In response to comments made on the previous thread about the process of the BCA ballot
I don't wish to comment on the process of the ballot itself but I can comment on the reference to its importance for the CRoW debate. There are several constitutional amendments to the constitution proposed in this ballot but none will impact on the CRoW debate in reality. I expect the one the poster was thinking about in the other thread is the removal of the sentence from section 4.6 of the constitution namely;
?That the owners and tenants of property containing caves have the right to grant or withhold access?
The BCA AGM, as final interpreters of the constitution, already voted overwhelmingly that ?This general meeting confirms that there is no impediment in the constitution to prevent the BCA campaigning for the Countryside and Rights of Way Act to apply to caving.?
However members do vote in this ballot it will not change the BCA position regarding a campaign to confirm caving comes under the CRoW Act. The main reason for removing that sentence is that it is plain inaccurate. Landowners and tenants of property do not have the right to grant or withhold access to caves on land covered by the Land Reform Act (Scotland), nor do they have the right to withhold access to the entrances of caves on land designated under the CRoW Act. All that is disputed is how far down a cave you might go before the Act ceases to apply.
It has been of concern that some members have tried to use that sentence to prevent the BCA from campaigning for CRoW. More worrying, if that had succeeded, is that the sentence could have been used equally by landowners or quarry owners who might wish to prevent BCA from campaigning for access or even to save caves from destruction. BCA Council has dealt with this issue several times as quoted below;
?BCA Council is fully aware of the Guiding Principles as outlined in sections 4.2 - 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 4.4 - 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.?
And..
?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 materialise. 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.?
The BCA AGM supported the changes as do the executive. If people wish to vote against them then that is their right but they should be properly informed on what they are voting for. Voting against the changes will probably only result in making life that little bit harder for some already hard working BCA officers.
I don't wish to comment on the process of the ballot itself but I can comment on the reference to its importance for the CRoW debate. There are several constitutional amendments to the constitution proposed in this ballot but none will impact on the CRoW debate in reality. I expect the one the poster was thinking about in the other thread is the removal of the sentence from section 4.6 of the constitution namely;
?That the owners and tenants of property containing caves have the right to grant or withhold access?
The BCA AGM, as final interpreters of the constitution, already voted overwhelmingly that ?This general meeting confirms that there is no impediment in the constitution to prevent the BCA campaigning for the Countryside and Rights of Way Act to apply to caving.?
However members do vote in this ballot it will not change the BCA position regarding a campaign to confirm caving comes under the CRoW Act. The main reason for removing that sentence is that it is plain inaccurate. Landowners and tenants of property do not have the right to grant or withhold access to caves on land covered by the Land Reform Act (Scotland), nor do they have the right to withhold access to the entrances of caves on land designated under the CRoW Act. All that is disputed is how far down a cave you might go before the Act ceases to apply.
It has been of concern that some members have tried to use that sentence to prevent the BCA from campaigning for CRoW. More worrying, if that had succeeded, is that the sentence could have been used equally by landowners or quarry owners who might wish to prevent BCA from campaigning for access or even to save caves from destruction. BCA Council has dealt with this issue several times as quoted below;
?BCA Council is fully aware of the Guiding Principles as outlined in sections 4.2 - 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 4.4 - 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.?
And..
?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 materialise. 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.?
The BCA AGM supported the changes as do the executive. If people wish to vote against them then that is their right but they should be properly informed on what they are voting for. Voting against the changes will probably only result in making life that little bit harder for some already hard working BCA officers.