Author Topic: Youth and Development AGM Report 2018-2019  (Read 3686 times)

Offline JasonC

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • KCC
Re: Youth and Development AGM Report 2018-2019
« Reply #75 on: June 08, 2019, 10:42:20 pm »
We already have some extremely useful guidance from the BCA Safeguarding Officer on what is required in the way of paperwork if a club does encourage younger members - so we know it can be done legally and by the book.  It does require an older caver (parent, guardian, etc.) to take responsibility - but that's surely not a problem.  It is a real pity if outdated notions of "liability" get in the way of encouraging youngsters.

Indeed, but it's not just that.  Our club - doubtless in common with others - had to form a policy re taking U18s caving.
Our understanding of the position is
- if their parent/guardian accompanies them, then all is fine
- if not, then the trip leader must have passed a DBS check, and also the club must appoint a Youth/Vulnerable Adult Officer to ensure that all paperwork is complete and regulations complied with.

Personally, I would have no objection to undergoing a DBS check, but definitely wouldn't want the responsibility of being a Y/VA officer.  I think this feeling was general, so our policy had to be "no U18s unless accompanied by parent/guardian".

I'm not aware that we have ever (at least recently) taken unaccompanied U18s, so in practice it won't make much difference, but it seems a pity - if a member wanted to take their child and his/her mate (whose parents wouldn't contemplate caving) on a trip, then presumably we'd have to say no.

Offline ian.p

  • forum star
  • ****
  • Posts: 632
  • FSC,EECC, SMCC,SUSS,ULSA,BCRA
Re: Youth and Development AGM Report 2018-2019
« Reply #76 on: June 11, 2019, 04:36:32 pm »
I think it is very important to understand that in the case of CCC "safeguarding" is being used as a smoke screen to maintain access control.

I have spoken to a club rep present at the last CCC AGM and it is abundantly clear that BCA advice on safeguarding requirements has been wilfully misrepresented to club reps.


The current position taken by CCC is that any 16-18 year old wanting to enter a CCC controlled cave must be accompanied by 2 adults and apparently this is to be applied to all children in the party I.E if there were 2 children there must be 4 adults in the party.


I have previously worked as a cave leader and presently help to run children’s caving camps as a volenteer. Commercial caving companies with far greater liability than the CCC typically work on a ratio of 1 instructor to between 8 -12 children with an adult assistant (usually a parent or teacher). As a volunteer taking children caving I usually have a ratio of 4-6 children to 1 leader and 1 assistant. So it is quite clear that the CCC'S stance is not in line with curent good practice.


CCC is an access controlling body, it is not offering to take children caving. The responsibility for ensuring a child's safety lies with the group undertaking the trip, not CCC. If the 50p charged for a permit is thought to create liability THEN FOR GODS SAKES JUST STOP CHARGING IT AND GET RID OF THE PERMITS the only thing that costs CCC any money is printing the permits! BCA has lots of money at the moment im sure CCC could ask for a subsidy if it was desperatly affected by the loss of revenue.

To highlight the ridiculousness of this stance lets say for example an adult caver assaulted a child down Swildons hole or on the Ingleton waterfalls walk. Does anyone seriously think it would be in the public interest for the farmer or estate to be held liable for either of those incidents? Does the Ingleton estate insist that every group using it proves they have two responsible adults to every child?


As a further point, contrary to popular belief, you do not need a DBS check to interact with somone elses child. What you do need to be is sensible. Yes it is a good idea to always have two adults in a party, yes you should think about arangments for changing and accomadation if you are planning an overnight trip. Clubs should have a safeguarding policy, but a DBS check is not a silver bullet and neither is it a legal requirement for everyone to have one. Remember that a DBS check only safeguards against previous offenders who have been caught and prosecuted.

Offline Bob Mehew

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1217
  • breaking knots is fun
Re: Youth and Development AGM Report 2018-2019
« Reply #77 on: June 11, 2019, 05:46:57 pm »
Our understanding of the position is
- if their parent/guardian accompanies them, then all is fine
You omit friend of the family, see Section 58 of the 2007 Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/47/data.pdf.  That covers your scenario of member, child and mate of child.  It is in the new policy presented to the AGM.

Offline Graigwen

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 387
Re: Youth and Development AGM Report 2018-2019
« Reply #78 on: June 12, 2019, 10:07:30 am »
Our understanding of the position is
- if their parent/guardian accompanies them, then all is fine
You omit friend of the family, see Section 58 of the 2007 Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/47/data.pdf.  That covers your scenario of member, child and mate of child.  It is in the new policy presented to the AGM.

...and this also covers the situation I was in years ago when I habitually took a 17 year old child into old mines without consulting her parent as S58(3) covered me in my other role as the child's husband.

.