Andrew Cooper MP: speeches

Speeches

• 13 Apr 2026 · Southport Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  I join the Home Secretary in commending the bravery of victims in coming forward to give evidence to this inquiry. We owe it to them to make this a turning point and to make certain that the systemic failures and culture that made this attack possible are fixed and can never be repeated. Many of us in this House will recognise from the report the difficulties in accessing CAMHS, the ambiguities in responsibility and massive under-resourcing of this vital service. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this moment calls for nothing less than a revolution in how children’s mental health services are commissioned and resourced?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Middle East: Economic Update · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents are being exploited by unscrupulous petrol retailers who are not letting a crisis go to waste. At BP in Winsford unleaded is 10p more per litre than the cheapest price in the area, and at Shell in Middlewich it is 15p more per litre. Does the Competition and Markets Authority have the powers that it needs to clamp down on this unscrupulous behaviour?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Cheadle Train Station · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) on securing the debate and pay tribute to him for the strong case he made on behalf of his residents in Cheadle. If I was in his position, I would make broadly the same arguments. However, I am the Member of Parliament for Mid Cheshire, and I have to speak for my constituents, and unfortunately there is no way to deliver a station at Cheadle that does not have a detrimental effect on the mid-Cheshire line and add to the journey time from Northwich, which is already an hour. Transport for Greater Manchester’s modelling proposed dropping the services from Plumley, Ashley and Mobberley down to every two hours, rather than every hour, which would effectively kill rail travel to those communities. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the proposal is to go forward, we need to look seriously at either a half-hourly service from Northwich or wider infrastructure improvements, so that we can improve journey times for the whole line?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Transparency in Court Proceedings · Hansard source

  More

  7. What steps he is taking to improve transparency in court proceedings.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Transparency in Court Proceedings · Hansard source

  More

  The Courts and Tribunals Bill seeks to increase the transparency of court proceedings in several important respects, but conducting empirical research into how real juries make decisions will remain illegal in England and Wales. Researchers have had to rely on mock juries in their research, which has shown a link between the attitudes of jurors and verdict decisions, in particular in rape trials. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that we must break down barriers to jury research so that we can develop appropriate reforms to address this problem?

• 11 Mar 2026 · International Women’s Day · Hansard source

  More

  This International Women’s Day I commend the work in my constituency of the Her-Place charitable trust, which supports women’s wellbeing and creates spaces to facilitate conversations about health and other challenges. Her-Place says that many women, especially in deprived areas, visit their GP with poor mental health, but are given medication without any meaningful discussion about what is happening in their lives. With Healthwatch England reporting that many women feel unheard and that those in deprived areas facing 20 fewer healthy years, how will the Government back community-based wraparound services to close those gaps?

• 11 Mar 2026 · International Women’s Day · Hansard source

  More

  4. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to mark International Women’s Day.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  A foundational principle of our constitution is that everyone is bound by and entitled to the benefit of the law, but the long-running crisis in our justice system has stretched that principle to breaking point. Other right hon. and hon. Members have covered in depth the disastrous decisions by the previous Government that have got us to this point. I would only add that on my visit to Chester Crown court last month, they told me about a recent trial that had to finish at 3 pm each day because they could not get the light bulbs in the court replaced. The Government have invested significantly in court infrastructure, legal aid and uncapping sitting days, but it is clear that investment alone will not be enough to deal with this crisis. We also need to reform the system and make it fit for how criminal justice operates today. A raft of measures in the Bill will do that, alongside important reforms such as the removal of the presumption of contact. I intend to focus specifically on the proposals for the Crown court bench division. Parliament has taken a view on where the line should be drawn between offences disposed of by magistrates and offences that require a full Crown court trial with a jury, owing to a different level of severity and jeopardy for the defendant. Elsewhere in our system, it is not unprecedented for serious matters to be decided by a judge alone, such as in the family court. The question is whether the Government have struck the correct balance in their proposals, and whether there are sufficient safeguards for defendants. I have two points to make in that respect. Although Sir Brian Leveson intended for the three-year threshold in the presumption on whether a case should be allocated to the bench division, judicial discretion would be maintained for exceptional circumstances. It is not difficult to imagine cases in which the broader public interest is best served by a jury trial. One wonders how the Colston four would have fared in a judge-only trial. The last word on where such cases should be tried should sit with a judge who has considered all the arguments and nuances. Leveson recommended that the bench division consist not only of a judge but of two magistrates, in order to retain community involvement in the judgment, as well as to address the diversity gap in the judiciary. The Bill’s proposal to try by judge alone eliminates all community involvement for that class of defendant, treating them differently from those facing charges of both lesser and greater severity. The 2022 University of Manchester study “Racial Bias and the Bench” found that over half of respondents had witnessed one or more judges acting in a racially biased way towards a defendant in their judicial rulings, summing up, sentencing, bail, comments or directions. I have listened carefully to Ministers’ arguments, but I am nevertheless concerned that significant risks remain. I intend to support the Bill’s Second Reading, because it contains important reforms to our criminal justice system, and it is essential that we deal with the crisis that has failed victims for too long, but I also intend to continue engaging with Ministers, and I look forward to my concerns being addressed as the Bill progresses.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will he give way?

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 10 Mar 2026 · Digital ID: Public Consultation · Hansard source

  More

  In Europe today, it is possible to have a prescription issued in Tallinn, Estonia, and have it fulfilled in Lisbon, Portugal, but in my constituency, my local hospital cannot even send a prescription to a local pharmacy. May I urge my right hon. Friend to look carefully at what works in Europe, avoid reinventing the wheel and seriously consider interoperability with the EU’s identification framework?

• 5 Mar 2026 · Energy Markets · Hansard source

  More

  This will be a worrying time not only for households, but for the energy- intensive businesses in my constituency. Last year, we lost soda ash production from Northwich after 150 years, in part due to the high energy costs. What support does my right hon. Friend intend to provide businesses both to get through this crisis and into the future, so that we can ensure they stay viable and competitive?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Many of us, on both sides of the House, are sympathetic to both new clauses. We heard very clearly in evidence sessions that the Computer Misuse Act, as it is today, has a chilling effect on the operation of the cyber-security industry in this country and on whether such companies want to locate here as opposed to other countries. I absolutely hear what the Minister says about the Home Office developing proposals. I wonder whether he can set out a timescale for when those proposals are likely to be brought forward—whether he expects that to be in this parliamentary Session or the next one. The issue is clearly holding back the cyber-security industry in this country, and we would all like to see it resolved.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady makes a passionate case and spoke movingly about the debate in her own family and how to protect her children. I recognise that. I have two young children and I think carefully about what they look at online. I worry about when they get older and how we will deal with that. The hon. Lady talks about age-gating as the principle on which she wants to work, but I am concerned. We know that the algorithms are addictive and that they reinforce people’s worst prejudices. What evidence is there that that stops at 16? Is she not concerned that simply focusing on age-gating will diminish the pressure on social media companies to open up the algorithms so that we can have a look at how they affect society more generally?

• 23 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T8. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has just published a report on social housing conditions, warning that just under 430,000 social homes are non-decent. Additional research shows that in the north, more than 100,000 social homes will reach end of life over the next 10 years. I am chairing the Westminster group of the Renew inquiry, which is looking at how housing-led regeneration in the north can improve housing conditions and support the delivery of new homes and growth. Will the Minister meet me and representatives of the Northern Housing Consortium to discuss this important issue?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Carla, I want to come back on the potential for unnecessary over-reporting of incidents. I cannot speak for the Minister, but I am sure it is not his intention that every phishing email is reported. I was listening carefully to what you said about your proposed tiered approach, and I can imagine, say, a situation where you are United Utilities and you intercept somebody trying to put a pre-emptive virus on to one of your industrial control systems. There has been no impact on customers or your infrastructure, because you have caught it. However, I would argue that it is quite important that United Utilities share that information with the regulator and that that information is disseminated to Severn Trent, Thames Water and whoever else needs to know, so they can patch their systems, look out for the virus or find out whether they have been infected already. I can imagine that the legislation has been worded as it is to try to capture that situation where activity might occur, but not have an impact. Would you accept that that is important, and how would that fit in with the tiered approach that you described? Carla Baker: I completely get your point. We have looked at that; my legal colleagues have looked at things such as spyware, where you have malware in the system that is not doing anything but is living there, for example, or pre-emptive, where they are waiting to launch an attack, and we think this amendment would still cover those scenarios. It is not necessarily cause and impact: the lights have not gone out, but if there is, for example, a nation state actor in your network, we think the amendment would still cover that.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q We have heard evidence today about the appropriateness of individual sectoral regulators being responsible for this, versus a single regulator. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the sectoral regulators were in favour of a sectoral approach, and we heard differing views from other people. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove already covered the point about whether there are sufficient skills available to staff up all the sectoral regulators to the appropriate level to adequately cover this function. We have heard quite a bit about how important it will be, if taking a sectoral approach, to make sure that sharing information between regulators works smoothly, and that there are no information silos. The witness from Ofcom talked about an annual report to the National Cyber Security Centre. That sent chills down my spine, though I am sure she did not mean it quite in that way. How will you ensure that there is an adequate flow of information between regulators in a timely manner? They might not realise that there is cross-sectoral relevance, but when that information is provided to another regulator, it might turn out that there is. How do you address the importance of a single point of reporting that we heard about time and again from witnesses today? Kanishka Narayan: Those are really important points. In terms of supporting the quality, frequency and depth of information sharing, first, the Bill provides the legal possibility of doing that in a deeper way. It gives the permission and the ability to do that across regulators. Secondly, in the light of the implicit expectation of that information sharing, the National Cyber Security Centre already brings together all the relevant regulators for deeper conversation and engagement on areas of overlap, best practice sharing, and particularly the sharing of information related to incidents and wider risk as a result. I hope that will continue to be systematic. On the question of a single reporting avenue, the National Cyber Security Centre, from an incident and operational point of view, is clearly the primary and appropriate location during the implementation of the Bill. From my conversations with the centre and its conversations with the regulators, I know there has been engagement to ensure that it remains a prompt venue for regulators to feed in their information.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q With respect, Minister, that sounds like quite a lot of, “This is what I hope will happen and this is what I wish to happen.” How will you mandate that it happens? Does there need to be something in the legislation to ensure that there is a duty of candour between regulators? Kanishka Narayan: The Bill currently says, “We are now giving you the power to be able to do information sharing.” The Bill, as well as other specific bits of wider legislation, has clear expectations on regulators to carry out their regulatory duty. If there appears to be a challenge in the frequency and quality of information sharing, we will of course look at whether we need to go further, but at the moment, giving them substantive permission and the fact that they have clear regulatory responsibilities individually is a very powerful combination.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I have a question for Jill Broom. You were talking about the incident reporting requirements. Do you think the legislation strikes the right balance to encourage organisations to come forward when they have been attacked, so that the sector can learn from that and vulnerabilities can be patched out in other areas, or is it so stringent that organisations will be concerned about facing penalties if they are fully transparent? Jill Broom: I think, again, there is something to be said about the devil being in the detail. A lot is coming with the secondary legislation, so we will learn more about the specifics on incident reporting and penalties that will come into play. There needs to be a balance between those in terms of the risk and the impact. In the Bill itself, there probably need to be some greater safeguards or references to frameworks about how those types of decisions will be made.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Stuart, as an MSP, you will be familiar with the fact that the large cloud service providers tend to allow you to live failover to different regions. By default you might be hosting in the UK region, but, depending on an outage, you might live failover to the European Union or to the US, depending on the cloud service provider you are using and how it is set up. How does the legislation deal with that and allow you as an MSP to be compliant with it? Stuart McKean: It is about understanding what your service is delivering. Again, one of the key terms in the Bill is resilience. Needing resilience is a key part of the Bill. Whether you need a service that has international boundaries and you need to fail over to another country will be down to the organisations defining where they want their services to be. If they are happy that they are failed over into the US or another country, that is fine; but the reality is that it will be down to the organisation that has a requirement for a resilient service understanding where its data is. As long as it understands where its data is and what it is asking of the MSP, I am not sure the Bill will cover that as such. It is talking about resilience in general. I do not think it goes into the detail of where your data is.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Stuart, you were nodding, which suggests you have something to contribute. Stuart McKean: It is an interesting cultural challenge. You want people to be open and to report incidents that are having an impact, but at the same time, if they report those incidents they might get fined, which could be economically challenging, particularly for a small business. Yes, we want to open and to report incidents, but—and this is where the detail comes in—what is the level of detail that needs to be reported and what is the impact of reporting it? When you report it to the regulators, what are they going to do with it? How will they share it and how will it benefit everybody else? The devil is definitely in the detail, and it is a cultural change that is required.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Mobile Phones and Social Media: Use by Children · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, particularly the action on mobile phones in schools. Harmful interactions can take place in online games and on instant messaging platforms, and we need to be alive to the risk of driving use to less well-regulated spaces and into virtual private networks. I am also concerned that opaque feed algorithms, which reinforce our worst prejudices and recommend harmful content, can have mental health impacts on adults as well as children. Can she assure me that her review will look at this broader issue, and will she ensure that young people’s voices are at the heart of the consultation?

• 20 Jan 2026 · ADHD Diagnosis · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) on securing this debate. He knows my links to his constituency, and I am certain that his moving tribute to Matt will be appreciated by Matt’s family, his Labour family and everybody that knew and loved him. ADHD affects people of all ages, backgrounds and communities, yet too many are stuck on waiting lists for years, during which time their needs go unmet and their wellbeing deteriorates. In the limited time I have, I want to make three points. First, on barriers and gatekeeping, I have received so many cases of schools refusing or postponing referrals, adults reporting GPs minimising symptoms, and community paediatrics increasingly rejecting referrals even when evidence is clear or a private diagnosis exists. Such gatekeeping practices do not protect services; they merely protect delay and lead to wider mental health problems in the long term. Secondly, on the right to choose, I am sure we all have cases in our mailbags where constituents have been forced to obtain a private diagnosis because of waiting list delays, only to find that the NHS rejects the assessment, will not provide the medication they need or will not play fair on the shared care agreement. That is wholly improper. Thirdly, I assisted an individual whose referral to adult services was not made before community paediatrics stopped prescribing as he transitioned from childhood to adulthood. Due to excessive waiting lists, this person has been without ADHD medication since March 2025, which is indicative of a system that is not working properly. Will the Minister address the systemic barriers to the ADHD pathway?

• 15 Jan 2026 · Covid-19: Financial Support · Hansard source

  More

  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has done exactly the right thing by setting up the covid corruption commissioner. During the pandemic, there were those who saw it not as a moment of national emergency in which we should all get together, but as an opportunity to line their own pockets. The Chancellor is doing exactly the right thing by trying to root out those people and make sure that they suffer the consequences. We cannot change what happened, but we can choose what happens next. Let us learn the lessons from past schemes that left too many people excluded, and move forward by building systems that protect everyone. Let us ensure that in any future crisis, we never again leave millions to face hardship alone. What specific steps will the Government take to ensure that any future emergency financial support schemes are designed with the flexibility, fairness and real-world applicability needed to prevent millions from ever again being excluded in their moment of greatest need?

• 15 Jan 2026 · Covid-19: Financial Support · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) for securing this really important debate. When the covid-19 pandemic unfolded, it tested every part of our society. It pushed our health system, our communities and our economy to the brink. In that moment of crisis, emergency financial support was rightly created at unprecedented speed. Those measures protected millions, but despite the scale of that effort, far too many people were left behind. The ExcludedUK campaign emerged because an estimated 3.8 million individuals fell through the gaps in pandemic financial support. Those were freelancers, newly self-employed people, small business owners, PAYE short-term contractors and others whose circumstances simply did not fit the rigid eligibility rules. They were contributing members of society who paid taxes, built businesses and supported local economies, yet at the moment they needed help most, many found none. That includes constituents in Mid Cheshire, many of whom contacted me ahead of the debate. They had done everything asked of them—they had built livelihoods and paid their taxes—but still found themselves excluded from support when the pandemic hit. People saw their livelihoods disappear overnight. Some were forced to drain life savings, sell belongings or take on unsustainable debt just to survive. They felt unheard, unseen and unvalued by the systems meant to protect them. Tragically, for some, the emotional and financial devastation became unbearable. Each of those lives lost is a reminder that policy decisions are not abstract; they reach deeply into homes, families and futures. We must not only recognise and acknowledge the impact that exclusion had on those individuals but show renewed determination to ensure that such gaps never re-emerge. The pandemic has taught us something essential: economic resilience is public health resilience. There can be no effective emergency response if large groups of people are left without support. A society is only as strong as its most vulnerable moment. As the UK continues to develop its preparedness planning for future pandemics and national emergencies, it is vital that support systems are designed with the flexibility to meet people where they actually are, not where policy assumes them to be. That means ensuring that any future emergency financial support schemes are properly stress-tested in advance against real-world employment patterns so that they reflect the diversity of modern working lives before they are ever deployed. No one contributing to the economy should face a crisis without a lifeline. Mental health impacts must be treated as a central component of emergency planning, not an afterthought. Just as importantly, the voices of those previously excluded should be included in future policy discussions so that lived experience shapes the solutions of tomorrow. Preparedness must mean more than storing equipment or writing contingency documents; it must mean designing a compassionate, comprehensive safety net that recognises the full spectrum of working lives in the UK and ensures that the mistakes of the past are not repeated.