Yes. Nothing in the Constitution prevents it. Article 12.16 stops two related people serving on the Committee at the same time, and Article 12.23 stops most paid employees serving at all, but neither covers a Committee Member who is related to a member of staff.

The gap is that the relationship never had to be declared, and the rules did not say what that member must do when the Committee turns to that employee’s pay, hours, discipline or dismissal. A new Article would require the relationship to be entered in the Register of Members’ Interests, and that member to withdraw from any decision about that employee.

Articles 12.16, 12.23, 10.5.8 · proposed new Article 12.16A

Two separate points were raised under this heading.

On conflicts, the Constitution currently says two different things. Article 12.14 requires a conflicted member to declare the interest and abstain from voting. Schedule K goes further and requires them to withdraw from the discussion as well. Both are in force, and the Article — the senior document — states the weaker rule. Article 12.14 would be replaced so that there is one rule.

On removal, Article 12.21 requires the notice of the meeting to state the grounds relied upon, but the Constitution nowhere says what grounds justify removal. That is exactly what the meeting asked for when it asked for parameters. A new Article would list them.

One correction worth recording: an SGM needs one month’s notice, not fourteen days. Fourteen days is available only under the emergency procedure, and only where the Committee has first resolved that an emergency exists.

Articles 12.14, 12.21, 12.22, 15.4 · Schedule K 3.1 · proposed new Article 12.21A

Whether to fit an alarm is an operational decision for the Committee, not a matter for the Constitution. What is a matter for the rules is that Schedule N, the health and safety policy, does not mention violence, aggression or lone working anywhere. For licensed premises where staff serve members who have been drinking, and where someone may be closing up alone, that is the obvious omission.

The law does not require a panic alarm. It requires the risk to be assessed and proportionate measures put in place — which might be an alarm, or minimum staffing at certain times, or camera coverage at the point of service, or an agreed way of calling the police. A new paragraph would require that assessment and a record of whatever measures are chosen.

Schedule N 3.1 · proposed new Schedule N 3.6

Yes. The meeting answered that Schedule A paragraph 1.9 “continues in full”, and that is the right answer. The difficulty is that the text does not say so.

Paragraph 1.9 excludes from admission anyone expelled from this Club or another ACC-affiliated club, anyone who resigned at the Committee’s request, anyone rejected as a candidate for membership, and anyone indebted to the Club. But Schedule G leaves admission to a private function to the arrangements made by the organising member or hirer, and does not carry that exclusion over. As drafted, a person expelled from the Club could be admitted to the premises as the hirer’s guest. A new paragraph would apply paragraph 1.9 to every person admitted to a private function.

Schedule A 1.9 · Schedule G 9.2 · proposed new Schedule G 9.4

The largest item of the day, and really six questions in one.

The response period is one month, not 30 days — a distinction that matters when a request arrives on the 31st. The 30 days belongs to a different duty: the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 created an obligation, in force from 19 June 2026, to handle data protection complaints and acknowledge them within 30 days. Neither the Constitution nor the Data Protection Manual currently offers any route for complaining to the Club at all, only the route to the Information Commissioner.

A request for your own data is not a grievance. Making one neither starts nor suspends any other procedure, and no other procedure pauses the clock on it. The Club may ask for clarification where it genuinely needs it, and the period does not run while that is awaited. It can be extended by up to two further months where a request is complex, provided the member is told within the first month and given reasons.

The hardest part, and the one most likely to catch the Club out: Club business sitting in an Officer’s personal email account is still Club data and is within the scope of a request. The Club cannot answer by saying the material is on someone’s private account.

Schedule B 4.2 · proposed new Schedule B 1.4, 4.4, 4.5 · Article 18.3 cross-reference to be corrected

A genuine gap. The rules set CCTV retention at 30 days, and the Data Protection Manual limits access to footage to the Chair and Secretary, requires signage, and routes police requests through those two officers. That is the whole of it.

There is no rule on who may watch the live feed, no record of who has viewed recorded footage or why, nothing preventing casual viewing, nothing on covert monitoring, and nothing on the use of cameras to watch staff at work. The last of those carries the real risk. A new section is proposed.

Schedule B 2.1 · proposed new Schedule B 7

The meeting was right, and it was worse than ambiguous: the two limbs contradicted each other. The Article then read “A simple majority vote shall admit a candidate; two votes against shall reject.” On a Committee of fourteen, a candidate with ten votes in favour and two against was admitted by the first limb and rejected by the second, and the Article did not say which prevailed. It was also silent on whether abstentions counted, and on whether the vote was taken openly or by ballot.

This has since been settled, and the Article members are voting on is the replacement. The second limb was a blackball. Some clubs keep one deliberately, so two versions were drafted and the recommendation was to drop it — a rule under which two unexplained votes defeat ten is very hard to defend if a rejected applicant says the refusal was because of a protected characteristic. That recommendation has been taken.

So there is no blackball, abstentions are dealt with, the vote is expressly a secret ballot, and recording the reasons for a refusal in a confidential minute — the single most useful protection available, and it costs nothing — is now required by the Article itself. A vote in favour on 24 October adopts this wording.

Articles 2.6, 2.11 · see also the ACC’s comment at Item 7 on recording reasons alongside a secret ballot

They are not reflected. The Constitution has no equality provision covering members at all. The one mention of discrimination is in Schedule P, which prohibits a member posting discriminatory content on social media — a rule about online conduct, which confers nothing on an applicant refused membership or on a member or guest treated less favourably at the Club.

The Club is an association within Part 7 of the Equality Act 2010: it has 25 or more members, it regulates admission and it has a selection process. That makes it unlawful to discriminate against applicants, members, associates and guests because of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage or civil partnership, pregnancy or maternity, race, religion or belief, sex or sexual orientation. It also imposes a duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people, and that duty reaches the premises themselves — steps, doors, the bar and the toilets — not only the admission decision.

A new Article is proposed. It does not affect the Club’s Conservative ethos: political opinion is not a protected characteristic in Great Britain, so the requirement in Article 2.1 sits outside the Act altogether.

Articles 2.1, 2.3 · Schedule P 3.1(b) · Equality Act 2010 Part 7 and Schedule 15 · proposed new Article 2A

Consent given — conditions attached

What we asked. Three of the proposed changes touch Articles that cannot be amended without the Association’s written consent. We asked whether each was acceptable, and whether the Association would give that consent so the amendments could be put to members at all.

What it means for the SGM. The amendments require a three-fourths majority and must be adopted as they stand. There is no route to adopting some and not others, or to changing the wording, without going back to the Association for fresh written approval. Article 28.2 also requires propositions for amendment to be with the Committee at least one month before the meeting, and for 24 October that window closed on 24 September.

Articles 1.3, 1.4, 2.1, 21, 23, 28 · ACC, 11 September 2026

Unchanged — consented as it stands

What we asked. The Article requires that a member not be “actively opposed to the Conservative Party”. The Club does not run continuing political tests on its members and could not do so. We asked whether a redraft would be acceptable — one applying the ethos test when someone applies, and saying in terms that no ongoing test is kept afterwards.

What it means for the draft. Article 2.1 is not being changed, and members are not being asked to vote on a new version of it. The proposed Constitution carries the Article exactly as it reads today. Any future attempt to reword it would be a fresh Fundamental amendment needing its own written consent.

Article 2.1 · see also Item 10 · ACC, 11 September 2026

Consented in the new wording

What we asked. The old Article qualified the affiliation in terms not found in the Association’s model rules, which left it arguable whether the affiliation continued only year to year. The redraft states it unconditionally and puts two cumulative conditions on ever leaving. We asked whether that was acceptable, and whether a companion Article was needed to route disaffiliation through the Fundamental Articles procedure.

What it means for the draft. The affiliation is stated plainly and leaving requires both a members’ majority and the Association’s written consent. No companion Article is needed: Article 1.4 already requires that consent and is itself entrenched by Article 28.4.

Articles 1.4, 28.4 · ACC, 11 September 2026

Consented — one wording change recommended

What we asked. The two Articles contradicted each other. Article 21.1 said no surplus could be distributed to members except on dissolution, which implied members might take a share then. Article 23.5 says the assets pass to the Association. Both are Fundamental Articles and both cannot be right. We asked whether the redraft was acceptable.

What it means for the draft. The contradiction goes, and the position on dissolution is unchanged: the assets pass to the Association unless a General Meeting decides otherwise with the Association’s written consent. This is a tidying of language rather than a change of policy. The Committee has still to decide whether to take up the suggested deletion in Article 21.2, which currently reads “for the benefit of the Club and its members”.

Articles 21.1, 21.2, 23.5 · ACC, 11 September 2026

Settled — no amendment needed

What we asked. Article 12.21 lets members remove a Committee Member by simple majority, but only if the Association has approved that threshold. Nothing in the Club’s papers showed it was ever sought. We asked whether it had been given, and when.

What it means for the draft. The condition written into Article 12.21 is now satisfied, so the simple majority operates and the three-fourths fallback falls away. No amendment is required — the Article was drafted to anticipate exactly this, and the answer switches it on. The confirmation should be minuted, so that the next Committee does not have to ask the question again.

Article 12.21 · ACC, 11 September 2026

Decision needed before any change

What we asked. A member asked from the floor on 13 June which classes of amendment must carry three-fourths. The answer sets the threshold for most of what the Club brings forward, so we put it to the Association.

What it means for the draft. This is the most consequential of the seven answers. The Association does not stand in the way of a lower threshold for ordinary amendments — but the only way to create one is to amend Article 28, and Article 28 entrenches itself. That makes any such change a Fundamental amendment: it needs the Association’s prior written consent, it needs three-fourths of the votes cast, and it has to be put to the Association expressly rather than carried along with everything else.

Article 28 was itself among the Articles submitted to the Association and consented — but in its existing wording. No amendment to its voting requirements was put forward, so the position for this meeting is that Article 28.1 stands as drafted and every amendment continues to require three-fourths. Lowering that threshold is a separate proposal for a later meeting, and one that has to start with a fresh consent request.

Articles 28.1, 28.4 · ACC, 11 September 2026

Drafting to resolve

What we asked. Members asked on 13 June how the protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010 are reflected in the Club’s rules. At present they are not addressed at all. A new Article 2A is proposed, and we asked whether the Association had a standard form we should adopt instead.

This is the Article as proposed. It is new: there is nothing equivalent in the 2016 Rules.

The first difficulty: a secret ballot cannot easily record its own reasons. Article 2A.5 requires the Committee to record why an application was refused. Article 2.6 requires the vote to be taken by secret ballot — and requires the reasons to be recorded as well.

The Association put the problem directly: what will be recorded “if Committee Members do not publicly express a view but go on to vote against a candidate?” A secret ballot is designed so that nobody has to say why they voted as they did; a duty to record reasons assumes somebody has. The two can be reconciled — by the Committee discussing and minuting its reasons before the ballot is taken — but the draft does not say so, and this is better settled before a refusal than after one.

There is also a duplication. The duty to record reasons appears twice, in two Articles, in wording that is close but not identical: Article 2.6 speaks of “not admitting a candidate”, Article 2A.5 of “refusing an application for membership”. If they mean the same thing, one of them is unnecessary. If they do not, the Club has two different duties and no way of telling which applies. This is the concrete instance of the Association’s general warning against duplicating requirements across provisions, and the tidier course is to state the duty once.

The second difficulty: only promise what the Club will actually do. Article 2A.3 commits the Committee to reviewing its reasonable adjustments at least annually and minuting the review. Article 2A.6 requires every Committee Member, Officer and Trustee to complete training within three months of taking office, refresher training every three years, and the Secretary to keep the record. The Association advised that these “should likewise only be included if the Club is prepared to administer them consistently and is confident that future Committees will likewise also administer them consistently”.

That is the sharpest point in the reply. An obligation written into the Constitution and then quietly not performed is worse than no obligation at all: it is a breach of the Club’s own rules, sitting in writing, waiting to be produced by anyone who wants to make something of it. Either the Club commits to the annual review and the training rota, or the wording should be softened before it is adopted.

Proposed Article 2A · Articles 2.6, 2.11, 16 · Schedule E · Equality Act 2010 Part 7 and Schedule 15 · ACC, 11 September 2026

Minor redraft recommended

What we asked. The old Schedule set out stake and prize figures as though they bound the Club in law, when in fact they are the limits for a club without a gaming permit — and the Club holds one. We asked the Association’s view on the redraft.

What it means for the draft — the advice has been taken. Section 2.2 already opened by saying in terms that these are the Committee’s own limits and not statutory maxima. One line had undercut that: paragraph (e) went on to call the participation fees the maxima permitted to a permit holder as at 2026, which presented an internal limit as a legal one — exactly the confusion the Association warned against.

Paragraph (e) has since been redrafted, and now reads:

The Club’s own figure is now separated from whatever the statutory maximum happens to be at the time, and the Committee is put under a standing duty to check it.

Schedule T 2.1, 2.2 · Article 20.6 · Gambling Act 2005 ss.269, 271 · ACC, 11 September 2026

Answered — no precedent available

What we asked. Whether the Association had consented to comparable Article 2.1 wording at another affiliated club, and whether that wording could be shared.

What it means for the draft. There is no precedent to borrow and no other club’s text to fall back on. The proposed wording stands or falls on its own, which is a reason to keep it tight and to say plainly what it does rather than relying on it being familiar. The substance of Article 2.1 is one of the consent items and is dealt with in the separate letter on the Fundamental Articles.

Article 2.1 · ACC, 11 September 2026

For the Committee to decide

What we asked. Article 2.2 qualifies Article 2.1, but the two are unequally protected: Article 2.1 is a Fundamental Article and cannot be touched without the Association’s consent, while Article 2.2 could be removed by the ordinary route with no reference to the Association at all. We asked whether it should come within the same procedure.

What it means for the draft. Nothing has to change. The question is whether the Club wants a safeguard it is not obliged to have. Adding Article 2.2 to the list in Article 28.4 would mean amending Article 28 — which, as Item 6 explains, is itself Fundamental, so it would need the Association’s written consent and three-fourths of the votes cast, and would have to be submitted expressly. It is therefore not something that can be added to this meeting’s business: Article 28.2 required any proposition to be with the Committee a month beforehand, and that window has closed.

Articles 2.1, 2.2, 28.4 · ACC, 11 September 2026

Recommendation — for the Committee to decide

What we asked. Article 11.7 allows a Trustee to be removed by simple majority. We asked whether that should be raised to three-fourths.

What it means for the draft. A recommendation rather than a requirement, so the choice is the Club’s. It is worth noticing the shape it produces: with the confirmation at Item 5, a Committee Member can be removed by a simple majority, while the Association recommends that a Trustee — who holds the Club’s property in their own name — should need three-fourths. That is a deliberate distinction, and it rests on what a Trustee is responsible for rather than on seniority. Article 11.7 is not a Fundamental Article, so raising the threshold would need three-fourths at an SGM but no consent from the Association.

Article 11.7 · Articles 11.11, 11.13 · ACC, 11 September 2026

It is a fair point and it runs through several of the answers above — the caution about annual reviews and mandatory training at Item 7, and about reproducing gaming figures at Item 8, are both versions of it. A rule that no future Committee will keep is not a protection; it is a breach waiting to be found.

ACC, 11 September 2026

No. Trustees sat and voted on the Committee under the 2016 Rules as well. Article 11.4 does not give them a vote they did not have. It writes down in one sentence a position the 2016 Rules left the reader to assemble from three separate places.

Under the 2016 Rules the chain ran like this:

Rule 20 — “The Officers of the Club shall consist of three Trustees … a President, a Chairman … a Treasurer.” The Trustees were Officers.

Rule 21 — “The Committee shall consist of the Officers … and Committee members.” So the Trustees sat on the Committee.

Rule 21, further on — “In respect of Committee voting procedures, each member shall have one vote.” No exception was made for Trustees.

The exclusion from liquor decisions is not new either. Rule 21 already provided that the Committee dealing with “the purchase for and supply of intoxicating liquor on behalf of the members shall be as above with the exception of the Trustees who shall be excluded therefrom solely from this purpose” (the 2016 text reads “from”, evidently for “for”). Article 11.4 carries that forward unchanged, and Article 12.3 states it again from the other direction.

There is no provision anywhere in the 2016 Rules denying a Trustee a vote. The impression that they did not vote is an understandable one, because the 2016 book never says in terms that they do — you had to follow Rule 20 into Rule 21 to work it out. The 2026 wording removes that inference. The substance is unchanged.

Worth adding, with one distinction. Rule 26 — which vested the Club’s property in the Trustees — was a Fundamental Rule under the 2016 Rule 60, alongside Rules 1, 3 and 61. So the Trustees’ role in holding Club property could not have been altered without the prior written consent of the Association of Conservative Clubs. Their seat and vote on the Committee sat in Rule 21, which was not fundamental and could have been changed by three-fourths at an SGM without reference to the Association. Neither was changed.

Articles 9.1, 11.4, 12.2, 12.3, 12.10 · 2016 Rules 20, 21, 26, 60

The 2026 Constitution is 30 Articles with 20 Schedules behind them, lettered A to T. The Articles say what the Club is and how it is governed. The Schedules hold the working detail — the subscription rate, the insurance levels, the codes of conduct.

They are split because principle and procedure age at different speeds. An Article should be hard to change. A Schedule needs to be kept current.

The 2016 Rules had no such split: 62 numbered rules, a short set of by-laws and a glossary, all in one document. Changing the subscription rate needed exactly the same Special General Meeting as changing the Club's objects.

Articles 22.4, 22.5 · 2016 Rules, throughout

It depends which Schedule. There are three routes.

• A Protected Schedule — a simple majority of members voting at an AGM or an SGM. The Committee cannot change one on its own.
• Any other Schedule — the Committee may change it, but must tell members within 14 days, and the change must be ratified at the next AGM.
• The Committee's manuals (Data Protection, Finance Procedures, Staff Handbook) — a simple majority of the Committee. Each must stay consistent with the Constitution, and where they conflict the Constitution prevails.

No Schedule or policy may contradict the Constitution, and a new policy must be displayed to members within seven days of adoption.

Articles 22.2, 22.3, 22.5, 22.7, 15.6, 15.7

Eight Schedules are protected because they bear on members' rights, so only members can change them:

• A — Visitors
• E — Discipline
• G — Alcohol Supply
• I — Honoraria
• K — Committee Code of Conduct
• L — Safeguarding
• M — Whistleblowing
• T — Gaming

They must also be reviewed every year, rather than left to drift.

Articles 22.6, 22.7

Any Article may be rescinded, amended or added to by a resolution at a Special General Meeting, carried by three-fourths of the votes cast. The notice calling the meeting must set out exactly what is being proposed — a meeting cannot amend something the notice did not name.

Within 28 days of any change being adopted, the Secretary must notify the Licensing Authority under section 82 of the Licensing Act 2003.

Proxy and postal voting are not allowed unless the Committee has authorised them, so in the ordinary way a member has to be in the room.

Articles 28.1, 28.3, 28.5, 20.5, 15.8 · 2016 Rule 60

Yes. Three things are needed:

• It must be in writing to the Committee at least one month before the meeting.
• It must be signed by at least twenty members. Nothing is considered without those signatures.
• It is then posted on the Club noticeboard at least 14 days before the meeting.

Members can also call the meeting itself. A written request to the Secretary signed by a fifth of the membership, or thirty members, whichever is the greater, obliges the Secretary to convene an SGM within seven clear days. An SGM otherwise needs one month's notice, or 14 days in a genuine emergency where two-thirds of the full Committee have first resolved that an emergency exists.

Articles 28.2, 15.4, 15.5

Six provisions are entrenched. They go to what the Club is, rather than how it runs day to day:

• Article 1.3 — the objects of the Club
• Article 1.4 — affiliation to the ACC
• Article 2.1 — who may be a member
• Article 21 — what happens to any surplus
• Article 23 — dissolution of the Club
• Article 28 — the amendment procedure itself, so the lock cannot be picked

Changing any of them needs three-fourths at an SGM called for that purpose and the prior written consent of the ACC.

The 2016 Rules worked the same way, entrenching Rules 1, 3, 26, 61 and Rule 60 itself on the same two conditions.

Article 28.4 · 2016 Rule 60

The Club is affiliated to the Association of Conservative Clubs, and five things turn on the Association's agreement:

• Any change to a Fundamental Article. The Committee must obtain the ACC's written confirmation before the amendment is put to members, not afterwards.
• Leaving the ACC. Disaffiliation needs both a majority of members and the ACC's prior written consent.
• The Club's assets on dissolution. They pass to the ACC unless a General Meeting resolves otherwise and the ACC consents in writing to a different distribution.
• Removing a Committee Member by simple majority. That lower threshold is subject to the ACC's prior approval. Until it is confirmed — or if it is withheld — removal requires three-fourths.
• Protected Schedules, where the ACC requires it. If the Association requires a three-fourths majority for an amendment affecting a Protected Schedule, that higher threshold applies automatically, with no further change to the Constitution.

Articles 28.4, 1.4, 23.5, 12.21, 22.7

Nothing happens. Article 28.4 states in terms that any purported amendment to a Fundamental Article without ACC consent shall be of no effect. The vote would not change the rule, however it went.

That is why the consent has to be sought first. It is not a formality to be tidied up after a meeting.

Article 28.4