The Conservative MP Lewis Cocking spoke against the pro-PR 10-minute-rule bill earlier. Here are extracts from his speech.

When our constituents arrived at their polling station on the 4 July, they knew what to expect – if their chosen candidate received more votes than any other, that is who would be elected as their MP.

There is an elegance to this simplicity in our democracy. It is those who win the most votes in each of our 650 constituencies who win those 650 constituencies.

It cannot be denied that voters would be confronted with a far more complicated system if any type of proportional representation were to be introduced.

Crucially, after the election, every one of our constituents knows who to turn to when they wish to contact their member of parliament. For me, this is the most important feature of our electoral system.

In a more proportional system, like single transferable vote, constituencies would be represented by multiple members of parliament from various parties. Clearly, this would polarise our communities and voters may only contact the MP they have voted for. And it would absolve us from our duty representing all of our constituents.

It would be far more difficult to get to know the several politicians representing your area and to hold them to account at the next general election.

Cocking also claimed there was a “simplicity and stability” to the results produced by first past the post. He went on:

For the most part, first past the post produces governments with clear, workable majorities that can last the full length of their term.

Voters want strong governments that can deliver policies in their manifesto, not the chaos of constant disagreement and repeated elections.

Under proportional representation, the party that receives the most votes does not automatically, nor quickly, form the next government.

Instead, as we are seeing now in Ireland, political parties go behind locked doors to do deals amongst themselves, discussions lasting for months until after the general election has taken place. This is plainly undemocratic, with voters given no further say.

Cocking also said the public voted decisive against changing the voting system in 2011, in the referendum on the alternative vote (which is not a proper PR system, although it can operate like one).

Proposing her PR bill, Sarah Olney said that Labour had won two thirds of the seats in the Commons despite winning just one third of the votes.

Thanks to first past the post, nearly 60% of people who voted in the general election in July are not represented in parliament by the candidate that they voted for. This is the most disproportionate election result that this country has ever seen.

We are also seeing record levels of disillusionment with the political process, with citizens becoming increasingly disengaged. This is reflected in the fact that turnout in the 2024 general election was the second lowest since 1918 at just under 60%. Over 40 per cent of registered voters in the UK thought so little of the political process they did not think it worth expressing a preference for one candidate over another.

Olney said the Liberal Democrats had always believed “a fair voting system is an essential bedrock of a functioning democracy”. She went on:

Democracy has proved to be the most effective and enduring of governing systems because it relies on a broad base support across the population. A faulty voting system, delivering a majority government on a minority vote, undermines democracy and its ability to deliver an effective government.

Olney said she was proposing a PR system using the single transferrable vote (STV). This system would protect the link between MPs and local constituencies, she said. She went on:

In the most recent general election, the number of MPs elected to this chamber with more than 50% of the votes cast in their constituency was just 96. It decreased from 421 in the previous 2019 election and 476 in the general election before that.

Ten of our colleagues in this current parliament were elected with the votes of fewer than 30% of their constituents. Far fewer MPs in this place can say today that they have the support of the majority of their constituents, or even a broad base of support, than ever before.

Olney said STV was already in use for local elections in two of the four nations of the UK (Scotland and Northern Ireland). And taking into account the use of other forms of PR in Britain (for the Scottish parliament and the Senedd in Wales), first past the post was now the “outlier rather than the norm”, she said.

Olney said it is not just the Lib Dems backing PR. Labour voted for it at its conference two years ago, she said.

She concluded:

This summer, the Labour party won a landline election victory, securing 63% of the seats in the House of Commons with 34% of the vote. This system leads millions of voices unheard, and creates a divisive, adversarial political climate where collaboration is discouraged and accountability is often sidestepped.

The Liberal Democrats have long championed proportional representation, advocating for a voting system where every vote truly counts.

According to reports in the Greek media, Greek government sources are saying that Keir Starmer and his Greek counterpart, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, did discuss the Parthenon marbles when they met in Downing Street this morning.

One report quoted Greek government sources as saying: “We welcome the fact that the British government will not stand in the way if there is an agreement with the British Museum.”

At the Downing Street afternoon lobby briefing, the No 10 spokesperson did not deny that the sculptures were mentioned during the talks. But, pointing to what the UK government said in its readout of the meeting (see 12.58pm), and what the Greek government said in its readout, he said the two leaders focused on priorities and “areas of shared cooperation”.

Asked if the fate of the marbles was a joint priority, the spokesperson said the priority issues were those mentioned in the readouts. (Neither of them refer to the Parthenon, but the Greek one does reference tourism.)

Labour MP criticises Claire Coutinho for attacking heat pump law she introduced herself as energy secretary

Peter Walker

A Labour MP has written to Claire Coutinho, the shadow energy secretary, to ask why she has described a policy to encourage the use of heat pumps as a trap set “the climate change lobby” when it was Coutinho herself who introduced it in government.

Polly Billington, the East Thanet MP who was an environmental campaigner before entering parliament this summer, also asked why Coutinho claimed recently that she had “scrapped” the clean-heat market mechanism (CHMM) when she had instead just delayed its implementation.

Under the CHMM, which was introduced in December 2023, four months after Coutinho was made energy and climate change secretary, targets were introduced for the sale of heat pumps as home heating systems from April 2024. She later put this deadline back by a year.

Although her Labour replacement, Ed Miliband, has simply kept to the same April 2025 date, Coutinho called the CHMM “a classic example of policy designed for the green lobby and vested interest groups rather than for the consumer” and said she had “scrapped” it.

She also said:

The climate change lobby have been itching to get this on the statute book for years because it uses higher costs to force people to buy heat pumps.

In her letter to Coutinho, Billington asked Coutinho to explain on what basis she said she had scrapped the policy. She added:

You then stated that, ‘the climate change lobby have been itching to get this on the statute books for years.’ As the person who introduced the CHMM onto the statute book, can you confirm if you are, or have ever been, a member of the climate change lobby?

Coutinho was contacted for comment.

Here are the voting figures on the 10-minute rule bill on PR. (See 3.15pm.) This was not a whipped vote, but the figures show some interesing splits within the parties.

Voting for the pro-PR 10-minute rule bill

Greens: 4

Independents: 4

Labour: 59

Lib Dems: 62

Plaid Cymru: 4

Reform UK: 3

TUV: 1

Voting against

Conservatives: 78

DUP: 4

Independent: 1

Labour: 50

Reform UK: 1

UUP: 1

The biggest split, obviously, is in Labour, where members and MPs have long been deeply divided on this issue. Two years ago the Labour conference voted in favour of PR. The leadership made it clear it was not going to take any notice, but Labour’s national policy forum report subsequently said first past the post (FPTP) was driving “the distrust and alienation we see in politics”.

But the Reform UK vote is interesting too. Like Ukip before it, Reform UK has always been in favour of PR. At the election it suffered the most from the disproportionality of FPTP, gaining 14.3% of the national vote but only 0.8% of available seats. Their manifesto advocated PR.

Today three Reform UK MPs (Lee Anderson, Richard Tice and James McMurdock) voted in favour. However, a fourth, Rupert Lowe, voted against. Nigel Farage, the party leader, did not vote.

MPs have voted for PR. The Commons voted to give Sarah Olney leave to bring in her PR bill by 138 votes to 136.

This will have no practical impact. (See 3pm.) A 10-minute rule bill is a type of private member’s bill but, even though after the vote was read out the deputy speaker made a point of asking what day was set aside for the second reading (Friday 24 January), no time will be allocated for the bill that day, and so after today it will vanish into the parliamentary ether. Asking for the date of the second reading is an empty ritual.

But, symbolically, this is a victory for electoral reform campaigners.

And the result may be seen as further evidence that there is significant support for PR in the parliamentary Labour party.

However, Keir Starmer has shown no interest in electoral reform, and given that he won a landslide majority through first past the post, campaigners for a different system may have a hard job getting him to change his mind.

In the Commons MPs are voting on proportional representation. It is not a vote that will have any impact (even if it passes), but the numbers may be interesting.

Under the 10-minute rule procedure, MPs who win a slot can give a short speech proposing a bill. The Liberal Democrat MP Sarah Olney got a 10-minute rule bill slot today and she proposed “a bill to introduce a system of proportional representation for parliamentary elections and for local government elections in England”.

Normally, when an MP proposes a 10-minute rule bill motion, they get leave to bring in the bill, and then nothing is ever heard of the legislation ever again.

But today the Conservative MP Lewis Cocking gave a speech opposing PR, and MPs are now voting on whether or not Olney should have leave to bring in her bill.

Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, has refused to repeat what she told the CBI last month when she said: “I’m not coming back with more borrowing or more taxes.”

During Treasury questions in the Commons this morning, Mel Stride, her Tory shadow, quoted Reeves’s words and asked: “Did she mean it?”

Reeves replied:

At the budget in October, which [Stride] knows, we had to fix a £22bn black hole in the public finances, and of course some of that black hole comes from the fact that we are the only G7 economy where employment is lower than it was before the pandemic, when he was presiding as work and pensions secretary in the previous government.

So we did have to raise taxes to fund our public services, but never again will we have to repeat a budget like that, because we have now wiped the slate clean and drawn a line under the mess created by the last government.

When Stride asked Reeves if she was refusing to repeat what she told the CBI because she had been over-ruled by No 10, or because she “spoke without thinking”, Reeves replied:

No chancellor is going to write five years worth of budget in their first five months as chancellor of the exchequer, but what I can say is that we will never have to deliver a budget like that again, because we took the decisions in this budget to wipe the slate clean after this mismanagement and decline and chaos of the previous government.

Experts tells MPs young people should not be forced to do T-levels as main alternative to A-levels

Richard Adams

Education experts and sector leaders have urged the government to avoid forcing young people to take T-levels as the main alternative to A-levels in England, describing the new post-16 vocational qualification as “chunky” and lacking in options.

The Department for Education has paused plans to end state funding of alternatives to T-levels, including BTecs, where they overlap with T-level subjects. A wider decision is expected as soon as next week.

Anna Gardner, chief executive of the Edge Foundation which promotes skills education, told MPs on the education select committee this morning that T-levels are “possibly not the route for every young person”, with 30% of the most recent cohort dropping out during the two-year course, compared with 90% retention for students taking BTecs and A-levels.

Gardner said:

There are overlaps but there are a number of students who will need that overlap and the option to do BTecs or other qualifications in this area, and we want to make sure we don’t take away that choice.

David Robinson, director for post-16 and skills at the Education Policy Institute, said that while 25% of students hadn’t gained a grade 4 or better in English or maths GCSEs, only a fraction had gone on to take T-levels. He said:

I think there are serious questions around where [the remaining] 20% of students are going to go.

T-levels were launched in 2020, with a single course intended to be equivalent to taking three A-levels. However take-up has been sluggish, with the government this week reducing the amount of work placements that students will be expected to undertake.

Readers will have noticed that there was no mention of the Parthenon marbles in the readout of the meeting between Keir Starmer and his Greek counterpart. (See 12.58pm.) Yesterday No 10 said Starmer would not be raising his issue at the meeting and at the lobby briefing this morning the PM’s suggested the meeting focused on trade and foreign policy issues, not the marbles.

But that has not stopped the Conservatives claiming that Starmer is about to cave in to the “radical left” over the marbles. As the lobby briefing was ending, but before the No 10 readout was released, CCHQ released a statement from Saqib Bhatti, a shadow culture minister, saying:

Sir Keir Starmer has already capitulated over the Chagos Islands, and now it appears he is set to cave in to the radical left and return the Elgin marbles to Greece.

The British Museum has cared for these precious artefacts for generations and given people from around the globe the chance to learn about their tremendous story.

The marbles are protected by an act of parliament - the PM needs to be clear that he will not allow the law to be changed and block any legal work around that might be devised to allow them to be taken out of this country.

The prime minister should be standing up for Britain, our heritage, and our world-class cultural institutions instead of giving in to pressure from campaigners who detest British history.

The Tory statement seems to have been inspired by this Guardian story by Helena Smith, saying that talks betweent the Greeks and the British Museum over a deal that could see the sculptures returned to Athens are “well advanced”.

Under the British Museum Act 1963, the museum is not allowed to give away its artefacts. No 10 insists it has no plans to change this law. But asked if the government would try to block the marbles going to Greece as part of a loan agreement, the PM’s spokesperson told journalists today:

The government’s position is we have no plans to change the law that would permit a permanent move, and that the case of decisions relating to the care and management of the sculptures are a matter for the trustees for the British Museum, which is operationally independent.

Asked if that meant the Greeks could get the artefacts on loan, the spokesperson replied: “Those decisions are entirely for the British Museum.”

So, if there is a deal with the Greeks about the Parthenon marbles, it does not sound like one that Starmer, or the government, particularly wants to be associated with. In public at least, it is certainly not something the PM is pushing for.

And, according to YouGov polling, more than half of voters are in favour sending the marbles back to Greece anyway. Fewer than a quarter of them want the sculptures to stay. This suggests the Tories’ claim that marbles repatriation is a “radical left” cause is is also erroneous – unless they believe radical leftism has already captured the country.