Voters would be able to oust disgraced rural MPs more easily than those with urban seats under plans to be debated today,legal experts have warned.
The Law Society of Scotland called for a radical rethink of the so-called Recall Bill.
Yesterday Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg signalled his desire to toughen up the proposals, calling for outside experts rather than MPs to have the final say on whether constituents can try to sack their representative.
All parties are keen to persuade voters that they understand a growing disenchantment with politicians.
But the Law Society of Scotland said the Recall Bill, due to have its first Commons debate today, is the wrong vehicle.
Amending existing legislation would be a better way to allow voters to get rid of errant MPs without having to wait until the next general election, it added.
Under the current plans, if 10 per cent of voters sign a petition to "recall" an MP this triggers a by-election.
Michael Clancy, the Society's director of law reform, said: "The numbers of registered voters in each of the 650 UK constituencies varies widely, with urban areas as a rule having a much higher number.
"In effect, this means that it could be potentially easier to oust MPs in rural areas, as it would be much easier to attain 10 per cent of the electorate to sign the petition."
"This provision needs more thought in order to ensure fairness between MPs and their constituents."
He added: "The most appropriate way to deal with this would be to amend the Representation of the People Act 1981 to include the provision for disqualifying MPs who have received a prison sentence of less than one year."
Critics have claimed that voters have to be involved in the process to ensure MPs are not sacked for actions their constituents support.
Under the Bill a petition could be created if an MP has been sentenced to jail or has been suspended from the House for at least 21 days.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article