My Lords, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, would have the referendum pose not one but two questions and present the option of four different voting systems to the public—alternative vote, additional member system, single transferable vote and supplementary vote—rather than the simple choice between the current system and the alternative vote. We believe that on an issue as fundamental as voting reform, the public need to be given a clear choice which will produce an equally clear result, and there are a number of ways in which these amendments would stand in the way of that.
The noble and learned Lord asked why we are not giving another choice. That is the answer: to give clarity. He then asked why we chose AV. We might have assumed, given that the Labour Party had it in its manifesto, that it would support it. That is the first reason. How about this for a second reason? AV is the only system that allows a single constituency member to continue, which was an issue. AV+ includes additional members who do not represent constituencies. So AV maintains that link. And thirdly—
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Strathclyde
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 6 December 2010.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
723 c108 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 13:57:58 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_689708
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_689708
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_689708