THE basic premise seems to make sense: a fitter nation will need less medical support and the savings from the health budget can be divided between new sports facilities and benefits for individuals who embrace a healthier lifestyle.

Lord Moynihan suggests that £1 billion could be saved by this. That is a lot of cash to play with. The man on the street, keeping to fitness targets prescribed by his GP, can have some of it, in the form of rebates in his national insurance contributions (NIC), and the former Sports Minister would like 50 per cent of the savings to be ploughed into improved facilities.

There will be cynics suggesting that this is a tax on the fat, but, in principle, is a healthier Britain a bad idea? We have the most overweight teenagers in Europe. In an age when some children miss football practice to sit goggle-eyed over their computer games, 25 per cent aged 13-17 in the UK are obese or overweight, more than twice as many as in Germany and the Netherlands. Later in life, the seriously overweight face an increased risk of diabetes, heart disease and cancer.

But can a reluctant runner, requiring a carrot to chase, expect to benefit financially? There is evidence in the private sector to suggest as much. PruHealth celebrates the first anniversary of its fitness-related health insurance scheme next month and one man in his forties, who has ticked off sufficient visits to the gym, been for screenings, checked a healthy-eating list and declared himself a non-smoker, will pay a £16 premium for his comprehensive insurance next year instead of £1,000.

Shaun Matisson, the chief executive of PruHealth, said: “The NHS spends about £70 billion a year on health-care provision. The numbers in private medical insurance (PMI) are 11-12 per cent, but they still spend a lot through the NHS — through chronic conditions and so on — so they still cost the Government £7 billion. We’ve seen through our research in South Africa that if you extrapolate these trends, you can reduce costs by as much as 30 per cent. Simplistically speaking, if you took the PMI population and dropped them into our plan, it would save the Government £2 billion.”

As well as giving a rebate to the rehabilitating couch potato, what would we do with the funds? The Football Foundation and the Football Association preferred not to comment on yesterday’s report, but those appealing for more investment in well-coached sport for the young should form an orderly queue.

There are some who envisage logistical difficulties, however. Dr Mayur Lakhani, the chairman of the Royal College of General Practitioners, said: “We welcome any initiative that encourages fitness and healthy living. However, access to safe and high-quality sports and leisure facilities is limited. What is needed is a step-change in policy. GPs are already overburdened and it would be an inappropriate role for them to be involved in the certification and verification that this scheme implies.”

Len Almond, director of the British Heart Foundation National Centre for Physical Activity and Health, said: “I’m not convinced NIC rebates would solve the problem. PruHealth have made a good start, but their scheme works through easily registered leisure-centre activity. Most activity in this country revolves around walking and this would be difficult to monitor. I estimate that the cost of setting this up would outweigh the projected savings.”

The average inactive UK resident costs the NHS £208 a year; lifting 33 million such people off their backsides has to be a good move. Monitoring how far they move could provide a whole new exercise.

HOW IT WORKS

DOCTORS would be trained and funded to prescribe physical activity to patients, for remedial and preventative health-care goals. People adhering to these — for instance, 30 minutes’ brisk walking five times a week — could then claim rebates on their national insurance contributions.