BCA statement on peer to peer training

[JoshW]

. I can easily imagine why an insurer might require some kind of yardstick competencies so it can better underwrite things but I'm not an insurance professional so this is pure guesswork.

To put it beyond all doubt. This is not being driven by the insurers wanting competency proof.

 

[georgenorth]

My reading of that is that a certificate of competence will suffice. In the outdoor industry this sounds like a statement of competency which many centres will use to sign off employees to run activities without qualifications. Chainsaw rules not part of my knowledge so potentially a certificate of competence is a specific thing

Nah, it’s got to be either a Lantra or C&G qualification.

 

[ChrisB]

I read most of the comments before I read the BCA statement, and was then surprised by the innocuous content of the statement.

Although I don't disagree with what I think the statement is saying, I think it could be worded better (in case anyone says I shouldn't criticise the work of volunteers unless I'm prepared to volunteer myself, please watch this space). There are several minor changes that could have avoided many of the objections in the thread, like making clear that the HSE definition was just a useful source, and not otherwise relevant.

It's supposed to be about peer to peer caving, but it's actually about leading novices. Peer caving means a group of similarly competent (or incompetent) cavers going caving, each responsible for themself. Anyone who offers to lead others, however, or puts somebody else in that position, should believe they're competent to do it.

Regarding insurance, if I may be pedantic, it doesn't protect anyone from being sued; rather, it covers their liability if they are sued.

 

[badger]

Having sat a listened to uni club's chat, seen uni clubs teaching SRT and seen some uni clubs in action, plus some club trips, I would say some form of training, not necessarily QMC, but maybe a weekend with just those that want to lead, passing over basic skills can only be good and give novices/freshers a better trip and experience.
As for competence is a difficult one to prove, just as is common sense. Who determines your level of competence.
Being able to cave and being able to lead to me are 2 different things.
Not sure if there is an easy answer.

 

[ian.p]

Travel insurance does that all time you never get asked if you've done any mountaineering before when you take out a policy to go to the alps.

 

[langcliffe]

https://british-caving.org.uk/bca-statement-on-peer-to-peer-training/

The BCA have just posted a statement on their website, which should be in no way controversial in any way shape or form, but I’m certain that someone will find it so.

How right you were!

 

[Standard Unit of Tom]

Happens every time 🤣

 

[mikem]

QCA is the canoeing equivalent of QMC

 

[Ian Adams]

Some questions for the BCA insurance officer please;

Question 1
It appears that the peer-to-peer training statement has been written by yourself but it also appears that the BCA has written it.

The BCA have just posted a statement on their website

I sat on the fence about needing the HSE definition in here and so here is some background that lead me to including it.

1a) Was it solely written by yourself?
1b) In what capacity were you acting? (ie. as Insurance officer?)
1c) Were other members of the Committee involved during its creation?
1d) What is meant by “suitably competent”?

Question 2
Is the statement on peer-to-peer training a requirement that members/member clubs are compelled to follow?

Question 3
The statement reads;
Within recreational caving clubs have a responsibility to check that leaders of novices on their trips are suitably competent, as per the above definition

The definition cites HSE

3a) What responsibility is being referred to?
3b) Is it the BCA’s view (or yours) that caving clubs fall within the umbrella of HSE?

Question 4
You said;

There is an extremely limited number of cases to base the interpretation of the law on with regards to recreational leadership, however it would not be unreasonable to believe that a a club running trips for novices would have suitably competent people running those trips.

Are you stating that the Insurers will take a view on leadership competence before considering a claim?

Question 5
You said;

2) if as a club a leader of one of your trips aimed at novices is clearly incompetent, during the course of legal proceedings following an incident, it is inevitable the club would be found somewhat liable for the incident (almost certainly as well as the individual).

Please could you elaborate on how the “club” could be legally liable and, specifically, “who” in the club you are referring to? Additionally, what is meant by “liable”? (ie criminally liable in the event of death?)

Question 6
You said;

If ‘random caving club’ and their committee say Tony the psychopath is running a trip and Tony characteristically makes bad decisions and injures the whole party, I’d say there is going to be reasonable chance that the committee end up having to demonstrate why they thought it would be okay for him to take people caving

To whom would the committee be required to demonstrate their thoughts? The insurers?

Question 7
You said;

To put it beyond all doubt. This is not being driven by the insurers wanting competency proof.

What has driven this statement?



Any clarity on the above questions you can provide will be appreciated.

Ian.

 

[mikem]

If you actually read the main statement it's signed by 3 people, none of them josh. He's written the insurance section, but was presumably consulted about main.

Some of your questions are already answered in this thread, the last one was a response to previous post

 

[Ian Adams]

Would you mind allowing Josh to answer the questions please.

 

[hyweldavies]

If ‘random caving club’ and their committee say Tony the psychopath is running a trip and Tony characteristically makes bad decisions and injures the whole party, I’d say there is going to be reasonable chance that the committee end up having to demonstrate why they thought it would be okay for him to take people caving

Yebbut do we, the caving comunity really want to be vetting leaders? That's the consequence of what you're saying. If the national governing body is stating. In normal clubs the committee does not police members' caving activies. A statement from the national body stating that we should is a huge departure from how caving has been.

Please please think about withdrawing it as policy

 

[hyweldavies]

Technically not a governing body. Just an association of clubs and individuals. Some will hang draw and quarter for stating the BCA is a governing body

My understanding was that "governing body" was a official term for body which represents a sport, eg in discussions with gov't. NCA previously held this role, even if BCRA was arguably more active and did more stuff, hence BCA post merger now the "governing body"

I also understand that a governing body need not do any real "governing", but is needed to having a voice in official circles. Caving has always had a "bottom up" ethos with BCA representing and helping the clubs rather than telling them what to do, unlike football's FA or BSAC for diving where missives come from on high

Happy to be corrected if I've got it wrong, and there isn't a "governing body" for caving

 

[JoshW]

Well what a surprise, lack of reading comprehension is ensuring this thread goes round in circles over and over again. I’m at work at the moment, but will look to reiterate the answers to the above questions (that I think are all within this thread somewhere)!

 

[hyweldavies]

Also not a lawyer... so everything that follows is 'as far as I am aware'.

Duty of care is not AFAIK related to if you are being paid or not (_except_ that the BCA insurance for professional indemnity insurance only applies if you are _not_ being paid).

Whether you are qualified/competent doesn't affect the responsibilities and duty of care you adopt. If I took people caving for money, adopt a duty of care as a leader, and am completely incompetent (having done one 'New To Caving' session or whatever), and consequently people suffered harm due to my negligence, people would rightly be able to sue me because I had a duty of care and I was negligent in that duty. The fact that I don't _have_ the competence doesn't matter - I would be expected not to adopt that duty of care unless I _had_ the competence expected. I don't need qualifications or anything, and having the qualifications wouldn't protect me.
If I was _not_ being paid, as far as I understand I would still be in exactly the same position (except that the BCA professional indemnity cover would kick in to protect me).

I regularly take less experienced people caving and act as a leader. Thus I have both a _moral_ duty of care and, I believe, a _legal_ one. I generally like to believe these two tend to be the same.

I only have two issues with the statement: 'Within recreational caving clubs have a responsibility to check that leaders of novices on their trips are suitably competent, as per the above definition'
1) there should be a comma after 'recreational caving'?
2) 'as per the above definition' isn't necessarily correct because there is nothing magical about the HSE's definition of competence. I presume competence would be determined on a case-by-case basis by a court. However it is a _good_ definition of competence, so adding an 'e.g.' before 'as per the above' would satisfy me.

I think you need to read that statement such that 'on their trips' means 'on the _club's official_ trips' not just trips of members in general. Everything will of course be assessed on a case-by-case basis to determine if any duty of care is owed.

Well put. Your explanation of duty of care looks spot and agrees with what I recall in Clerk and Lindsell (the standard textbook)

 

[al]

To whom would the committee be required to demonstrate their thoughts? The insurers?

From personal experience, I know that a coroner can and will ask anybody he thinks may be involved to demonstrate their thoughts, or otherwise explain their actions. It doesn't necessarily have to be a committee member.

 

[andrewmcleod]

Absolutely nothing in this statement is imposing any kind of restriction on cavers at all from the BCA.
Nothing in it is a requirement from the insurers.
Nothing in this statement is new.

 

[andrewmcleod]

Yebbut do we, the caving comunity really want to be vetting leaders? That's the consequence of what you're saying.

If a club is running a 'new to caving' workshop offering to take new cavers caving, I bloody hope the club is reasonably happy that the people leading those trips is competent. If I am a club official and I appoint someone who has (for example) only done two trips to lead a trip down a cave such as Swildons or Giants Hole that requires competent leadership with significant hazards, and someone suffers as a result, I would be rightly strung up in court for making terrible decisions. How much liability fell on me as the person who appointed the incompetent leader, and how much fell on the incompetent leader for accepting the role, and how much fell on the injured individual for following the poor advice (if obviously hazardous), would of course depend on the individual circumstances of the case.

However, the insurance will pay out because _that is what it is there for_.

Cavers are free never to accept a duty of care and only do peer-to-peer caving where no-one is taking a leadership role. In such cases, regardless of whether some cavers are more experienced or qualified or whatever, as long as all cavers are clear that they are all completely responsible for themselves then this will reasonably limit the duty of care. However, don't start doing anything like spotting people up climbs, belaying or rigging SRT or whatever because you will probably then have a duty of care - both moral (not to do a crap job resulting in injury) and consequently legal.

 

[ttxela2]

Within recreational caving clubs have a responsibility to check that leaders of novices on their trips are suitably competent

So, if a club has an open diary where anyone can post up trips, organise a weekend etc. for other members to join in. Does the club have to get formally involved to check competencies, or only if novices sign up to attend?

 

[andrewmcleod]

The club doesn't _have_ to check competencies ever; there is no law requiring them to do so. Just that if the negligent actions of a club, as judged by a court, result in harm, then legal action against the club ought to succeed (resulting in an insurance payout).

To be honest, I think it's individual leaders, not clubs, who probably have to worry more. There is no legal _requirement_ to be competent (for ordinary recreational caving). There is no rule saying you need to know what you are doing to run novice trips. The BCA is certainly not going to tell caving clubs or cavers how they *must* operate in this regard. But if your negligent actions result in harm to an individual to whom you owe a duty of care (because, for example, you have agreed to 'take them caving' (with the assumption that you will be leading the trip) as opposed to merely 'going caving with' them, then a legal claim against you ought to at least partially succeed.

I don't know why people are finding this complicated... if you have a duty of care, you should ensure you are competent to uphold that duty of care (and, if relevant, appoint other competent people to uphold that duty of care).

The _point_ of the document, as I understand it, is to reinforce that there are other routes to competency than paying qualified leaders - for the benefit of clubs who want to present this information to external bodies that have a duty of care over those clubs (e.g. university unions).