numbers of callouts.

The Volunteer Rescue All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) will discuss potential policy changes that could help the likes of Mountain Rescue and RNLI.

At a launch event in Westminster on Tuesday, Labour MP for Whitehaven and Workington Josh MacAlister vowed the group would give a voice to such organisations.

The government said it recognised the "vital work that volunteers do."

MacAlister, who is a volunteer with Patterdale Mountain Rescue in Cumbria, said the team of just over 40 members had received over 100 callouts last year.

"The challenge for Mountain Rescue is that those callouts are going up and up and up and we need to do more to support teams so that they're able to resource those callouts and make sure people are kept safe," he said.

He added volunteer rescue services were "one of the special things we've got in the UK" and should be celebrated.

The APPG discussed several policy areas at Tuesday's meeting including government support with public liability insurance and giving volunteer rescuers the same status as others such as magistrates who are entitled to time off work.