SALISBURY'S MP has said plans to expand the constituency by ten per cent are essential to make elections fairer.

As previously reported in the Journal, Salisbury parliamentary constituency is set to grow if revised government plans for new boundaries are approved next year.

The boundary commission published altered boundary plans for many constituencies last week, but the proposal for Salisbury has not changed since 2013 and was one of few not to be revised in the latest round of plans.

Under the plans, Larkhill, Bulford, Durrington and Figheldean would move from Devizes to Salisbury, while villages including Fovant, Tollard Royal, Swallowcliffe and Berwick St John would move from South West Wiltshire – one of the 50 constituencies set to be abolished.

The proposals come as part of the Boundary Commission for England’s review which could see the number of MPs in the House of Commons slashed from 650 to 600.

South West Wiltshire MP Andrew Murrison, whose constituency would be replaced by a new seat called Warminster and Shaftesbury said he was “hugely disappointed” by the plans to divide the constituency.

But he said he did support “the periodic revision of boundaries to equalise the numbers of voters in each constituency”.

Under the proposals, the Salisbury constituency will grow by more than ten per cent, from 68,000 to 77,000.

Parliament is not due to make a decision until September 2018 but a consultation on the proposals is ongoing.

Salisbury MP John Glen said the reforms were “an essential change” and “if these alterations are not enacted, constituencies will be based on demographic data that is over 20 years old, leading to large variations in the size of each seat”.

Mr Glen said the changes will make Salisbury’s parliamentary seat “better aligned with the Wiltshire Council electoral divisions”.

He said: “I wholeheartedly welcome these proposals which will enrich the diversity of the constituency as well as making things fairer. I hope that all parties in parliament will support the changes rather than putting narrow partisan interest ahead of necessary reform.”