Oral Answers to Questions Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Cabinet Office

Oral Answers to Questions

Nadhim Zahawi Excerpts
Tuesday 1st March 2011

(13 years, 2 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Harper Portrait Mr Harper
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I simply do not agree with the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question. The 2011 Act provides for a spread of plus or minus 5% of the quota, which is quite a significant number—around 8,000 electors—so that the boundary commissions can take into account all the traditional things, such as local ties and local government boundaries, but ultimately they have to deliver constituencies of more equal size. At the moment, constituencies can vary by over 50%, which is simply not right.

Nadhim Zahawi Portrait Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
- Hansard - -

2. What plans he has to introduce a power for electors in a constituency to recall their elected Member of Parliament.

Chris Skidmore Portrait Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

5. What plans he has to introduce a power for electors in a constituency to recall their elected Member of Parliament.

Nick Clegg Portrait The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The Government are committed to bringing forward legislation to introduce a power to recall Members of Parliament. We are currently considering what would be the fairest, and most appropriate and robust, procedure, and we will make a statement soon setting out our plans to establish a recall mechanism.

Nadhim Zahawi Portrait Nadhim Zahawi
- Hansard - -

Will the Government’s proposals provide a definition of serious wrongdoing, enabling voters to know clearly what could trigger a recall? That is important in providing clarity about what voters can do.

Nick Clegg Portrait The Deputy Prime Minister
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend is exactly right: that is precisely the kind of detail that we need to get right in the Bill. In some cases it is clear: if someone is sentenced to prison for 12 months or more they are automatically disqualified already, under the present rules. There is certainly a case for removing that 12-month cut-off line. If someone is imprisoned for any period, it seems to me that there is a strong case for disqualifying them. The key problem is when wrongdoings do not lead to a prison sentence, and that is exactly why we would want to engage the House authorities, to provide a means by which they could be clearly proven.