• WIN 1 of 2 copies of OGOF FFYNNON DDU in our latest caption competition!

    Featuring 176 pages of lavish photography, a history of this classic Welsh system's exploration and first hand accounts of that dramatic rescue - from both sides of the stretcher!

    Click here to enter

Revealed: Caving and the CROW Act - new political developments

David Rose

Active member
I'm pleased to be able to report some encouraging news on the long-running saga of attempts to improve the law that governs cave access.

As already noted in this thread, the All Party Party Parliamentary Group on Outdoor Recreation and Access to Nature recently published a report entitled Outdoors for All, which included a recommendation that the Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act 2000 should be amended so that caving came within its scope, thus removing restrictions to cave access on land designated as open mountain and moorland. The BCA has been campaigning for this for more than a decade, and as regular forum readers will know, supported an unsuccessful judicial review of officialdom's current position that ended in 2021. Along with the CNCC, it gave written evidence to the APPG ahead of the report.

That official position, in case readers don't know, is absurd. According to the relevant governmental bodies, Defra, Natural England, the Welsh Government and Natural Resources Wales, cavers have a right to visit entrances on designated CROW open access land, but not to venture into them beyond the limits of daylight. Yet caving is not in the Act's schedule of excluded activities, and there is no evidence that Parliament had this intention when the Act was debated.

Before the APPG report was published, I met with its chair, the Rossendale and Darwen Labour MP Andy MacNae, and his policy aide Owen Riley, at Westminster. It was a great meeting. Andy is a former deputy chief executive of the BMC and an active climber, with some notable greater ranges first ascents under his belt. He totally gets the point that the current interpretation of the Act needs to change. Some posters here have quibbled about the report's wording, suggesting the APPG has somehow strengthened the official position. Well, I don't read it that way, and having stayed in contact with Andy and Owen, I can assure you they do not support the status quo at all.

On 21 August, Andy wrote to the relevant Defra minister, Baroness Hayman. His letter is attached here, and you will see it amounts to valuable support for the BCA/CNCC arguments. It reviews the recent Dartmoor camping case, and suggests this lends further strength to them.

The Baroness replied (also attached) on 2 October. It's a very disappointing letter, that merely restates what government has been saying ever since Badlad of this parish first began to raise the issue more than a decade ago. On the other hand, it comes as no surprise. Most, indeed, almost all, letters signed by ministers are drafted by civil servants. If there isn’t a specific political mandate to change the status quo, they will almost invariably restate the official departmental position, and the minister, who will have many decisions to make on policy areas even more important than cave access, will simply sign them. So the Baroness will likely have paid little attention to this. It will have been in her in-tray of things to sign and this she will duly have done. She may well not have read it, let alone have thought about the Dartmoor case.

The good news is that Andy remains keen to keep up the pressure, and wants to engage with the caving community as to the best way to do this. We have a significant ally.
 

Attachments

I would say the response is somewhat, lacking. It's like the letter from Andy has not been read, And an automatic response letter sent back.
But I expect nothing less from an government, if we where a sailing ship, you would say we are stuck in the duldrums.
 
That official position, in case readers don't know, is absurd. According to the relevant governmental bodies, Defra, Natural England, the Welsh Government and Natural Resources Wales, cavers have a right to visit entrances on designated CROW open access land, but not to venture into them beyond the limits of daylight. Yet caving is not in the Act's schedule of excluded activities, and there is no evidence that Parliament had this intention when the Act was debated.

Not remotely absurd to me, David; at the BCA AGM held in Priddy in the relevant year that the CRoW topic cropped up in early stages I specifically recall trying (and hopefully succeeding) in making an analogy about the greyscale/fuzzy logic at which point a hole in the ground becomes a cave (vide Thouless & Thouless' "Straight and Crooked Thinking: the Argument of the Beard" if you wish to read the inspiration which prompted me).

Yer tiz:

Imagine:
1) a surface depression that's quite significant. It is not a cave.
2) a surface depression that's properly deep with steep sides. It it not a cave.
3) a surface depression that's 100m deep and you need rope to get in and out of it because the sides are vertical. It is not a cave. [e.g. a Yorkshire Pothole - there are many: these are not caves in UK law based on the above 2 points, merely being very impressive and rocky deep holes in the ground which is still technically "the surface" because daylight streaks across the ground during midday].
4) a side passage which leads off into the dark zone whereby you need a light to navigate during normal daylight hours; that is a cave.

Therefore you can see that it's perfectly reasonable to allow people to be in what "appears to be a cave" (but isn't one,... yet) in UK law but they're not allowed into the dark bit (OK, define that, 'cos that's equally grey/fuzzy) because that's a cave which could very easily be beneath a neighbouring landowner's property which doesn't fall within the remit of CRoW.

Therefore: not absurd in the slightest*.

* In legally definable terminology. Being stood on the ground in GG where daylight streaks across and illuminates the ground you are stood on just means you're stood on the surface but a long way down. Once you step into darkness you are "hey presto!" inside a cave. For this reason I imagine the entirety of the CRoW legislation simply gave up the will to live on the basis of ridiculousness. Cavers kinda instinctively know what they think a cave is but try defining one in law. Even the media trip over themselves when reporting anything to do with caves by using the risible expression "Underground cave". However,.. perhaps they're right. Once you're actually beneath the surface where no light can penetrate you're in a cave but if you're in a deep (very deep) pothole, on rope, but there's light shining beside you, you're not in a cave whatsoever. Just a deep surface depression with vertical sides and ground at the bottom which is in daylight and is therefore, technically, the "surface of the planet".
 
Last edited:
Nonsense cap n, with a suitably placed large mirror you could explore a good bit of GG main chamber without straying into "cave".

Where I disagree with you is about legislators giving up the will to live, unfortunately a proportion of legislators and lawyers seem to delight in such ambiguities rather than take a pragmatic approach based on the spirit of the matter.
 
Therefore you can see that it's perfectly reasonable to allow people to be in what "appears to be a cave" (but isn't one,... yet) in UK law but they're not allowed into the dark bit (OK, define that, 'cos that's equally grey/fuzzy) because that's a cave which could very easily be beneath a neighbouring landowner's property which doesn't fall within the remit of CRoW.
The solution is simple to me - to remember that caves are not really things of any significance in law? They are just features in rock. I don't see why there is any need to define where a cave is or isn't, because what has that got to do with CROW?

CROW defines an area. Anything in that area that isn't otherwise excluded (e.g. buildings?) is 'CROW land' (regardless of its 3D position). Anything outside that area is not CROW land. Any bit of cave on CROW land should be accessible under CROW. Any bit of cave not on CROW land should not. Thus any cave only partly on CROW land would only partly benefit from CROW access.

The whole idea that a cave is a 'thing' and that owning the entrance is of any significance other than the practical has no merit in terms of ownership AFAIK. The person who owns the land owns any part of a cave underneath.
 
Indeed, but various random things are excluded, such as access to water in England and Wales (but not Scotland)
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_in_English_law provides a brief explanation of the definition of land which can be simplified to land being 3 dimensional, (from the centre of the earth out to space). But one of the other claims of DEFRA & NRW is that access land is just the surface and is not three dimensional. The Minister's response however just focused on the claim that caves are enclosed and thus caving is open air recreation. Perhaps worryingly it also comments "wider government priorities around improving responsible access to nature and the benefit this brings to public health and wellbeing. However, there are no current plans to amend the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 with regards to defining “open air recreation”." One reason the Judicial review ceased was the Welsh Government claimed caving was low priority. Fighting this case is going to have to cover many similar 'escape' routes which the government might try to take.
 
The public have a right of access to the cave entrance on access land. Therefore a landowner has very little control or management of that. Once at the entrance there is very little to prevent the 'public' or caver going down the cave, certainly in the Dales where there are very few gates. If the caves were recognised as being within the CRoW legislation then the landowner would be protected by the reduced liability the CRoW Act affords. As it is the landowner has the slightly greater risk of liability and certainly, for some, a greater perceived one. This position is also quite absurd ;) ;)
 
The public have a right of access to the cave entrance on access land. Therefore a landowner has very little control or management of that. Once at the entrance there is very little to prevent the 'public' or caver going down the cave, certainly in the Dales where there are very few gates. If the caves were recognised as being within the CRoW legislation then the landowner would be protected by the reduced liability the CRoW Act affords. As it is the landowner has the slightly greater risk of liability and certainly, for some, a greater perceived one. This position is also quite absurd ;) ;)
But isn't that the point. A hostile landowner understandable sometimes (but not excusable!) due to the behaviour of some of the public will have a first response of "get off my land" - especially if not on a PRoW. If CRoW gives people the right to get to the entrance but not go caving, a hostile landowner could bar or block a cave entrance without any legal concern. Access to entrance location doesn't always mean access inside.

Thank goodness it's not the 1950s when it seems access to dynamite stuff was common. Without going any further than to say: the current government seem very unsympathetic to liberties - probably the best that can be hoped for might be to maintain the status quo until the political situation changes.
 
It's not so easy for a landowner to block a cave entrance either. Potentially they could be damaging a SSSI, affecting a water course etc. They even might increase their liability if someone then trying to enter the altered cave entrance and having an accident. Thankfully, due to continual improvements in access to the countryside legislation landowners can no longer shoo us off land with a shotgun. And most, if not all those changes have happened under Labour governments.
 
Absurd or not, things do generally seem to be moving towards a better resolution. Or at least I'd like to think they are.
 
the current government seem very unsympathetic to liberties - probably the best that can be hoped for might be to maintain the status quo until the political situation changes.
I think most of us expected this government to be more sympathetic that they are turning out to be, which may be down to them having inherited a much worse economic position than they expected and having had to shift their priorities. However, I'm fairly sure that the other parties would be worse, except perhaps the Lib Dems or the Greens, who are not likely to form a government. What we need is shift in attitude in the current government, as they are the only chance we'll have.
 
At last election both reform (14.3%) and lib dems (12.2%) only had about half as many voters as Tories (23.7%), and greens had half again (6.7%), whilst labour had 33.7%, so a clear lead over others. Labour party is also the largest, having more than twice as many members as greens, and probably conservatives, lib Dems have just over half as many as last two. Reform claim to be approaching labour.

Whilst the seats may not be shared out proportionally, I don't think any party has ever won without a majority
 
Last edited:
Back
Top