What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
12,942 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I thank my hon. Friend for his advocacy of the National Holocaust Museum, which plays a critical role in ensuring that children are educated about the Holocaust. That is a key priority for the Government, and I can of course commit to visiting that museum with him—I really welcome his work.
We are working with experts nationally to develop new national inclusion standards and specialist provision packages and to set out how we want to see children supported in mainstream schools and specialist schools. I would be happy to discuss that further with the hon. Member.
I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that issue. We have been talking to families of children with neurological issues, and it is an important area.
We are increasing investment in schools, and I would be happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss their concerns.
We are investing £1 billion over three years to build new sports networks. That money will be used by many different partners to support schools, bring resources together, and put funding directly into school budgets. We will be setting out more plans to reassure primary school heads of our commitment to increasing activity for children and young people.
I have spoken to families around the country who set out exactly that experience: watching their children fall further behind, and having to battle for the support that they desperately need. Our SEND reforms are about putting early intervention in place, supporting children at the earliest possible point, and transforming the system so that parents no longer have to battle to get their children the support they need.
Thank you for calling me to speak, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) on his opening speech. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with engaging in deep scrutiny of the things that may or may not influence our politics, but it should not just be focused on Israel. China, Iran, Russia and Belarus are all bad-faith actors that seek to change the way we do things in this country, yet there often seems to be very little attention given to them. That worries me, for two reasons. For those who do not know, my wife is Jewish. I am not “declaring” that, because it is not something that I need to declare, but it is relevant for the purpose of this conversation. She is a British Jew, a British citizen. She had the audacity in a previous life to stand for election and get elected, and she was a much better MP than I ever will be. [Hon. Members: “Hear, Hear.”] [Laughter.] To fund that election campaign, my wife took a donation from a British citizen who happened to be Jewish. What happened? Her name appeared on a list propagated by the Green party’s deputy leader, Mothin Ali—it continues to be propagated to this day, by the way—which talks about politicians being “bought and sold for Israel.” My wife was not alone on that list. There are also members of the current Cabinet, members of the shadow Cabinet and Members of the House of Lords—individuals whose only contribution has been to try to make a difference in society. They are British citizens being funded by British citizens. The only difference is that the British citizens offering those donations are Jewish. Unfortunately, that is where debates such as this one lead to in society. When someone expresses a pro-Israel position, one starts to ask, “Why do you think that? Are you Jewish? What is your opinion on Israel?” before a conversation with them about anything else can start. It drives debate to a place where we are sceptical of people who are Jewish, because they might have some tenuous link to a country far away. What does that do? That stops Jewish people wanting to participate in any form of public life. I know that to be true, because other Jewish people tell me that, and I have seen it in conversations around my dinner table. I was in a synagogue in Manchester on the day that the Heaton Park synagogue was attacked. I saw British citizens who were scared—scared because of the pervasive narrative that has been allowed in this country that because Israel is a Jewish state, Jewish people are rightful targets for attack and scrutiny disproportionate to the impact that they have on society. Although I welcome any debates that allow us genuinely to scrutinise the impact that foreign Governments have on this country, the fact that we are yet again spending all our time talking about just one—the only Jewish state—says more about the petitioner than about the people here to debate it.
The hon. Gentleman made a big claim about “pro-Israel donors”; could he clarify what he actually meant by that? Does he have a particular definition about what that actually means—who those donors were and the purpose for which he believes that money was given?
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a governor at two educational institutions, and I chair the all-party parliamentary group on sixth form education. My question is on access to the apprenticeship register, because in Stoke-on-Trent, great companies such as the Spark Group are struggling to get the registration they want in order to grow their offer to young people. They are limited by the £100,000 de minimis for subcontracting, but they have young people who want to take on the apprenticeships they are offering. Will the Minister set out what this Government might do to change that, and will he agree to meet me and the Spark Group so that we can look at ways it can give young people the opportunities they want?
The hon. Member mentions bomb disposal. He may not know that we have seen two significant bomb disposal events in Plymouth in the last couple of years. Does he agree that Armed Forces Day this Saturday is a great opportunity to thank our military community for keeping safe everyone who lives in residential areas, especially in Plymouth, where there is unexploded ordnance from world war two?
I echo the Deputy Prime Minister’s praise for the Prime Minister’s success in restoring the UK’s standing in the world, including with the EU. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has welcomed the G7 commitment to accelerating humanitarian efforts for Gaza and ending violence on the west bank, and Putney residents and I will support his and the G7’s efforts on that. Will he agree that Israel must stop the E1 Jerusalem and west bank illegal expansion, and that the G7 must rebuild serious momentum behind the two-state solution?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairing, Mrs Harris, but I take no pleasure whatsoever in speaking in the debate on this petition. Its manipulative title fits the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, as Lord Pickles has clearly stated. I must register my interests. I am, of course, a Jewish MP—perhaps the only Jewish MP in the Chamber this afternoon. I am a member of Labour Friends of Israel and of the all-party parliamentary group on British Jews, and a representative on the Board of Deputies of British Jews. Shame on those who have orchestrated this regurgitation of antisemitic tropes. It is ancient just as it is predictable. In 1190, 57 Jews were slaughtered in Bury St Edmunds, then Norwich, Lincoln and York. Our country has a terrible record of anti-Jewish hatred, and all the Jews of England were expelled in 1290. Few people know that. Antisemitism is not new in this country. Just think a little about the title of the petition: “pro-Israel influence on UK politics and democracy”. It is familiar; we have seen it before. In the ’20s and ’30s, German antisemites and Nazis argued that the Weimar Republic had become verjudet—“Jewified”. In 1941, Nazi propaganda depicted Jews as secretly manipulating London, Washington and Moscow. The idea that Jews exercise hidden influence over politics, democracy and society is not new; it is an ancient conspiracy theory repeatedly used to isolate Jews, undermine social cohesion and stoke hatred. Let me tell the Chamber what really threatens democracy: the funding of political parties by billionaire expats; Elon Musk’s claims that civil war in Britain is inevitable; the vice-president of the United States blaming the terrible murder of Henry Nowak on mass migration; Russian interference in democracies across Europe; and alleged Iranian links to a number of recent attacks on Jewish institutions, synagogues and communities—yet here we are, forced to debate Israel’s role in our politics and democracy. Antisemitism is an ancient hatred repeatedly repackaged to distract people from their real grievances. Once again, it is rearing its head in Britain, reaching appalling levels on our streets, in our workplaces and online. This debate is making those divisions worse, and the terrible conflict in the middle east is no justification for it. Citizens of conscience march with a genuine and heartfelt sense of outrage at the war, and I respect that, but there are those who seek to intimidate. Hon. Members should try being a law-abiding Jew in a British town centre on a Saturday afternoon—for too many Jewish citizens, public spaces are not safe. Let us come to our senses. We must reject antisemitism in all its forms, reject conspiracy theory dressed up as political analysis, and defend a politics based on evidence, decency and truth.
Small rural schools in Suffolk all face an uncertain future. I met with the brilliant Stephany Hunter, head of Barningham school, who explained the difficult problem of per-pupil funding in her very small classes. I would like to see more affordable housing in villages for young families by changing the rural exception sites. Does the Minister agree that village schools have a very special place in the heart of our rural communities?
I will begin, as many have, by associating myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont). In the interests of time, I will skip over the many things on which I agreed with him and talk about some of our role as leaders. What I am about to say is not meant as a partisan attack. I am just as angry about incidents of antisemitism in my own party as I am when I see it in others. On that note, and on this day in particular, I pay tribute to the Prime Minister, who rooted out the poisonous antisemitism that had taken hold of our party. However, the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) talked about choosing our words carefully before going straight into the conflation of the actions of the Israeli Government with the Jewish people. There was an attack on Labour Friends of Israel, which receives no money whatsoever from the Israeli Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) referred to a list. I have also been on that infamous list. I am proud that one of those donors is a big supporter of refugee rights around the world. He just happens to be Jewish. How many conversations have I had with him about Israel and the actions of the Israeli Government? Zero. The idea that any of us is somehow having their strings pulled by anyone is an absolute disgrace.
I will not, unless the hon. Member wants to apologise for some of his remarks. Where do we even begin with some of the things that we have heard in the Chamber in recent years? In relation to the ban on Maccabi Tel Aviv fans, one Member referred to a stunt by an MP representing the Zionist lobby. Another MP referred to Israel’s “thirst” for the “blood of innocent civilians” in a clear antisemitic trope. Another referred to the “blood-soaked tentacles” of the Israel Defence Forces—another clear antisemitic trope. That is before we get to political parties outside the Chamber, which are not yet represented in this House in any decent numbers. I am referring to the Green party, and specifically to its deputy leader, who talked about supporting the right of indigenous people to fight back on 7 October, the day the attacks happened. He has never apologised properly for those remarks, if at all, and it has since been revealed that he actively supports members of his party who have rightly been suspended for antisemitism. We leaders have a responsibility to be careful with our words and not stir up hatred in the community, among which is a very fragile Jewish community reeling from ever-more antisemitic attacks. In the case of the Golders Green attacks, there was serious injury and death, too.
The hon. Member rightly mentioned Russia and China. Does he agree that Iran also poses a massive threat, is interfering in our democracy and is behind some antisemitic attacks and the spreading of some antisemitic conspiracy theories?
Young people in Berwick in my constituency have been taught for over a decade in a crumbling high school—the only high school in the town in a wide surrounding area. Following sustained calls from families in Berwick, the Conservative county council promised five years ago to rebuild Berwick academy. A planning application has now been submitted after missing the 2022 round. The school applied for the school rebuilding programme in April. Can the Minister reassure my constituents that Berwick academy will still be considered for the SRP funding, even as works are scheduled to begin later this year?
I thank my right hon. Friend for his detailed and nuanced statement. Notwithstanding the risks of using puberty blockers on children, which he has outlined, and the inability to guarantee that they will not be harmed by participation in the trial, how can the trial determine long-term impacts of the use of puberty blockers when it lasts for only two years? Does that not show the inefficacy of the trial itself? If we really are committed to evidence, which I agree we should be, why are we not—as we just heard from the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul)—using the long-term data that already exists, which came from clinics such as the Tavistock and was gathered over many years?
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. The Conservative party committed to and commissioned the Cass review, and today’s statement takes forward Dr Cass’s recommendations in full—guided not by ideology, but by evidence. Some Members who are critical of that approach have said in this place that these young people just need love. I agree that we should show trans people and trans young people more care and compassion—far too often, those things have not been demonstrated in public discourse in recent months and years—but trans people and trans young people also need and deserve high-quality, evidence-based and timely healthcare. I therefore welcome today’s statement and the Secretary of State’s commitment. Will he say that this Government are still committed to rolling out gender clinics in every region?
Can the Minister provide an update on the Experts at Hand offer, and in particular how the £2.1 million that will be given to my local authority, the London borough of Bexley, can be used to support disabled children across Bexleyheath and Crayford?
The Secretary of State is aware of the challenges caused by the drop in population in my constituency, which is resulting in the closure of some schools. What work is being done to ensure that if there is a need to create housing on those sites for future pupils, the Department can move more quickly to change the designation of education sites for other uses?
I am glad that the Deputy Prime Minister reiterated support for Ukraine, but for that we need the defence investment plan. Could he explain what conversations the Prime Minister had at the G7 about defence investment, particularly through the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank and the multilateral defence mechanism? Both could be important to Britain. Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what is happening?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for opening and framing the debate. I also thank the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar) for sharing Harvey’s story with us. It was really powerful, and I hope that Harvey’s memory will live on for us through this debate. One of the reasons I want to speak in this debate is that I am a new father, who celebrated his first Father’s Day yesterday, and I know how important it is for all new parents to know that their baby is healthy. I am very proud that so many of my constituents in Harlow, which borders Broxbourne, feel so passionately about this issue and signed the petition. Spinal Muscular Atrophy UK and Muscular Dystrophy UK have asked for SMA to be included in the newborn screening programme, and I thank those charities for their work. As Members will know, this issue came to the fore at the beginning of this year when Jesy Nelson’s twin daughters were diagnosed with SMA, and I thank the then Health Secretary for meeting her. The petition was launched subsequently and led to this debate. I recognise that the Government have started to roll out an in-service evaluation in NHS screening services in response to this petition, but I add my voice to those of the campaigners, the Members who have spoken in this debate and the many Harlow residents who signed the petition to urge the Government to go further and faster. The quoted 18 months for evaluation is just too long, and so many babies will not be diagnosed because of it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central said, the sooner this treatment is administered, the less these young people will be impacted. I also welcome his comments about screening not becoming a postcode lottery. Both those points are really important. I hope the Minister heard the passionate words of Members from across the House, in particular those of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), who is obviously hugely passionate that her constituents are not left out—I would feel the same if it was my constituency. Having worked with children, particularly young people with lifelong disabilities and their parents, for pretty much all my life before I came to this place, I know that the trauma they face never really goes away. The more we can do to support them and their children, the better.
As a former teacher, I know that these SEND reforms are not just necessary but vital for young people in my constituency of Harlow and beyond. Does the Minister agree that reforms in Harlow will be strengthened by multi-academy trust-level inspections and Ofsted’s welcome of the new focus on inclusion?
I start by acknowledging the debt of gratitude that our country owes to our miners and our mining communities. I particularly wish to take this opportunity to note that this year marks the 75th anniversary of the Easington pit disaster, where on 29 May 1951, 83 men died following an underground explosion. I grew up in a mining village just down the road from Easington, and the shadow of that day hung over the community for decades. As a former member of the Easington colliery band, I remember players who were members of the band at that time telling me how they played at the funerals of all 83 men. It will be deeply sorrowful indeed at this year’s Durham miners’ gala to see the Easington colliery band and the colliery banner—no doubt with black drapes solemnly attached—process through the streets of Durham city. I tell that story to make clear our thankfulness, and my own thankfulness, to those who laboured in our pits, their families and their communities, for they are my family and my community. I want to be clear that every penny in their pension scheme, whether it is the mineworkers’ pension scheme or the British Coal staff superannuation scheme, is theirs by right. The withdrawal of funds by previous Governments is an historic injustice, and one that I am determined to put right with the wholehearted support of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In this, I am guided by the principle that we transfer as much of the money as possible as quickly as we possibly can to those in receipt of a pension, while also ensuring that sufficient funds are available to pay future pensions. It is in balancing those two aspects that I am currently in discussions with the trustees of both the British Coal staff superannuation scheme and the mineworkers’ pension scheme. I thank the trustees for their constructive and meaningful engagement on behalf of their members.
I thank my hon. Friend very much for his good wishes. Perhaps I can return the favour by thanking the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) and my hon. Friends the Members for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) and for Easington (Grahame Morris), who—along with the National Union of Mineworkers and its general secretary, Chris Kitchen—have been diligent representatives of the mineworkers, their families and their communities. When British Coal was privatised in 1994, the British Coal staff superannuation scheme closed to the accrual of benefits, and remaining employees were given the right to participate in successor schemes. The Government of the day gave the mineworkers a guarantee that the value of the fund would not decrease, ensuring that pensions would continue to be paid while taking half of any surplus on the investment. The other half could be used to improve benefits through bonus payments. That surplus-sharing arrangement was ended in 2015, but future benefits were fixed, ensuring that pensions could be paid, with the aim of returning the reserve to Government in 2033. Since the 2015 changes, the scheme’s investments have performed well, building up a reserve of £2.3 billion. Today, there remain almost 40,000 members of the scheme, the vast majority of whom are receiving their pension. Those 40,000 cover the full spectrum of those who contributed to Britain’s mining industry, from former pit workers and supervisors to clerical staff and canteen workers. As of 2024, the average age of members of the scheme was 78, although the hon. Member for Ashfield is obviously much younger than that. The group includes 11,000 widows, with an average age of 84. As I have mentioned, we owe former mining communities a debt of gratitude for their contribution to national prosperity. We must acknowledge the hard work and sacrifice of coalminers who powered our country for decades. Previous Governments failed to ensure that former British Coal employees got the level of pension that they deserved. Earlier in this debate we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington, and he rightly said that in 2021 the then Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee looked at the mineworkers’ pension scheme and recommended that the Government took no further funds from the scheme, transferred the reserve to scheme members and reviewed the surplus sharing arrangements. The Conservative Government of the day declined to accept those recommendations, and I know that the hon. Member for Ashfield would not have agreed with that. While he was unable to persuade his colleagues at the time, he does not need to persuade Labour Ministers in this Government, because we are determined that these historic wrongs will be righted.
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue, and it fits very much with the point I was making about the age profile. I assure her that I am acutely aware of how many miners, miners’ widows and other coal workers are dying every day and every week not in receipt of their pension entitlements. That is why I proceeded as quickly as I could with the initial arrangements for the British Coal staff superannuation scheme last autumn. With the co-operation of the trustees, we are proceeding at pace on both schemes.
Yes, I will say more about the work I am doing with the trustees and the timing, as my hon. Friend rightly requests. The Government are implementing the recommendations of the BEIS Committee report from 2021 in respect of the British Coal staff superannuation scheme and the mineworkers’ pension scheme, and we continue to provide a guarantee to the British Coal staff superannuation scheme, ensuring that scheme members’ pensions will always be paid after retirement. We have transferred the £2.3 billion reserve within the scheme for use as a bonus pension. This led to a 41% increase in pension incomes last December, backdated to November 2024. On average, that meant an extra £100 a week for scheme members, and I know that money will be spent in coalmining communities. That is direct support for pensioners and local communities that powered our country for decades. I am clear, however, that there is still more to do. The Government are discussing proposals for future arrangements for the scheme, including the potential for future surpluses to be used to enhance the benefits for the trustees. The hon. Member for Ashfield asked me if I would commit to working with the trustees, and I can tell him simply: I will, and I am. On timing, he asked me whether the decision will be made at the Budget. I of course leave decisions at the Budget to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but she is incredibly supportive of the work that I am doing, and I place on the record her support for me in my work and for mining communities.
Like my hon. Friend, I sincerely hope that these changes will permanently right the wrongs. It is important that we think carefully about moving as much money as possible out of the scheme, but also ensuring that there are sufficient funds to pay existing pensions. Let me briefly raise the issue of the mineworkers’ pension scheme. The Government are taking a similar approach to both schemes. In 2024 they transferred the mineworkers pension scheme reserve, increasing pensions by 32%, but I want to reassure members of that scheme that I am also considering proposals for future arrangements put forward by their trustees. Those proposals could further enhance members’ benefits, and we are seeking to do that as swiftly as possible, while also managing the future funding risks.
I am extremely pleased that my hon. Friend has raised that issue, because I know that it concerns members of, particularly, the mineworkers’ pension scheme and people in those communities. I want to reassure members of the mineworkers’ pension scheme that I am endeavouring to ensure that we get as much money out of the scheme as possible. The issue of equality does concern me. However, I am sure my hon. Friend will understand that in the case of both schemes my aim has been to move as much money out as possible, as quickly as possible, for all those members. I do not see this as a divisive issue between two parts of the mining community, because ultimately both parts of the mining community, whichever scheme they were in, were disadvantaged by Governments of the time. I will take forward the proposals from the trustees, which I hope will further enhance members’ benefits. I want to reassure my hon. Friend, and other members of the mineworkers’ pension scheme, that my top priority is to reach agreement on how best to enhance these pensions as swiftly as possible, so that we can get that funding into the pockets of scheme members. I opened my speech with some words about the Easington colliery disaster, and I mentioned the Durham miners gala. There is a miners memorial in Durham cathedral, and the words on that memorial are sung by the cathedral choir at the miners festival service on gala day every year, as they will be this year, in a few weeks’ time. I shall be there, playing in the cathedral with my band, and I thought that this might be a suitable moment for us to mark the Easington pit disaster ourselves, here in the House. So I simply say to Members: “Remember before God the Durham miners who have given their lives in the pits of this county”. Question put and agreed to.
I join the Secretary of State in offering my deepest condolences to the family and friends of the driver, Shaun Burton. I thank her, the Rail Minister and staff at East Midlands Railway for keeping us updated in what I am sure were very difficult circumstances on Friday evening. As someone who represents the railway town of Wolverton, I know how such incidents have an impact on people right across the rail community. Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to the emergency services, including brave firefighters from Milton Keynes, who acted quickly and professionally in the aftermath of this tragic incident?
I remind hon. Members that “Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons” notes: “The privilege of freedom of speech in debate…allows us to conduct our debates without fear of outside interference. But it is a freedom which should be exercised responsibly, in the public interest and taking into account the interests of others outside this House.” Additionally, paragraph 21.21 of “Erskine May” states: “Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language.” The rules of behaviour further note: “There is no hard and fast list of unparliamentary words. Whether something said is a breach of order depends on the context…Any abusive or insulting language used in debate will be required to be withdrawn immediately.” I remind members of the public that they are here to observe proceedings, not to participate or comment. Demonstrations of approval or disapproval are not permitted and any interruption of proceedings will result in removal from the Public Gallery. The debate is very oversubscribed and there will be limited time. If a Member’s name is not on my list to speak, they will not be called. I still expect anyone who is on my list to bob, and any interventions will be minimal, in response and in asking. I hope I have made myself perfectly clear.
Thank you for your point of order and for notifying me of it in advance, but decisions relating to the publication of e-petitions and the scheduling of e-petition debates properly sit with the Petitions Committee. If you have not already done so, I encourage you to make direct contact with the Chair of that Committee regarding your concerns. I reiterate that, as Mr Speaker and the Deputy Speakers regularly remind Members in the main Chamber, there is a need for “good temper and moderation” in parliamentary language, as set out in “Erskine May” paragraph 21.21. The same rules and courtesies apply in Westminster Hall, and you can be assured that I will exercise all my authority to make sure they are complied with.
Order. The clock displays are broken, but we are working on fixing them. I will notify Members by coughing just before their three minutes are up.
Order. I think that your clarification has been made. Thank you very much.
I am pleased to say that this Government are driving record investment in our schools, with the core schools budget increasing by £1.7 billion this year. That includes funding that allows us to reform the special educational needs and disabilities system, training our teachers, making our schools more inclusive, and ensuring that every child can achieve and thrive.
Yes, we will. We a rolling out the GB Energy solar programme to around 350 schools and colleges. We are also unlocking private finance investment in solar and energy efficiency for schools and colleges, with pilots planned for later this year. I am pleased to hear about the impact of the scheme in my hon. Friend’s constituency. A school local to me in Sunderland recently shared that they had saved £4,000 this year through being part of the scheme, which they are using to put on more school trips and activities. We are saving schools money on their energy bills, which will allow them to invest more in driving up standards and teacher quality.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising what is obviously a very important case in his constituency. I will ensure that I look into the concerns he has raised and, if it would help him to meet a Minister to discuss it further, I will ensure that that is arranged, too.
I agree with where the hon. Lady started, which is that PE and sport—call it access to high-quality sports coaching, provision and resourcing in terms of capital investment in schools—are incredibly important. Alongside the work we are doing on school food to ensure that children get a great meal at lunch time in particular and our huge expansion of free school meals, we have committed more than £1 billion of investment into the work to establish that new PE and sport partnership. We are ensuring that primary schools are supported through that process with transitional payments and support, as well as working closely with leadership organisations to ensure that schools have all the information they need as we move towards the new system, which has been widely welcomed by sporting bodies and other organisations as opening up opportunities for more young people. I would be happy to discuss the subject further with the hon. Lady, because I think there has been some misunderstanding about the approach we are taking around transitional protections and support for primary schools.
Since entering Government, we have turned the tide on the teacher retention and recruitment crisis left behind by the Tories. We have achieved over 70% of our 6,500 additional teachers target. There are now over 4,600 more teachers in our secondary and special schools, as well as our colleges, compared with when Labour entered Government. We are also keeping our brilliant teachers in place, with the latest statistics showing one of the lowest leaver rates on record.