Cookie
New member
Bob Mehew said:Apologies to all other readers for this but I suspect it is better if I do this publicly rather than by PM. (It might also help save some time at Saturday's Council meeting.)
Cookie - Your 2015 AGM motion stated that "This meeting confirms that the Constitution allows BCA to seek clarification from DEFRA and Natural England on their existing guidance on The CRoW Act and its application to caving." and places no condition on what else BCA might (or might not) do. I for one understood your motion to solely focus on the point that the constitution did not allow BCA to campaign to change the law; a point which had been conceded some considerable time ago (I think during the debate on the original proposal in 2014). As I recall, I made that point during the debate at the 2015 AGM in response to your motion. (But the minutes record little detail.)Cookie said:So are you saying campaigning to remove landowner rights is not against the Constitution?
This goes to the heart of the discussion on whether BCA is in breach of its own Constitution.
The Constitution says "4.6. That the owners and tenants of property containing caves have the right to grant or withhold access.". CRoW clarification or not the landowners currently exercise the right. The CRoW campaign's goal is to remove some of those rights. Therefore the CRoW campaign is against the Constitution.
So the conversation goes on to whether the AGM gave National Council (NC) the power to ignore the Constitution by passing the motion "This meeting confirms that the Constitution allows BCA to seek clarification from DEFRA and Natural England on their existing guidance on The CRoW Act and its application to caving." (which, by the way, was not my motion)
There are no other relevant motions passed by the AGM so if this motion doesn't give the NC the power to act against the Constitution then the NC is acting against the Constitution.
The motion authorised communication with DEFRA and NE only. I don't believe lobbying MPs, national newspaper articles and slots on national television can be regarded as a valid means of communication with DEFRA and NE. Nor are these other people and organisations in a position to clarify the legislation.
Clarification is essentially a passive act and it could be argued that it is not against the Constitution because it is a revealed truth that was there all along.
But an active campaign to place pressure on DEFRA/NE to change their clearly stated and repeatedly stated view can not possibly be seen as clarification.
There seems to be a view that if it doesn't require an act of Parliament then all these actions can be regarded a "clarification". I don't believe that is true. Forcing a change of interpretation of the current legislation is not "clarification".
So for these reasons I believe the BCA is in breach of its Constitution.