Eligibility to stand for public office

Question

Local Government Act 1972 s79 para (1) (a) - (e). (Worth having a careful read before venturing an answer.)

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/70/section/79

The first 4 (a) - (d) are the commonly used qualifying criteria for the majority of public office holders in local government.

As I have found in the responses to the same question posed to 8 separate Electoral registration officers from 8 different councils the commonest response is that any of the options (a) to (d) are sufficient to provide eligibility.

Only on being pressed do they even acknowledge the existence of para (e) which applies specifically to parish and community councils.  Odd that not a single 1 has made reference to (e) unless pressed when posed with the question:

“…Could you tell me please if a candidate for election or cooption to a parish council must have been a resident in the parish for 12 months prior to being eligible to take office as a parish councillor

If not a resident for the preceding 12 months, but coopted by a parish council, would this be unlawful?

If ineligible for cooption - but coopted by a parish council, what action / interest would the electoral services office have in such a situation..?”

The common perception from the EROs contacted and responded so far seems to be that satisfying ‘either / or’ any of (a) - (d) is sufficient to qualify eligible for election / co-option to a PC.  But, as I said, not a single one mentioned (e.)

I can see that (a) - (d) is clearly an ‘any of the above’ situation but (e) since in starts with the words  “…in the case of a member of a parish or community council…“ this appears (to me) to specifically require (in the case of a parish or community council) that the candidate “…has during the whole of those twelve months resided either in the parish or community or within three miles of it…”

Since (e) is so readily ignored - even though it is specific to parish and community councils it cannot be correct to assume that a candidate for parish or community council can become eligible under (a) - (d) UNLESS they are also eligible by (e.)

The question being, it is readily assumed that ANY of (a) - (d) may provide eligibility in the general aspiration to local government appointments (Borough, County, Unitary, Parliamentary) but specifically in relation to parish and community councils (e) MUST be satisfied.

How do you interpret this?

Answer 1

My interpretation of (e) is that it broadens the residence qualification from living the parish as in (d) to living within 3 miles of its boundary. There's an "or" after (d) meaning it's one of several options available, i.e. an additional option for parish and town councils. I've known councillors who lived just outside the parish they represented.

Answer 2

The 'or' at the end of (D) gives you the answer.  The purpose of (E) is to enable residents who live within 3 miles of a given parish to be elected or co-opted to that parish council.

As you note, this eligibility criteria does not extend to other local authorities.

If a resident qualifies under, for example (C), then he is qualified.  He does not need to also qualify under (E).

Answer 3

Thank you Cassandra and LC for your answers.

You caused me to re-read it and I did arrived at a changed interpretation. 

My first reading of (e) was that it was exclusive and in addition to (a) - (d) when applied to a parish or community council - ie, regardless of any other qualification under (a) to (d.)  When referring to a parish or community council the candidate MUST have resided within, or within 3 miles, of the boundary such that (a) - (d) would be irrelevant if (e) wasn't satisfied.  The "or" being nonsensical since it went on to say "...in the case of.." which I interpreted as being specific to.  It's not like the LGA is without it's ambiguities after all...

What I now interpret is that any, or any combination, of (a) - (e) may provide eligibility where (e) solely in relation to a parish or community role expands the ability to live within 3 miles which doesn't apply unless it is a parish or community council.

The crazy thing is, of the EIGHT EROs I asked the question of, not a single 1 mentioned (e) in their initial response and the majority seemed wholly unaware of it until pressed.

The question / situation arose out of a shambolic recent parish council co-option where neither the candidate, the council nor the clerk properly understood, nor checked prior to the meeting, the candidate's eligibility.   Even though the questions were raised at the PC meeting and the clerk declared (on multiple occasions) that they were "not sure" if the candidate was even eligible, the council chair was weak and ill equipped for the roll, the vice chair was determined but equally ill informed and there was no councillor willing to take heed nor support the clerk.  

The council co-opted the candidate and now faces the public ignominy of, potentially, retrospectively checking the candidate eligibility which may result in finding them to have been ineligible.  

It is known, from questions and answers at that open public meeting, that the candidate was not eligible under (b) - (e) although they did say that they "were on the electoral roll."  Not which one though and it is also confirmed by the ERO that they are not on the publicly accessible electoral roll.  

 There is a broad public awareness of the systemic laissez-faire incompetence of this PC and this may well just be the latest iteration.   

You can watch it here:

https://youtu.be/hAMHg3no3JU?si=iWI9plE1Al0d-XLo