Thoughts on the BCA AGM proposals
- Thread starter MarkS
- Start date
Brains
Well-known member
While that is true, they are currently within the fold but are undermining the national body both from within and to outside agencies.Pitlamp said:
It would seem they want to play to their own agenda regardless of the rest of the membership - including their own unconsulted members...
darren
Member
Maybe devolution is the answer. Push as many functions as possible down to regional level leaving the national body to do what can't be done locally. Thats the way the United Kingdom is supposed to be going.
A good example would be letting regional bodies develope there own access policys based on local knowledge and circumstances.
A good example would be letting regional bodies develope there own access policys based on local knowledge and circumstances.
cavemanmike
Well-known member
This is something they already do
andrewmcleod
Well-known member
The difference is that the UK's devolution is (in comparison) well-planned and well-executed...
I am Welsh, and I am a big fan of devolution. But an important principle in devolution is that of accountability. The Welsh Government is accountable to the individual voters of Wales, but they are also accountable to the UK Government since they are still reliant on the UK for many things (some funding, defence etc).
It remains the case that the UK Parliament is sovereign over the regions, but that convention requires that the devolved assemblies are allowed to control all legislation within their devolved matters. If the Welsh Assembly decided to pass a law banning the English from crossing the border, the UK parliament could (and would) overrule them.
In the BCA, not only do each of the (not individually democratic) regions get positions on BCA Council and every Standing Committee, the BCA is also constitutionally barred from interfering in access matters. So essentially the BCA coughs up the cash, the regions spend it (fairly freely, since some expenditure is automatic and they control the committees that approval exceptional expenditure e.g. C&A and E&T), they can vote on BCA matters and interfere in BCA matters but the BCA is not allowed to interfere in regional matters (despite being the more democratic body).
The BCA's set-up is not devolution, which has a clear hierarchy where the regional assembly is subordinate to the national government (although the national government should not interfere without exceptional reasons). The BCA is the single national democratic body shackled to the independent regions who can freely drag the BCA where they see fit while collecting the benefits of the BCA. Fortunately, most of the regions, most of the time, work for the benefit of caving (probably they always all _think_ they are working for the benefit of caving...).
In my eyes, it is a travesty that individual cavers (i.e. cavers outside of a club, or those that are not represented by their club's voting habits) have effectively no democratic say on access issues in UK, since this is the remit of the regions, and if a region decides on a policy the BCA cannot intervene.
I am Welsh, and I am a big fan of devolution. But an important principle in devolution is that of accountability. The Welsh Government is accountable to the individual voters of Wales, but they are also accountable to the UK Government since they are still reliant on the UK for many things (some funding, defence etc).
It remains the case that the UK Parliament is sovereign over the regions, but that convention requires that the devolved assemblies are allowed to control all legislation within their devolved matters. If the Welsh Assembly decided to pass a law banning the English from crossing the border, the UK parliament could (and would) overrule them.
In the BCA, not only do each of the (not individually democratic) regions get positions on BCA Council and every Standing Committee, the BCA is also constitutionally barred from interfering in access matters. So essentially the BCA coughs up the cash, the regions spend it (fairly freely, since some expenditure is automatic and they control the committees that approval exceptional expenditure e.g. C&A and E&T), they can vote on BCA matters and interfere in BCA matters but the BCA is not allowed to interfere in regional matters (despite being the more democratic body).
The BCA's set-up is not devolution, which has a clear hierarchy where the regional assembly is subordinate to the national government (although the national government should not interfere without exceptional reasons). The BCA is the single national democratic body shackled to the independent regions who can freely drag the BCA where they see fit while collecting the benefits of the BCA. Fortunately, most of the regions, most of the time, work for the benefit of caving (probably they always all _think_ they are working for the benefit of caving...).
In my eyes, it is a travesty that individual cavers (i.e. cavers outside of a club, or those that are not represented by their club's voting habits) have effectively no democratic say on access issues in UK, since this is the remit of the regions, and if a region decides on a policy the BCA cannot intervene.
2xw
Active member
Devolution sounds nice but when you push all that power with no oversight on to a very small group of people for a very long time you get dumb shit like access bodies banning children from caves (as a moral choice) and no democratic way for anyone to do anything about it (and paying for it all the while!). Even the most federal of arrangements have devolved powers signing up to a set of core principles, with included oversight.
Maybe the solution is to strip regional bodies of their vote and replace them with individual member reps. Be good to get a few fresh faces that won't tolerate any of this sort of shite. BCA stuff should be decided by its members, not by sinister cabals who seem to get a kick out of driving to Birmingham and shouting at each other for 6 hours (hard to kick a 20 year habit)
Also, I'd then get to leave (please).
Maybe the solution is to strip regional bodies of their vote and replace them with individual member reps. Be good to get a few fresh faces that won't tolerate any of this sort of shite. BCA stuff should be decided by its members, not by sinister cabals who seem to get a kick out of driving to Birmingham and shouting at each other for 6 hours (hard to kick a 20 year habit)
Also, I'd then get to leave (please).
RobinGriffiths
Well-known member
Hard CSCCxit.
blackshiver
Member
At what point in this utter fiasco does the BCA Chairmans position become untenable?
Pitlamp
Well-known member
Of course it can agree - that's what voting is for. Once a vote is taken, the outcome becomes the BCA's policy which it can then act on. If some members think that agreement is wrong they can then produce alternative proposals and have them voted on. The CSCC's current proposals are just that - proposals. Let's see whether they meet with the majority's approval when it comes to the vote.
darren said:
cavemanmike said:
Am I missing something? Is not a fact that the vote to instruct the BCA to follow a policy of persuading the government(s) of England and Wales that CRoW access includes caving, if successful, would become national policy. However we appear to have a influential clique (albeit democratic/representative/ or not) in the CSCC who disagree strongly and are doing whatever they can to disrupt the initiative by effectively reversing the result of the vote should their proposals succeed. The crunch point will come if the BCA initiative is successful and the CSCC has to put up or shut up. The BCA would be supporting a national policy - like it or not new territory. For the record I voted against CRoW recognizing caving as as allowable activity because I fear for the conservation of vulnerable sites. But I am a democrat and accept the result.
Jopo BCA DIM
& access is to the natural environment, not holes dug open by man. Legislation would have to decide whether it only covered those that were historically open, or include everything there at time it's passed. Also what happens when passages leave access land & extend under private property?
Landowners don't have increased liability over naturally occurring holes, but they do about ones they've allowed to be opened.
Landowners don't have increased liability over naturally occurring holes, but they do about ones they've allowed to be opened.
Pitlamp
Well-known member
I think (and I'm honestly no expert on this) that the difference which most affects we cavers is that NE doesn't get very involved in access but it does manage activities which might cause problems ("potentially damaging operations", or "PDOs") but only if a caving area falls within an SSSI. What this means in practice is that NE aren't interested in you having a trip in, say, Meregill. But if you wanted to rip open the Ingleborough fellside to investigate some hot lead in the pursuit of a new cave, then they need to be involved.
Indeed, and what you need to go for is what I understand is called a "Section 26" agreement. (I think, but am not 100% sure that you need a "Section 25" agreement if it's a mine - and some mines are SSSIs.) Anyway, it's a standard system that allows cavers to work or access an SSSI or, if necessary, to control access to it.
The expert on this is Bob Mehew but we did go into it all when the brief was done for Dinah Rose, who did the Barrister's opinion on CRoW for BCA.
The expert on this is Bob Mehew but we did go into it all when the brief was done for Dinah Rose, who did the Barrister's opinion on CRoW for BCA.
royfellows
Well-known member
Jopo said:
Good for you!
Pity other don't follow your example.
