Scout Caving Review from HQ


No doubt many of you will have received this email from HQ.

We are contacting you as a permit holder or assessor listed on Compass for Caving or Mine Exploration. As part of an ongoing review of the rules and guidance to manage activities we are currently looking at underground activities and would like any constructive feedback you have which would improve the permit scheme and make the activity safer and more accessible for members.

Please provide any feedback by 31st October, this will then be shared with the Programme Assurance Team along with other feedback and incident information which will inform the work they undertake on this review. Please keep your feedback constructive, if you identify a challenge please try and offer some solutions.


Is it worthwhile starting a discussion on our responses or is everyone going to feed their own views back to HQ?

One of my thoughts relates to group sizes. While POR says maximum of 8 including the Leader, I can think of a couple of our local caves/mines (Derbyshire) where we could manage a larger group, say 10, plus leader. (Note: I don't count the leaders who bring their group in my totals, otherwise the number of Scouts caving would be even less). We use Devonshire as our introductory system and, with the grwoing popularity of Scouting, we can struggle to fit enough trips in to meet demand. A group of 10 is perfectly manageable in there. What do others think?
I also think that the list of man-made caves on the POR page needs updating.




Well-known member
On Facebook there is a page for the NCSASU/ASCT, and there have been various discussions going on. Including some around group sizes etc, so I?m sure someone will have put forwards their want for larger ratios

I think PaulW of this parish is looking to get involved with the review going forwards so might stick his oar in on here.


Active member
I agree with Josh, anyone from scouting having an opinion should direct it towards Paul Wilman, otherwise HQ are just going to get bombarded with lots of different views and then nothing will happen, also the other advantage is that the FB group is a closed group so only those who need to get involved can. opening something like this on an open forum could potentially lead to anyone and everyone having there say with only some or none of the facts


I wasn't suggesting particularly that it be opened and discussed on a public forum, it could be done via an exchange of private emails. I don't do Facebook so that's me out.