The MCofS is worried hillwalking and other mountain activities could be the subject of regulation
The body representing climbers and hillwalkers north of the border is urging clubs and individuals to make their view known on plans to regulate adventurous activities.
The Mountaineering Council of Scotland expressed its concern that statutory regulation of climbing and hillwalking could be extended to voluntary groups such as mountaineering clubs.
It also revealed it believes the Scottish Government will keep the Adventure Activities Licensing Authority in place this summer as an interim measure when the Westminster Parliament abolishes the body in England.
This would lead, temporarily at least, to a confused situation where activity providers in England were bound only by a voluntary code of conduct but those north of the border providing trekking, climbing, caving and watersports would still be bound by statutory regulations.
The MCofS, which has more than 10,000 members, believes a voluntary scheme should be introduced in Scotland too. It also criticised the Scottish Government for including volunteer-led bodies such as mountaineering clubs in the consultation which closes at the end of this month.
The AALA scheme does not currently cover volunteer bodies or schools.
The Perth-based mountaineering council’s submission said: “The MCofS considers that the adoption of a different option to England would present significant difficulties for volunteer-led mountaineering clubs based in Scotland, because the lack of licensing and regulation in England may drive existing members of Scottish mountaineering clubs to join English clubs which will face no requirement for licensing or regulation.”
It said there is no evidence from its experience or Mountain Rescue Committee of Scotland statistics that there is a need for a mechanism for regulation for recreational mountaineering activities. “Indeed, mountaineering incident statistics show that the number of incidents are decreasing at the same time that there is an increase in participation levels,” it added.
The MCofS said: “The introduction of a mechanism for regulating adventure activities in the context of volunteer-led activities organised by the MCofS in its role as governing body, and by our volunteer-led member clubs, would be a barrier to increasing both volunteer support for, and participation in activities.”
It said the industry already has national governing body qualifications such as Mountain Leader Award, Single Pitch Award and Mountain Instructor Certificate that are a mark of competence. “Previously, the introduction of AALA imposed a secondary level of assessment which was effectively unnecessary, as it did not add any additional safeguards over the Mountain Leader Training awards,” the MCofS added.
But it was the inclusion of voluntary-led activities that prompted the MCofS to urge its affiliated clubs and members to make their own submission to the Holyrood administration.
The council said: “Clubs organise their activities effectively on the basis of shared knowledge and experience, leading to the improvement of individual skills and self-reliance, and that there is no evidence from either experience or Mountain Rescue Committee of Scotland statistics that there is a need for a mechanism for regulation for recreational mountaineering activities.”
It added: “If clubs value their current freedoms to enjoy Scotland’s mountains then the MCofS believe that clubs should respond individually to the Scottish Government consultation by the closing date of 30 March.”
Online submissions can be made via the Scottish Government’s website.
Margaret
02 March 2012Back in December last year I posted on this site that we should be very careful with this whole business of control (excluding those who aspire to leadership in its various forms) and noted that back in the 1970s a Chief Constable declared that the hills were closed because of avalanche risk. Thankfully Bill Murray put that gentleman back in his place.
The Mountaineering Council of Scotland at that time ascerted that 'it was not in the business of promoting mountaineering' when the participating clubs were more of a loose affiliation. Now it does promote mountaineering and it must live with the resultant consequencies. I fear they are not now in a position to put the Government back in its place.
don husband
03 March 2012i feel that status quo is the best option,with course providers and outdoor centres complying with the present regulations,clubs and individuals should not be regulated as each member is ultimately responsible for their own actions and safety,of themselves and their siblings,and voluntary good practise and care should suffice,if not clubs could cease to exist as organised bodies.
Orkney climbing club
Margaret
03 March 2012I agree with your views Don.
An alternative to Scottish club members joining English clubs (which was put forward in the artcle as a possible outcome) is that Scottish clubs reform outwith the bounds of the MCofS and make 'greater' use of the Common Adventure concept developed by Idaho State University.
A Common Adventure trip is two or more individuals working cooperatively for common goals and sharing expenses and responsibilities as equitably as possible. There are no paid guides. Any instruction or advice provided by any member of the group is given gratuitously in a spirit of cooperation. Members of the group do not hold one another or others liable for accidents.
Those who didn't want this approach could continue to make use of the organisations that fall under the existing AALS regulations.
Jon
03 March 2012The Scottish government's consultation paper says "... the replacement for AALA in Scotland will need to meet the needs of Scottish providers and users ...". Most mountaineering clubs do not fit the model of "providers and users", and it's to be hoped that members of clubs will point this out, and that the Scottish government will not try to force regulations on them that are designed for "adventure activity providers".
Niall
12 March 2012If regulated in the "worst case" scenario, this may require qualified leaders in given ratio's to undertake adventurous activity within clubs. In some clubs such as University Mountaineering clubs, this would be impossible to comply with. We can't afford commercial leaders and due to the experience levels within the clubs we rarely have anyone beyond ML or SPA trained. However any legislation that comes in certainly won't stop Students going into the mountains if that is their desire. Currently we have about 13 University Mountaineering clubs across Scotland that provide a "safe-ish" or "safe-er" environment to explore the mountains, where some knowledge and experience is passed on from those with to those without. If these club can not function due to new legislation then this could lead to an increase in mountain incidents making the legislation counter-productive.
Zoe
22 March 2012Sorry I cannot see what all the hoo haa is about. AALA doesn't currently licence voluntary groups - just those commercial providers who work with young people. So if the Scotish Government keep statutory AALA licencing in place it will not affect the majority of Mountaineering Clubs or other voluntary groups.
I don't believe there is any precedent for licencing to be extended to adventurous activities in the Adult or Family sector. From what I have read in this article the only thing that the Scotish Government has done is to ask some voluntary groups to be part of the consultation. The rest is a lot of scaremongering from MCofS.
Whilst a Common Adventure concept is a great idea for adults I would also argue that there are some voluntary groups who provide activities for young people who could benefit from the support and guidance that AALA licencing provides - so perhaps there is a case for extending licencing to voluntary groups working with young people. If I were conducting a review this is definitely something that I would want to consider.
It is clear that the voluntary code in its present format in England is going to be more costly that the current AALA system and with the decision by the Welsh and Scotish Governments to retain AALA (in the interim at least) I feel that we should be pushing the English Government to do the same rather than following their lead and abolishing licensing.