As promised in the last post, here is a round up of the motions debated at the AGM last weekend. This isn't intended to be an in depth discussion of any of the motions, nor is it meant to endorse or challenge any of the arguments made. It is meant as a, hopefully impartial, summary of the debates themselves, as far as I can remember them (See previous post). For those motions where no comment is provided it can be assumed that your reporter was otherwise engaged at the time. Speculation as to whether this was due to over indulgence at the members bar the night before will neither be confirmed nor denied...
If others have recollections of the debates that differ to this, please feel free to comment at the bottom of the post, I make no claims to any accuracy greater than that achievable by a very average 40 something Real Ale drinker after a night in the bar. Likewise for those Motions not reported on below, feel free to add details in the comments.
If others have recollections of the debates that differ to this, please feel free to comment at the bottom of the post, I make no claims to any accuracy greater than that achievable by a very average 40 something Real Ale drinker after a night in the bar. Likewise for those Motions not reported on below, feel free to add details in the comments.
Motion 1
This Conference agrees to adopt the Internal Policy Document produced after the 2014 Conference and Annual General Meeting subject to any amendments to policy decided at this Conference.
Proposed by National Executive
Motion Result: Carried
The Internal Policy Document contains a summary of AGM and Conference policy and other established internal policies which affect the internal workings of the Campaign, both in relation to Branches and the HQ organisation.
This was a straight forward motion to formally adopt the internal policy document agreed after the 2014 AGM. CAMRA members can find a copy here:
Members download
There was some brief debate on the motion, but it was still carried overwhelmingly.
The Internal Policy Document contains a summary of AGM and Conference policy and other established internal policies which affect the internal workings of the Campaign, both in relation to Branches and the HQ organisation.
This was a straight forward motion to formally adopt the internal policy document agreed after the 2014 AGM. CAMRA members can find a copy here:
Members download
There was some brief debate on the motion, but it was still carried overwhelmingly.
Motion 2
This Conference agrees to adopt the External Policy Document produced after the 2014 Conference and Annual General Meeting subject to any amendments to policy decided at this Conference.
Proposed by National Executive
Motion Result: Carried
This was a straight forward motion to formally adopt the External Policy document agreed after the 2014 AGM. CAMRA members can find a copy here:
Members Download
As with the previous motion, there was some brief debate, but the motion was carried overwhelmingly.
This was a straight forward motion to formally adopt the External Policy document agreed after the 2014 AGM. CAMRA members can find a copy here:
Members Download
As with the previous motion, there was some brief debate, but the motion was carried overwhelmingly.
Motion 3
This Conference notes that the recent survey of members showed that 24% of the non active members over 60 were willing to volunteer for CAMRA, and around 3% of non active members said they would be willing to volunteer when they retire. Therefore, this Conference instructs branches to take a positive approach to these people by contacting them and giving them examples as to how they might contribute to the Campaign.
Proposed by Volunteers Committee
Motion Result: Carried
This was the first strongly debated motion and several speakers came to the platform to oppose it. The argument made against it was that by adopting this motion it reinforced the perception of CAMRA as an organisation solely for older people, not interested in attracting younger members.
Those supporting the motion stressed that this was not intended to be the outcome, but that there were considerable numbers of members who would potentially have the time and inclination to take a more active role if directly asked to do so.
This was the first strongly debated motion and several speakers came to the platform to oppose it. The argument made against it was that by adopting this motion it reinforced the perception of CAMRA as an organisation solely for older people, not interested in attracting younger members.
Those supporting the motion stressed that this was not intended to be the outcome, but that there were considerable numbers of members who would potentially have the time and inclination to take a more active role if directly asked to do so.
Motion 4
AMENDED
This Conference recognises that amongst our membership there are many who have visual or auditory impairments and who may not currently be able to fully access the information and services of CAMRA.
Conference therefore instructs the NE to ensure that all CAMRA publications, websites and meetings are fully accessible for those with such impairments.
Conference instructs that the NE:
(a) Inform the membership what services are currently available for those with visual and auditory impairments
(b) State what they intend to do to improve such services where they are found to be lacking
(c) Issue to branches advice on how they can improve their publications, their websites, and the way that they run their meetings to ensure that those with visual and auditory impairments can fully participate in CAMRA’s campaigns and activities at a local and national level
Proposed by South Hertfordshire Branch
Motion Result: Carried as amended
This motion generated some interesting debate, not because the principle of the motion was opposed, but due to concerns about the legal implications and the precise requirements under disability legislation. There were concerns that if adopted as originally proposed it would mean every CAMRA branch having to have interpreters available and papers published in brail or large print format for every meeting. In the end the motion was amended to reflect these concerns and was carried.
This motion generated some interesting debate, not because the principle of the motion was opposed, but due to concerns about the legal implications and the precise requirements under disability legislation. There were concerns that if adopted as originally proposed it would mean every CAMRA branch having to have interpreters available and papers published in brail or large print format for every meeting. In the end the motion was amended to reflect these concerns and was carried.
Motion 5
This Conference recognises that the Campaign for Real Ale believes in choice and that denigrating whatever people choose to drink is counterproductive and can alienate existing and potential members. Therefore, it instructs all branches to desist from “anti campaigns” against other drinks.
Proposed by Marketing and Communications Committee
Motion Result: Carried
This appeared to be a broadly supported motion although there were counter arguments put forward concerning whether CAMRA should be approaching brewers such as Whychwood regarding their "Lager Boy" campaign, which could be seen as denigrating those who don't drink Real Ale. Against this it was stated that the motion was purely a CAMRA issue and not aimed at other organisations or businesses who were free to adopt it or not. In the end the motion was carried comfortably.
This appeared to be a broadly supported motion although there were counter arguments put forward concerning whether CAMRA should be approaching brewers such as Whychwood regarding their "Lager Boy" campaign, which could be seen as denigrating those who don't drink Real Ale. Against this it was stated that the motion was purely a CAMRA issue and not aimed at other organisations or businesses who were free to adopt it or not. In the end the motion was carried comfortably.
Motion 6
This Conference notes the decision of Books Committee to select the Good Beer Guide cover pub each year from a shortlist which includes the reigning Pub of the Year. As the Good Beer Guide is CAMRA’s flagship publication, Conference instructs that with effect from the 2017 edition the current Pub of the Year should feature on the cover.
Proposed by Surrey and Sussex branches
Motion Result: Defeated
Reporter AWOL (He had fallen asleep clutching his head - Reporters wife)
Reporter AWOL (He had fallen asleep clutching his head - Reporters wife)
Motion 7
This Conference, while reaffirming the general policy in IPD 4.5 that CAMRA beer festivals sell beers of a lower ABV at a lower price, agrees that festival organisers be given flexibility in pricing for campaigning issues and to reflect the costs to the festival of beers supplied.
Proposed by Chris Stringer, Seconded by Glyn Baker
Motion Result: Carried
Section 4.5 of the CAMRA Internal Policy Document sets out CAMRA's position that beer festival pricing should reflect wider CAMRA policy and that beer pricing should reflect the ABV of the beers concerned. This motion put forward the idea that in the case of beer festivals, organisers be given flexibility in interpreting this requirement given that festivals typically have a differing cost base to regular pubs and as such need scope to allow for this when pricing the beers available.
Section 4.5 of the CAMRA Internal Policy Document sets out CAMRA's position that beer festival pricing should reflect wider CAMRA policy and that beer pricing should reflect the ABV of the beers concerned. This motion put forward the idea that in the case of beer festivals, organisers be given flexibility in interpreting this requirement given that festivals typically have a differing cost base to regular pubs and as such need scope to allow for this when pricing the beers available.
Motion 8
This Conference instructs that all CAMRA festivals including GBBF adhere to the requirement in IPD 4.5 to operate a pricing structure related to ABV.
Proposed by Chris Stringer, Seconded by Glyn Baker
Motion Result: Falls (due to passing of Motion 7)
With motion 7 being passed there was no debate required on this motion and the conference proceeded directly to the next item.
With motion 7 being passed there was no debate required on this motion and the conference proceeded directly to the next item.
Motion 9
This Conference agrees that with the current key campaign structure it is no longer relevant for branches to set three challenging aims each year and instructs the National Executive to remove this as a compulsory branch requirement.
Proposed by Graham Donning, Seconded by Andrew Rodburne
Motion Result: Carried
In another well debated motion it was agued that the current requirement that all branches set three challenging aims for themselves every year was not really an appropriate approach given the diversity in size and levels of activity between branches, and that this one size fits all policy was not practical in reality.
Arguments against the motion raised concerns that this would result in an overall lowering of campaigning activity by branches and could adversely affect the organisations ability to achieve its national goals.
In the end it was felt that removing this requirement but maintaining the existing policy of encouragement of branches to actively campaign was a more pragmatic approach and the motion was carried.
In another well debated motion it was agued that the current requirement that all branches set three challenging aims for themselves every year was not really an appropriate approach given the diversity in size and levels of activity between branches, and that this one size fits all policy was not practical in reality.
Arguments against the motion raised concerns that this would result in an overall lowering of campaigning activity by branches and could adversely affect the organisations ability to achieve its national goals.
In the end it was felt that removing this requirement but maintaining the existing policy of encouragement of branches to actively campaign was a more pragmatic approach and the motion was carried.
Motion 10
This Conference is concerned that the perception of CAMRA is being damaged by accepting advertising from commercial organisations which act against CAMRA’s aims. It instructs the National Executive to adopt a policy not to accept advertising from such organisations. Furthermore it instructs the National Executive not to allow any CAMRA branded support for any promotions by these organisations.
Proposed by Slough, Windsor and Maidenhead branch
Motion Result: Defeated
Motion 11
This Conference instructs the National Executive not to enter into any promotions or campaigns that promote all beers and not real ale specifically.
Proposed by Steve Bury, Seconded by Phil Defriez
Motion Result: Defeated
The proposers were concerned that by supporting promotions and campaigns supporting beer in general and not specifically Real Ale, CAMRA was diluting it's position and support for Real Ale.
Opposing the motion speakers raised the point that by promoting beer in general, not just Real Ale, CAMRA could excerpt a wider influence on drinkers and that those attracted to drink beer in preference to wine or spirits may well end up drinking Real Ale when they would not otherwise have done so.
The motion was defeated after a relatively short debate.
The proposers were concerned that by supporting promotions and campaigns supporting beer in general and not specifically Real Ale, CAMRA was diluting it's position and support for Real Ale.
Opposing the motion speakers raised the point that by promoting beer in general, not just Real Ale, CAMRA could excerpt a wider influence on drinkers and that those attracted to drink beer in preference to wine or spirits may well end up drinking Real Ale when they would not otherwise have done so.
The motion was defeated after a relatively short debate.
Motion 12
This Conference instructs the National Executive to withdraw CAMRA from the Cyclops scheme as it has expanded to all beers and is not fit for purpose.
Proposed by South Hertfordshire Branch
Motion Result: Defeated
The proposers of this motions contended that the current Cyclops (http://www.cyclopsbeer.co.uk) scheme for identifying and describing beers was inaccurate and incomplete and as such CAMRA should not be actively part of it.
The argument against this motion was that rather than withdraw from Cyclops CAMRA should be actively engaging with it's promoters to make sure that as many beers as possible were included and that the information on them was relevant and accurate.
After a number of speakers both for and against the motion made their points the motion was defeated by a significant majority.
The proposers of this motions contended that the current Cyclops (http://www.cyclopsbeer.co.uk) scheme for identifying and describing beers was inaccurate and incomplete and as such CAMRA should not be actively part of it.
The argument against this motion was that rather than withdraw from Cyclops CAMRA should be actively engaging with it's promoters to make sure that as many beers as possible were included and that the information on them was relevant and accurate.
After a number of speakers both for and against the motion made their points the motion was defeated by a significant majority.
Motion 13
This Conference recognises that real ale in a bottle offers an opportunity for pubs to extend the range of beers available over the counter and also provides a mechanism for restaurants to sell good quality beer. It therefore instructs the National Executive to promote high quality, bottle conditioned beers.
Proposed by Marketing and Communications Committee
Motion Result: Carried
There was some discussion about why this motion was tabled at all as on the face of it, it appeared to simply restate CAMRA's support for RAIB. The point was made that this was in effect, a reminder to the National Executive about what their role was and what they should be doing at a national level, and provide a check against this that could be reviewed at the next AGM. Following this the motion was passed comfortably.
There was some discussion about why this motion was tabled at all as on the face of it, it appeared to simply restate CAMRA's support for RAIB. The point was made that this was in effect, a reminder to the National Executive about what their role was and what they should be doing at a national level, and provide a check against this that could be reviewed at the next AGM. Following this the motion was passed comfortably.
Motion 14
This Conference recognises the need for real ale, cider and perry to be identified easily at the point of sale, and instructs the National Executive to mount a campaign that encourages pubs and other outlets to identify and market bottle conditioned ales and bottled real cider and perries clearly and to ensure that they are differentiated from non-real products.
Proposed by Marketing and Communications Committee
Motion Result: Carried
As with Motion 13 above, there was discussion about why this motion was tabled. The same point was made as in motion 13 that this was ia reminder to the National Executive about what their role was and what they should be doing at a national level, and provide a check against this that could be reviewed at the next AGM. Following this the motion was passed comfortably.
As with Motion 13 above, there was discussion about why this motion was tabled. The same point was made as in motion 13 that this was ia reminder to the National Executive about what their role was and what they should be doing at a national level, and provide a check against this that could be reviewed at the next AGM. Following this the motion was passed comfortably.
Motion 15
This Conference instructs the National Executive to investigate a labelling scheme for naturally conditioned Key Keg beer, which would allow customers to identify which beers, at the point of sale, conform with the CAMRA criteria for real ale.
Proposed by Melissa Reed, Seconded by Allan Conner
Motion Result: Carried
This was one of the most hotly debated motions of the AGM (Motion 19 being the other contender for the title). Key Keg is a brand name for a one way disposable keg / cask designed to be used with a range of drinks, not just beer. http://www.keykeg.com has more information. For clarification, although the word Keg is used is used, in this case it should be treated as being interchangeable with Cask, as it is a Brand Name and not a description of the product.
The debate was certainly heated and at several points attracted heckling from the audience. Opponents were adamant that the use of Key Keg was not acceptable as a means of storage or dispensing of Real Ale. It was also compared to the older Porter Lancastrian system of dispensing beer from a sealed bag.
Supporters presented a sample of an actual Key Keg and explained the way it worked and that at no point did CO2 or any other outside gasses come into contact with the beer. The point was also made that the keg or cask could be vented to the air, a key requirement for Real Ale casks. It was also pointed out, and confirmed by the Executive, that Key Keg has been approved by the CAMRA technical committee for use with Real Ale.
In the end, and after many enthusiastic speakers both for and against, the motion was carried comfortably.
This was one of the most hotly debated motions of the AGM (Motion 19 being the other contender for the title). Key Keg is a brand name for a one way disposable keg / cask designed to be used with a range of drinks, not just beer. http://www.keykeg.com has more information. For clarification, although the word Keg is used is used, in this case it should be treated as being interchangeable with Cask, as it is a Brand Name and not a description of the product.
The debate was certainly heated and at several points attracted heckling from the audience. Opponents were adamant that the use of Key Keg was not acceptable as a means of storage or dispensing of Real Ale. It was also compared to the older Porter Lancastrian system of dispensing beer from a sealed bag.
Supporters presented a sample of an actual Key Keg and explained the way it worked and that at no point did CO2 or any other outside gasses come into contact with the beer. The point was also made that the keg or cask could be vented to the air, a key requirement for Real Ale casks. It was also pointed out, and confirmed by the Executive, that Key Keg has been approved by the CAMRA technical committee for use with Real Ale.
In the end, and after many enthusiastic speakers both for and against, the motion was carried comfortably.
Motion 16
This Conference recognises the importance to effective pub campaigning of an accurate objective definition of a pub, and all other types of licensed premises, and agrees to adopt the definition of a pub and other licensed premises, which has recently been reviewed by branches.
Proposed by National Executive
Motion Result: Carried
It may seem obvious to most people but this was actually a well debated motion. "What is a Pub?" should be an straightforward definition and indeed the point of the motion was to adopt the definition previously agreed by the National Exec. and branches.
The arguments entered mainly around the requirement for CAMRA regional directors to make decisions on exceptions to the definition, allowing establishments that did not necessarily meet all of the requirements to call themselves pubs.
The argument put forward was that given the number and variety of micro-breweries with their one bars and other establishments service Real Ale in different settings it would be impossible for RD's to properly assess all of them and make decisions on whether they constituted a pub or not.
The proposers went on to clarify that this was not a necessity and that a degree of common sense and practicality should be applied, and decisions by RD's should be on a case by case basis and by exception when required. There was no overarching requirement to assess every establishment in a region to determine if it was a pub or not.
After some vigorous debate from both sides the motion was carried.
It may seem obvious to most people but this was actually a well debated motion. "What is a Pub?" should be an straightforward definition and indeed the point of the motion was to adopt the definition previously agreed by the National Exec. and branches.
The arguments entered mainly around the requirement for CAMRA regional directors to make decisions on exceptions to the definition, allowing establishments that did not necessarily meet all of the requirements to call themselves pubs.
The argument put forward was that given the number and variety of micro-breweries with their one bars and other establishments service Real Ale in different settings it would be impossible for RD's to properly assess all of them and make decisions on whether they constituted a pub or not.
The proposers went on to clarify that this was not a necessity and that a degree of common sense and practicality should be applied, and decisions by RD's should be on a case by case basis and by exception when required. There was no overarching requirement to assess every establishment in a region to determine if it was a pub or not.
After some vigorous debate from both sides the motion was carried.
Motion 17
This Conference notes the distasteful practice that some pubs operate in charging consumers more for the half price of a drink when purchasing a half than the proportional cost of a half of a pint. It also notes that this practice is not illegal and instructs the National Executive to mount a National campaign against this practice whilst attempting to bring in legislation to stop said practice.
Proposed by Graham Donning, Seconded by Peter Alexander
Motion Result: Carried
While at first this seemed to be a straightforward motion that would not attract much opposition, in the end it became a quite heated debate.
Those opposing pointed out that as well as in effect costing pubs money, there was actually legislation in place that meant that while pubs are not obliged to display prices for halves, customers have a right to expect that costs would be reasonable for the location and circumstances. This meant that while pubs are able to charge proportionately more for a half, that extra cost should not be extortionate and customers have a right to refuse payment and report the establishment to the appropriate authorities.
In the end the view in the hall was that halves should only be charged at half the price of a pint and the motion was carried.
While at first this seemed to be a straightforward motion that would not attract much opposition, in the end it became a quite heated debate.
Those opposing pointed out that as well as in effect costing pubs money, there was actually legislation in place that meant that while pubs are not obliged to display prices for halves, customers have a right to expect that costs would be reasonable for the location and circumstances. This meant that while pubs are able to charge proportionately more for a half, that extra cost should not be extortionate and customers have a right to refuse payment and report the establishment to the appropriate authorities.
In the end the view in the hall was that halves should only be charged at half the price of a pint and the motion was carried.
Motion 18
This Conference takes note that a growing number of local authorities have introduced the late night levy.
This Conference therefore instructs the National Executive to:
1. Continue campaigning for the abolition of the late night levy nationally
2. Make resources available for research and provide data to branches that can be used in discussions and negotiations with local officials
3. Support branches in their campaigns against the late night levy
4. Facilitate branches supporting each other in their campaigns against the late night levy
5. Consider a national workshop on the subject
Proposed by Proposed by Hubert Gieschen
Motion Result: Carried
The vast majority were in agreement, however, there was a little half-hearted opposition.
The vast majority were in agreement, however, there was a little half-hearted opposition.
Motion 19
This Conference recognises and accepts that there is clear and unequivocal evidence, as documented in ‘vinetum brittanicum a treatise on cider’, that the addition of various fruits, herbs, spices, etc., to cider has been a tradition dating back as far as 1676. It therefore instructs the National Executive to amend the part of the definition of real cider and perry which states that “no added flavourings to be used” to include the phrase “except pure fruits, vegetables, honey, hops, herbs and spices, yet no concentrates, cordials or essences”.
Proposed by Kent branches
Motion Result: Carried
This motion was one of the most hotly debated and divisive of the weekend. It stemmed from an earlier debate on what constituted traditional Cider under the CAMRA definition and arose from a motion to allow the use of ingredients other than apple or pear juice in creating ciders and perrys. This resulted in a requirement being place on the proposers to provide evidence that Ciders and Perrys had traditionally been made with other flavourings.
In proposing the motion this evidence was presented to the members and the debate then ranged across many aspects of Cider and Perry making as well as discussion of whether the quoted evidence supported the motion or not.
Those opposing the motion argued that while the quoted documents did make mention of the use of adjuncts in traditional cider making, it was only in the context of creating medicinal drinks or to cover the flavour of poor quality products.
Those in favour argued that whether that was the case or not, it still showed that these adjuncts had been used, and agued that use of such additives simply reflected the tradition amongst brewers of innovating and experimenting to produce new drinks. Rhubarb cider was suggested as an example.
At one point heckling from the auditorium became enough of an issue that it prompted the Chairman of the NE to threaten any further offenders with expulsion from the hall.
The motion was finally carried comfortably but the repercussions are likely to rumble on for some time to come. (Yes, you didn't vote the same as me - reporters Wife)
This motion was one of the most hotly debated and divisive of the weekend. It stemmed from an earlier debate on what constituted traditional Cider under the CAMRA definition and arose from a motion to allow the use of ingredients other than apple or pear juice in creating ciders and perrys. This resulted in a requirement being place on the proposers to provide evidence that Ciders and Perrys had traditionally been made with other flavourings.
In proposing the motion this evidence was presented to the members and the debate then ranged across many aspects of Cider and Perry making as well as discussion of whether the quoted evidence supported the motion or not.
Those opposing the motion argued that while the quoted documents did make mention of the use of adjuncts in traditional cider making, it was only in the context of creating medicinal drinks or to cover the flavour of poor quality products.
Those in favour argued that whether that was the case or not, it still showed that these adjuncts had been used, and agued that use of such additives simply reflected the tradition amongst brewers of innovating and experimenting to produce new drinks. Rhubarb cider was suggested as an example.
At one point heckling from the auditorium became enough of an issue that it prompted the Chairman of the NE to threaten any further offenders with expulsion from the hall.
The motion was finally carried comfortably but the repercussions are likely to rumble on for some time to come. (Yes, you didn't vote the same as me - reporters Wife)
Motion 20
This Conference proposes that CAMRA shall oppose fracking and unconventional hydrocarbon exploration and extraction on both a local and national scale, as they pose a real and substantial threat to the production and quality of real ale.
Proposed by Roger Steele. Seconded by Chris Creane
Motion Result: Defeated
The final motion of the day was proposed in response to concerns over potential environmental damage arising from Hydraulic Fracturing, or Fracking in the production of shale gas and oil. In particular pollution of local water supplies used by brewers and cider makers.
Opponents of the motions raise concerns that it fell outside the core aims of CAMRA to promote the production and consumption of Real Ale and Cider, and while there may be concerns about it there were other organisations better placed to campaign against it. Added to this the point was made that the vast majority of brewers used the town supply for water i.e. mains water, rather than drawing directly from the ground.
Speakers with scientific backgrounds supported both sides and both sides were able to quote evidence for and against Fracking as a process.
In the end the motion was clearly defeated.
That concludes the round up of the motions at this years AGM.
If you are reading this blog and you aren't a CAMRA member (why not!?) go to www.camra.org.uk and join the 170,000 other people who think that Beer (and Cider and Perry) is something worth getting excited about!
The final motion of the day was proposed in response to concerns over potential environmental damage arising from Hydraulic Fracturing, or Fracking in the production of shale gas and oil. In particular pollution of local water supplies used by brewers and cider makers.
Opponents of the motions raise concerns that it fell outside the core aims of CAMRA to promote the production and consumption of Real Ale and Cider, and while there may be concerns about it there were other organisations better placed to campaign against it. Added to this the point was made that the vast majority of brewers used the town supply for water i.e. mains water, rather than drawing directly from the ground.
Speakers with scientific backgrounds supported both sides and both sides were able to quote evidence for and against Fracking as a process.
In the end the motion was clearly defeated.
That concludes the round up of the motions at this years AGM.
If you are reading this blog and you aren't a CAMRA member (why not!?) go to www.camra.org.uk and join the 170,000 other people who think that Beer (and Cider and Perry) is something worth getting excited about!
Hello,
ReplyDeleteI have to scrutinize your blog. there's a huge quantity of appropriate facts in this weblog, I honored information it and that I figure humans get a lot of assistance from this weblog. Sam, I have made this deal with of weblog, you'll get an organization and aid from this too. I believe you want this (Cookware Oven Hot Pad and Pot Handle Holder)