BCA Council Meeting - CRoW Discussions

BCA Chair

Member
Three specific items were tabled at yesterday's BCA Council meeting, all relating to a greater or lesser extent to CRoW. We owe it to members to share the results of our discussions as soon as possible. Unfortunately the full Minutes will take some time to prepare, but I am able to immediately share the various tabled items and Council's agreed responses. I hope this helps inform discussion on here and avoids speculation.

I am posting each item separately below.
 

BCA Chair

Member
Item 1: CSCC Complaint

As a result of published material, both in the media and on the internet, the CSCC believes that Tim Allen is campaigning to promote the view that CRoW act should apply to caving.
This action would be against the motion which the BCA agreed at the last AGM, this states ?This meeting confirms that the BCA constitution allows the seeking of clarification from DEFRA and Natural England on their existing guidance on CRoW act and its application to caving.?
The BCA AGM did not agree that Tim Allen could actively campaign to promote the view that CRoW act should apply to caving when acting as CRoW liaison officer.
The CSCC wish to formally raise a complaint regarding this issue with BCA Council.

Council's Response: Council acknowledges the complaint from CSSC but in Council?s view the motion passed at the 2015 AGM was not a limiting motion and Council and its Officers have, therefore, acted properly.
Prop: Jenny Potts Sec: Dave Tyson   agreed (for:8 against:3  with 3 abstentions)
 

BCA Chair

Member
Item 2: Proposal from Faye Litherland

This item is NOT about CRoW. It is about good governance and due process.
The Constitution says "4.6. That the owners and tenants of property containing caves have the right to grant or withhold access." A majority of members have voted in favour of a campaign to remove the landowner rights in certain cases. Such a campaign is clearly at odds with the Constitution.
Furthermore, as per section 13.1* of the Constitution the 2015 AGM interpreted the Constitution to allow clarification from DEFRA and NE but not to conduct a campaign. **
With the publication of the Guardian article*** "Cavers fight to take the right to roam to new depths" and articles published in other papers, the BCA is now engaged in a fully public and national campaign. This is against the Constitution and the 2015 AGM resolution.
Above all an organisation must follow its own rules and regulation otherwise it will lose all credibility with its members and external organisations. It will do lasting damage to the BCA. How can BCA be trusted?
* 13.1 A General Meeting of the Association shall be the final interpreter of this constitution.
** Resolve 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."
*** http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/28/cavers-fight-to-take-the-right-to-roam-to-new-lows
It is proposed that:
This meeting of the BCA National Council acknowledges that, in an organisation representing some 6000 members, the guiding principles of that organisation represent the expressed views of those members and that the BCA National Council confirm they accept and will abide by the guiding principles detailed in sections 4.2 to 4.8 of the BCA constitution.
Proposed F Litherland

Faye's proposal above was seconded by Damian Weare and agreed as follows: for: 9 against: 1 abstentions: 4

A further statement was then agreed relating to this item:

BCA Council is fully aware of the Guiding Principles as outlined in sections 4.2 to 4.8 of the Constitution and always seeks to act in line with these. However the law of the land takes precedent over a Constitution. Therefore Council is happy that sections 4.2 to 4.8 are no impediment to BCA campaigning to change DEFRA?s current interpretation of the law, which by their own admission is not definitive.

Prop: DW Sec: BP  for: 10 against: 2 abstentions: 2
 

BCA Chair

Member
Item 3: Question from Tony Brocklebank and Linda Wilson:

Can the National Council please clarify what level of damage to landowner/caver relationships that have been carefully nurtured over decades they deem acceptable in the pursuit of the BCA CRoW campaign?

Agreed response: BCA Council has the utmost respect for landowners and recognises their right to decide how their land is used within the constraints of the law.
It is now more than 15 years since the CRoW Act was introduced. At the time all sorts of potential concerns were raised by opponents of the legislation, but Council believes these have largely failed to materialize. Indeed in general landowners now seem content with the legislation and Council does not see this changing if caving is shown to also be included as a permitted activity.
Furthermore CRoW legislation reduces landowners? potential liability to the lowest level possible in law and, as such, Council believes the majority of landowners will benefit if the CRoW Act is understood to apply to caves.
 

BCA Chair

Member
Entirely my fault ... I thought I'd given myself until the weekend, but it seems I put 16th! I've been focusing on getting out the Minutes from the various meetings the weekend before last, but I'll switch to the AGM Agenda and hopefully get it up soon.

Thanks for the gentle reminder!
 

Brains

Well-known member
Works for me...
The Annual General Meeting 
of the:
British Caving Association
will be held at:
Hunters Lodge, Priddy
on:
Sunday 5 June 2016, 10:30 am.
AGENDA
British
Caving
Asso
ciation
2 of 4
British Caving Association 
Annual General Meeting Agenda
1.
Chairman?s Welcome
2.
Apologies for Absence
3.
Applications for Group Membership
4.
Minutes of 2015 Annual General Meeting
(available from BCA website)
4.1.
Proposal that they be confirmed as a true record
4.2.
Matters Arising from the Minutes of the 2015 AGM
Officers? Annual Reports
Report by
5.
Chairman
Andy Eavis
6.
Secretary
Damian Weare
7.
Treasurer
Paul Ibberson
8.
Conservation & Access
Andrew Hinde
including:   
CRoW (Tim Allen)
9.
Equipment & Techniques
Nick Williams
including: 
Rope Testing (Bob Mehew)
10.
Training
Nigel Ball
11.
Publications & Information
Les Williams
including: 
Webmaster (David Cooke)
Web Services (David Cooke)
News Editor (Robin Weare)
Speleology (David Gibson)
12.
Legal & Insurance
David Judson
including: Insurance Manager
(Nick Williams)
Other Annual Reports
13.
Membership Administrator
Glenn Jones
14.
Cave Registry
David Cooke
15.
IT Working Party
David Cooke
16.
  Youth & Development
Rostam Namaghi
17.
International Representative
Andy Eavis
including:
FSE Representative (Ged Campion)
18.
Media-Liaison
Hellie Adams
19.
British Caving Library
Jenny Potts
 

Brains

Well-known member
3 of 4
20.
Constituent Bodies, Regional Councils etc.
various
Elections
21.
Election of Officers and National Council Members
21.1.
Secretary -
no nominations received by the deadline (see note 1
)
21.2.
Legal & Insurance Officer
Nomination:
Robert Mehew, proposed by Tim Allen, seconded by Je
nny Potts
21.3.
Conservation & Access Officer
Nomination:
Andrew Hinde, proposed by Les Williams, seconded by
Robert Mehew
21.4.
2 Club Representatives -
no nominations received by the deadline (see note 1
)
21.5.
2 Individual Representatives
Matthew Wire, proposed by Robin Weare, seconded by
James Begley 
plus one position with no nomination received by th
e deadline (see note 1)
Other Matters
22.
Members? Proposals 
1) ?Proposed additions to the BCA constitution ? ad
d a Section 8.16:
?8.16 An Individual or Honorary member (the 'voter'
) who is eligible to vote at
a General Meeting may choose to appoint a proxy to
speak and vote for them.
This proxy (the 'nominee') must be another Individu
al or Honorary member
who is also eligible to vote. The form of proxy, de
termined by National
Council, will be provided with the notice of the me
eting. The voter must
provide this instrument of proxy to the Secretary a
t least forty eight hours
before the relevant General Meeting. Voters may ind
icate how they wish their
nominee to vote or allow their nominee discretion.
Proposed by Andrew McLeod
2)  That the following section of item 4.6 of the C
onstitution ?
That the owners and
tenants of property containing caves have the right
to grant or withhold access.
?
be amended to
?That any rights held by the owners and tenants of
property or
mineral rights to grant or withhold access be respe
cted.?
Proposed by Faye Litherland, seconded by David Cook
e
23.
Appointment of Independent Examiner
24.
Date of Annual General Meeting for 2017
25.
Any other Business notified in advance to the Chair
man
4 of 4
Notes:
1.
Where nominations for elected posts have been recei
ved by the due date in advance
of the meeting and there is only one nominee identi
fied on the Agenda above, that
person is deemed to be elected unopposed. Nominatio
ns for other posts may be made
from the floor at the meeting.  Therefore Robert Me
hew, Andrew Hinde and Matthew
Wire have been elected unopposed. Candidates for Se
cretary, two Club
Representatives and one further Individual Member R
epresentative may stand for
election at the meeting itself. 
2.
Paper copies of all documents will be available at
the Annual General Meeting.
Representation and Voting at the BCA AGM 2015
?
Voting is limited to DIMs, CIMs, CIM Plus, Honorary
Members, Clubs and Access
Bodies who have paid their subscriptions for 2016 p
lus Constituent Bodies and
Regional Councils.
?
Voting takes place on each motion twice: firstly al
l Individual Members present vote,
and secondly all Groups (Clubs, Access Controlling
Bodies, Regional Councils &
Constituent Bodies) vote. A majority is required in
both votes for the motion to be
passed.
?
Constituent Bodies, Regional Councils, Access Contr
olling Bodies and Clubs may
each send one voting delegate to the AGM. Other cav
ers are welcome to attend as
observers but may not take part in a formal vote at
the Group stage.
?
No one person may act as a delegate for more than o
ne Group member.
?
Group delegates must present a letter of authorisat
ion signed by the Secretary,
Chairman or Treasurer of the Constituent Body, Regi
onal Council Access Controlling
Body or Club. This should be handed to the appointe
d BCA teller. 
?
Individual Members who wish to vote must present th
eir membership card
 

cap n chris

Well-known member
Presumably the wishes of tenants or landowners wouldn't be respected, if the law over-ruled their ability to control access. Their rights would be respected, because that's what the law might require, but if the law changed then any respect for their viewpoint would fly out of the window. Is this a correct interpretation?

Would it be a moral victory?
 

bograt

Active member
Viewpoints can always be respected, so can rights, if those rights are changed by law, we can still respect them, what is the point you're trying to make Cap'n ?--
 

cap n chris

Well-known member
The point I'm trying (and perhaps failing) to make is this:

Landowner doesn't want cavers going into caves on their land.
The law supports them, access is restricted.
Change in legislation means the landowner cannot continue restricting access.
Landowner still doesn't want cavers going into caves on their land but is powerless to enforce it.
Cavers going underground on the landowner's property are therefore apparently "respecting the rights*" (i.e. effectively none) of the landowner, but are actually flouting the landowner's wishes.
Ergo there is no respect for the landowner's wishes and the landowner may well feel disabused. Moral victory?
Meanwhile the cavers parade their moral virtue by claiming to be respecting the rights of the landowner. What cheek.

* In the proposed new phraseology/words of the Constitution
 

Simon Wilson

New member
Cap'n Chris said:
The point I'm trying (and perhaps failing) to make is this:

Landowner doesn't want cavers going into caves on their land.
The law supports them, access is restricted.
Change in legislation means the landowner cannot continue restricting access.
Landowner still doesn't want cavers going into caves on their land but is powerless to stop it.
Cavers going underground on the landowner's property are therefore apparently respecting the rights (i.e. effectively none) of the landowner, but are actually flouting the landowner's wishes.
Ergo there is no respect for the landowner's wishes and the landowner may well feel disabused. Moral victory?

A) We are not seeking a "change in legislation".

B) Could you name a landowner with whom that scenario might happen?
 

Simon Wilson

New member
Cap'n Chris said:
A) Reinterpretation, change. You say potato.....
B) Naming or not naming, does it alter the premise?

It is an important point that we are not seeking to change the legislation.

If you can't name a landowner then your premise is spurious.
 

bograt

Active member
Cap'n Chris said:
Landowner doesn't want cavers going into caves on their land.
The law supports them, access is restricted.

Status quo, no access to cavers.

Cap'n Chris said:
Change in legislation means the landowner cannot continue restricting access.
Landowner still doesn't want cavers going into caves on their land but is powerless to enforce it.

Status quo, providing that cavers do not stray 'beyond the limit of daylight'.

Cap'n Chris said:
Cavers going underground on the landowner's property are therefore apparently "respecting the rights*" (i.e. effectively none) of the landowner, but are actually flouting the landowner's wishes.
Ergo there is no respect for the landowner's wishes and the landowner may well feel disabused. Moral victory?
Meanwhile the cavers parade their moral virtue by claiming to be respecting the rights of the landowner. What cheek.

* In the proposed new phraseology/words of the Constitution

The general mindset of this sector of the caving world " "respecting the rights" (i.e. effectively none)" Is made obvious. If this message is being broadcast to both cavers and landowners, then both sides attitude is no surprise.

 
I cannot see any contraventions, what I do see, however, is a significant failure in the role of regional access officers in their duties to provide a suitable link between the needs of cavers and landowners, educating them both, some regions seem to manage it, why can't others ?? ----.
 
Top