BCA CRoW Poll Result

[cavermark]

I'm confident that it will be done diplomatically.

 

[Peter Burgess]

I think most clubs value highly the freedom to act independently on behalf of their own members, so I would expect there to be no problems if this freedom is properly respected.

 

[Bob Mehew]

Any move that increases the possibility of confrontation between BCA and a member, individual or group, cannot be a good thing, or "reasonable". Every club is different, operating in very diverse areas of the country where different norms are to be found. A club may have an arrangement with a landowner, which is exclusively between them alone. Provided BCA or regional council assistance was not provided when such an agreement was put together, then what business is it of BCA's to interfere in those arrangements? I wouldn't expect the BCA to be interested anyway, so perhaps this is purely hypothetical. However, I can see how a peeved BCA member, not party to the "private" arrangement might invite the BCA to interfere on behalf of the rest of the BCA membership.

You appear to miss the point.  My scenario is that a group of cavers make a request to NE to issue a Direction on the basis that the land owner wishes to withdraw the legal right of access provided under CRoW.  NE ask BCA for their opinion.  BCA has drawn up guidance / policy / standard that this application does not meet.  The question is what should BCA do?  Not 'interfere' / tell NE it does not meet BCA's standards / suspend the members because they bring BCA into disrepute?  What is your choice (or indeed alternative course of action)?

You say "Any move that increases the possibility of confrontation between BCA and a member, individual or group, cannot be a good thing, or "reasonable"."  You may wish to recall that BCA was asked by one region to pursue members based in another region who openly admitted to breaching the access arrangements for a cave in the first region.  Do you wish to stop this type of action?  If so, should BCA do away with existing policy / standards etc and indeed Sec 11.2?  Or just not lay down any new standard / policy / guidance?

I suggest this example is rife with hidden aspects which may cause either (or possibly both) of us to changing our views.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Apologies, Bob. You are focused on the CRoW issue (quite properly considering the topic), but I was speaking more generally. The constitution has been written to cover all aspects of caving, not just access under CRoW. Changing it to suit one aspect of the BCA's role, and risking an adverse effect in another area is something to be avoided. If think the non-interference clause is a fundamental part of the constitution and should not be compromised. Providing a channel of communication between parties who have an issue might be a reasonable thing to do, since the BCA ought to be able to remain detached from local problems to some extent.

However, if I recall correctly, not so long ago there was some friction generated between the BCA and a couple of clubs/access bodies over access to caves for commercial bodies. One of those access bodies put it on record that they saw the proposed BCA document, being put out at the time regarding this matter, ran the risk of creating "a division within the ranks of British cavers" and "this could ultimately lead to the division of club caving away from the BCA"...... which is precisely what I suggested up-topic. This is not something any sensible caver wants to see.

 

[Bob Mehew]

Peter - the point I am obviously not clearly making is that BCA would be asked  for its view because it is the national body.  The problem I foresee is members saying 'well the constitution says you can't', as was claimed early on in this thread over another topic.  My postulated problem is not a club / club thing; it is one club / individual doing something at odds to what a majority of other clubs & individuals agreed to. 

Your second paragraph seems to suggest that because one club / member says no, then BCA should do nothing.  I suggest that is not democracy, it is a multi headed dictatorship and a certain recipe for the demise of BCA.

 

[jasonbirder]

It says BCA shall not interfere in the affairs of a Member unless specifically requested to do so by that Member
It would be a concern of mine that were the BCA to amend that phrase you quoted, or perhaps be seen to act against it

Is the discussion around this point with the intent of suggesting that if BCA member club has an existing access agreement to a cave on CRoW land that the BCA would be interfering in the affairs of that member by pushing for an interpretation of the CRoW act that invalidated that access agreement?

Or am I just being overly suspicious...

If CRoW is interpreted to cover caving, then as the law of the land it would trump the BCA's constitution and free access to caves on CRoW land would be a given (except in the case of special exclusions) - I don't see how the BCA's constitution comes into it...

 

[Peter Burgess]

Funny, I always thought the BCA was a representative body, not a governing body.

 

[jasonbirder]

It is...what of it?

 

[Peter Burgess]

A governing body will determine how it's members act, a representative body will support its members by presenting a unified front to the wider world. I know the BCA does the latter, but how many want the former? If a club has to check with BCA every time it sets up an arrangement for access or any other aspect of its caving activity, in case it is breaking some rule or "guideline", then this cannot be good. A while back, a move was started to encourage access bodies/clubs to push for commercial caving interests when setting up access arrangements. This was not looked upon very favourably by a couple of bodies. This is not the sort of thing that should be happening.

 

[jasonbirder]

If a club has to check with BCA every time it sets up an arrangement for access or any other aspect of its caving activity, in case it is breaking some rule or "guideline", then this cannot be good.

I would guess as long as its not breaking the law of the land...then its all good to go

 

[Pete K]

A governing body will determine how it's members act, a representative body will support its members by presenting a unified front to the wider world. I know the BCA does the latter, but how many want the former? If a club has to check with BCA every time it sets up an arrangement for access or any other aspect of its caving activity, in case it is breaking some rule or "guideline", then this cannot be good. A while back, a move was started to encourage access bodies/clubs to push for commercial caving interests when setting up access arrangements. This was not looked upon very favourably by a couple of bodies. This is not the sort of thing that should be happening.

Off topic but to correct you- The move was to include professional caving as well as clubs in access negotiations and thus represent it's entire membership. The landowner could opt out of any group for access if they chose and it makes no difference to the CRoW debate anyway. The BCA represents cavers and governs the LCMLA and CIC scheme. Would you prefer a representative body who did not represent every member, just the area you care about?

 

[Peter Burgess]

I would prefer a representative body that respected a club/landowners wishes, and did not try to get involved in a bipartisan arrangement without being invited.

 

[Bob Mehew]

If you read the constitution you will find BCA describes itself as a federation in Sec 2.1.  It also takes some powers of governance in that Sec 11 explicitly allows it to make a judgement on its members.  It also seeks to represent them as is made clear in Sec 3.

I would also add to Pete K's response that Sec 4.6 does require BCA and all members to provide where possible for the widest possible access. 

But let me get back to the question I asked and Peter nor anyone else has so far not answered.  The problem I put forward is about BCA taking on a new representative role, not a governing one.  I also thought I made it clear that it is not a bipartisan agreement.  It is about one group of cavers trying to exclude access to the cave by all cavers because of purely the preference of the land owner.  And BCA is being asked to comment on the proposal because NE has given it that responsibility to represent all cavers on persons making applications for Directions.  I have suggested that this group of cavers might seek to use one part of the constitution to block BCA from answering.

Peter - the question I am seeking an answer from you is what should BCA do in such a circumstance?

 

[Peter Burgess]

Landowner's wishes take overall precedence. Ask the landowner what they wish, and respect the answer you are given.

 

[Bob Mehew]

Thank you for the clarity of your reply even though it does not answer the question about what BCA should do.  I deduce you would say the BCA should not take on the representative role.

 

[Peter Burgess]

I am not bothered how you classify the policy, Bob, but in my mind, although it might immediately appear that not fighting for specific access is against the interests of cavers, I would argue that in the long term, being seen to show respect will earn wider respect, and trust, and be to the ultimate benefit of all of us. I have seen it work so this isn't just wishful thinking. I have also seen owners' wishes being challenged and the problems that can cause.

 

[cavermark]

Landowner's wishes take overall precedence. Ask the landowner what they wish, and respect the answer you are given.

CRoW as it currently stands (for all the other outdoor activities) would not have been put into place had that been the approach.  Do you think CRoW as it currently stands has been a bad thing?

 

[Bob Mehew]

Is the discussion around this point with the intent of suggesting that if BCA member club has an existing access agreement to a cave on CRoW land that the BCA would be interfering in the affairs of that member by pushing for an interpretation of the CRoW act that invalidated that access agreement?

No it is not about existing access agreements.  Basically and assuming CRoW applies to caving, if someone wants to withhold access to a cave for some reason, then they have to apply to NE for a direction to enable control over access to that cave to be maintained.  That application has to meet a threshold and as part of the judgement made by NE, NE will consult with various bodies, BMC and Ramblers being good examples amongst the range of bodies so consulted.  My underlying point was 'should BCA also accept this role if offered and work up some standards to use when asked'.  If it did, then say a club took up a land owners wishes and made an application which was patently without merit save for keeping the land owner happy.  I suggest BCA could find itself being accused of breaching its constitution by that club because the application had no merit. 

 

[Bob Mehew]

I am not bothered how you classify the policy, Bob, but in my mind, although it might immediately appear that not fighting for specific access is against the interests of cavers, I would argue that in the long term, being seen to show respect will earn wider respect, and trust, and be to the ultimate benefit of all of us. I have seen it work so this isn't just wishful thinking. I have also seen owners' wishes being challenged and the problems that can cause.

Peter I think we are talking past each other.  Whilst some of what you say has merit, I did not ask a question related to what you outline.  I asked one where CRoW does apply and cavers were seeking to get the land owner exempted from CRoW by seeking a Direction without any merit and then BCA was asked to comment to NE not to the land owner. 

 

[Peter Burgess]

I suggest you invite a few more "yes" voters to help you, Bob. It's not a can of worms that I opened, is it? And I am deliberately widening the issue outside CRoW, because as I said earlier, the ethos of BCA has to be relevant to all aspects of British caving, not just going below Yorkshire Dales open access land.