The mess enveloping the law over local election candidates

Cross-posted from The Wardman Wire:

The question of who can stand for election to a local council should be clearly defined and easy to understand – so that those new to politics can be candidates, so that voters don’t end up with a false choice where not all the candidates are actually allowed to be candidates and so that elections can be about choices between people and policies, rather than battles between lawyers.

In England and Wales the law was last codified and laid down in the 1972 Local Government Act. With the passage now of nearly forty years, plus frequent subsequent legislation which gave the opportunity to clarify any ambiguities, matters should now be clear.

Alas, though, a combination of poor drafting, changing interpretations and equivocation from the Electoral Commission has left part of the law in an ambiguous mess.

Section 79 of the act gives five different routes by which someone may be qualified to stand:

(a) … he is and thereafter he continues to be a local government elector for the area of the authority; or
(b) he has during the whole of the twelve months preceding that day occupied as owner or tenant any land or other premises in that area; or
(c) his principal or only place of work during that twelve months has been in that area; or
(d) he has during the whole of those twelve months resided in that area; or
(e) in the case of a member of a parish or community council he has during the whole of those twelve months resided either in the parish or community or within three miles of it.

The problem is with (b). At first glance, the reference to “owner or tenant” suggests that owning property is sufficient to qualify you to stand. But what does “occupied” earlier in the clause mean? And how does that leave (b) meaning something that isn’t already covered by the other clauses?

Until the last few years, most usually (b) has been interpreted to mean owning or renting land or property, with “occupied” being taken as an archaic or obscure phrase that doesn’t alter that basic meaning. On this basis, a farmer who lives and works elsewhere but owns a field in a council area could stand, as could someone who lives and works elsewhere but owns a property and rents it out to someone else.

This was the gist of the Electoral Commission’s advice on the topic for many years, and gives a meaning to (b) that is clearly different from the other clauses.

However, over the last few years, an increasing number of people – particularly legal officers at councils – have taken a different view. They have instead emphasised the word “occupied” and suggested that to qualify under this clause, someone must either live there or be there through work much of the time. Objections that this runs counter to Parliament’s intention, because it reduces (b) to being just another form of (c) or (d), have been rebuffed.

I have much simplified the detailed legal argument on both sides of this question, but the key point is that the meaning of (b) increasingly splits the electoral legal world into two contradictory camps.

A growing handful of people have therefore been left in an invidious position where they have got contradictory advice from council legal officers and the Electoral Commission on whether or not they are qualified to stand. In one case, the Electoral Commission even changed their advice part way through a dispute. In another case, a new legal officer taking up post resulted in someone being advised they couldn’t stand even though this ran counter to previous advice.

Because of the huge expense of taking a test case to the courts, in all cases either someone has robustly stood their ground and dared the council or others to run up expensive legal bills to argue that they aren’t qualified, or they’ve gone for the quiet life of not taking a risk and pulling out, even though it’s far from clear that they are not allowed to stand. Either way, not terribly satisfactory.

That is one reason why, over a period of time, I persistently lobbied the Electoral Commission to come up with clear, written advice on the matter – and advice that they would be willing to stand by if queried. After protracted delays, advice was issued at the last moment for this year’s elections, with a circular being sent out on 1 May.

The circular is careful to circumscribe what the Commission believes is clear and what is left to judgement:

9. The person must occupy ‘land or other premises’. The Commission considers that the inclusion of the words ‘other premises’ to be taken as something other than land, i.e. some form of structure. Because ‘land’ and ‘other premises’ are alternatives it is, in theory, possible for a person to satisfy this provision by occupying land only. There are some structures which might, arguably, fall outside the term ‘premises’ (e.g. tent, caravan, house boat, mobile home). However, a person occupying such a structure need only establish occupancy of the land on which his or her tent (for example) is located.

10. If land or premises is divided by an area boundary, the land/premises is ‘in that area’ with respect to both areas demarcated by the boundary.

11. The person must occupy the ‘land or other premises’ as an ‘owner’ or ‘tenant’. Ownership may be established by showing title to the land or premises in question. Tenancy is established by showing a lease over the land. In various circumstances, a lease will survive despite having expired and the parties failing to sign a new lease – the tenancy survives through tacit agreement between the parties. Therefore there may be circumstances in which a person’s tenancy of land or premises might need to be established by evidence other than a current lease.

12. The person must have ‘occupied’ the land or premises. Therefore, in addition to establishing legal ownership or legal tenancy, the person must establish that they have occupied the land or premises. This is a question of fact in each case. Having regard to case law on the meaning of the term ‘occupy’ in other contexts, we do not believe it is necessary for a person to be personally resident on the land or premises (this is in any event covered by s79(1)(d)). However, we consider that it requires something to be actually done on the land or premises – an empty unlocked house can not be described as ‘occupied’. It also requires a sufficient degree of control to prevent strangers from interfering with the land or premises. If a person has sublet their land or premises to another person this will point against them having ‘occupied’ it themselves.

13. The person must have occupied the land or premises ‘during the whole of the twelve months preceding’ the day on which the person nominates for candidacy. People leave their residence for extended periods for holidays or other reasons, how long an absence will prevent a person from claiming they have occupied the land or premises for the preceding year should be worked out by reference to all other factors. For instance, whether the person has allowed others to occupy the land or premises in the person’s absence, and the reason the person has been absent.

14. For example, a person who is absent from their home for 2 months, caring for an elderly parent, might be considered to have retained occupancy of the land or premises for the purposes of the legislation – while a person who is absent for 2 months, because they have relocated to an alternative residence, and who leases their home while they are away from it should not be considered to have retained occupancy for the purposes of the legislation. Whether an extended absence during a 12 month period precludes qualification is necessarily worked out on a case by case basis.

This circular is significantly different from previous Electoral Commission advice and, overall, the tenor of it moves towards a more restrictive view of what (b) permits, but it is far from being clearly defined or easy to understand. What does “something” in paragraph 12 mean, for example?

An unfortunate effect of the Commission’s delay in setting down its revised views is that the chance to use the latest round of electoral law changes in Parliament to tidy up the situation has been missed.

So beware if you or anyone you know stands in future relying solely on the (b) qualification. Because if asked, “So what does this mean?” the answer is: “Lots of people disagree and we’re waiting for an expensive test case to find out”.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in Local government.


  • Why not make it nice and simple – you either need to work in the local authority area (which can be confirmed by the employer or by a Companies House check) or on the electoral roll for the local authority area.

  • Dave Radcliffe 30th Jun '09 - 9:53am

    Being on the electoral roll sounds like a simple qualification, apart from the fact that from August to December it remains un-updated. So a candidate who has just moved to an area and wishes to contest an Oct by-election would be barred from standing.
    Working within the local authority area would disbar those who don’t work.
    By work do you mean owns a company that operates within the LA area? (A good example of this is the current tory leader of Birmingham who’s qualification is through this mechanism, although I believe that the legal officer has provided guidance that suggests that being an SRA postholder qualifies as work).

  • “This is a question of fact in each case.”

    I think that makes it relatively clear. This is an area where clear guidance can’t be given. Not helpful I admit.

    Also worth bearing in mind that in 90+% of cases this is pretty straightforward. IE if you regularly live and/or work in the property.

    The other thing to be aware of in this situation is that it is possible to occupy land/property other than as owner or tenant. This might apply to someone who was eg the partner of the property owner or who had a licence rather than a tenancy.

  • Isn’t the Returning Officer’s job still only, on receiving a nomination paper, merely to check it is correct “on the face”. IE it has been completed correctly.

    They don’t have the power to investigate whether any of the statements made on the nomination paper are true.

    Challenges are for other candidates to bring.

    It would of course be an offence to make a false statement but if you genuinely and reasonably believed yourself to be so qualified that would probably provide a defence.

  • I’m afraid this is all part of one overall problem – the fact that anything we want to challenge has to go to the Election Court with a QC at a cost of £30,000. So, RO’s and ERO’s can interpret what they want and run roughshod over candidates and agents – and electors. We need a proper appeal system at low cost (perhaps with a deposit to discourage the merely frivolous) through a tribunal supervised by the Electoral Commission.

  • @Edis ‘Has anyone actually been thrown off a council for being dropped from the register?’

    I have helped in two by-elections (one successful, one not) where this has been the case.

    As an agent, I always get the candidate to sign up to as many qualifications as possible.

  • Sara, same here. I get the candidate to mark at least three.

  • Cheltenham Robin 30th Jun '09 - 12:44pm

    Even if you drop off the register I believe that you still qualify as working in the area (as a councillor)

  • @Cheltenham Robin But if you didn’t claim it when you were first nominated, it doesn’t count. In any case, it only counts if it is your principal or only employment.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • Peter Martin
    @ David Symonds, “Remember that Michael Foot and Margaret Thatcher were united in their hatred of the SDP/Liberal Alliance because they feared a new ...
  • Mick Taylor
    @TristanWard. Well, yes, but if you gain power with no reference to principles and then try to implement the principles you didn't mention, it usually goes tits...
  • David Evans
    Tristan, ... and apologies for the mis-spelling of your name. David...
  • David Evans
    Hi Tristran, I think you missed one here in your response to @David Allen. If you look at it a bit closer, I think you will find that David was using Irony....
  • Tristan Ward
    @David Allen "If what you are in politics for is simply to get a few more bums on seats in the Commons" If you get enough of them you can do stuff that ch...