Andrew Cooper MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2026 · Access to Further Education · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) for securing this important debate. I will spare hon. Members the parts of my speech about the importance of FE—I am sure we all agree that it is very important. Instead, I will talk to the Minister about the lasting impact on further education in my constituency of his Department’s 2016 review of post-16 education in Cheshire. That review has had deeply damaging consequences across Mid Cheshire, which continue to be felt by children in Northwich, Winsford and Middlewich. We know that there is a clear and well-established link between the distance a student has to travel for further education, and their likelihood of remaining engaged and successfully completing their course. In Mid Cheshire, we have been caught in a perfect storm. Colleges around Cheshire, which have been under pressure from financial instability caused by quality concerns, have responded through mergers and the gradual withdrawal of provision in communities like mine. Where once there was a large FE campus in Northwich and a smaller one in Winsford, there is now just the small one in Winsford, which this year has ceased offering courses for 16 to 19-year-olds—it is now post-19 only. Winsford has NEET levels five percentage points higher than the borough-wide average for Cheshire West and Chester. The situation is as unacceptable today as when it first emerged. Even though it all started 10 years ago, it is still repeatedly raised by my constituents as an example of a deep injustice that they feel. I strongly urge the Minister to revisit the issue with some urgency, and to commission a fresh comprehensive review that does not just look at the current landscape but actively seeks to repair the damage that was caused. It must prioritise accessibility, local provision and fairness, ensuring that further education once again serves all communities, rather than leaving some behind.

• 2 Jul 2026 · Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents · Hansard source

  More

  On the point about estate adoption, I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees that we need to get on and implement section 42 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which would require sewerage to be adopted as part of the public sewer as soon as possible.

• 2 Jul 2026 · Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents · Hansard source

  More

  Trust in politics is at an all-time low, and part of the reason is that our society is littered with examples of structural unfairness, injustice, and ordinary people being ever so slightly fleeced. The housing market of recent years is a strong case in point, with multiplying ground rents, abuse of the forfeiture system, opaque service charges, management companies that cannot be changed, overpriced maintenance performed by firms connected to the management company, no adoption of common assets, short leases and exorbitant lease extension fees—the list goes on. It has been a privilege to have played my part in scrutinising the draft Bill, because it represents an opportunity to put a significant dent in some of these practices, and to demonstrate that politics and politicians can deliver for people and change lives for the better. As my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) has set out, the Committee took evidence from an extensive array of witnesses on the measures in the Bill, and I thank them for their contributions. I will draw out a few specific points from our report. First, the reinvigoration of commonhold that this Bill will deliver has rightly been described not just as an alternative to leasehold, but as a radical improvement on it. For it to be implemented successfully, considerable work needs to be undertaken at the Land Registry to make sure that it is ready to respond, not just to the registration of new commonhold, but to the conversion of existing leases. Our Committee found that a failure to modernise the Land Registry’s legacy systems would pose a significant risk to commonhold working. Good-quality public access systems will be crucial. My second point is on the ground rent cap. It is fair to say that the Committee spent a lot of our time attempting to get to the bottom of the Government’s rationale for their proposals. I support the proposal to adopt a flat cap of £250, rather than the cap being a percentage of property value. However, I have struggled to understand the rationale behind waiting 40 years before converting to peppercorn rent. I can understand the desire to give certainty and predictability to investors, and I can understand an argument that investors need time to adapt to such changes, but the last three successive Governments were elected on a mandate to address onerous ground rents. The ground rent system, as my hon. Friend said, was condemned by the Competition and Markets Authority, which said that it could find “no persuasive evidence that ground rent was either legally or commercially necessary, or that consumers received anything in return”. It should not be a surprise to anyone to hear that the days of ground rent are numbered. I cannot think of a single other example of a Government being so generous as to provide 40 years’ notice of a change to terms of business. Governments have not done that for students on plan 2 loans, for example, or for those affected by the rising pension age. The previous Government thought 20 years’ notice was sufficient, and I am minded to agree with them, unless the Department can bring forward more evidence on its rationale. My final point is on the absence from the Bill of measures to regulate property management agents. Everyone in the House knows that that change is long overdue. We have Lord Best in the Gallery today. His excellent 2019 report set out the case for regulation clearly, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), following his work on his private Member’s Bill. I understand the concern about the size of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill as it stands, and that adding these measures would create further delay. All I say in response is that we have the opportunity and the responsibility to act. No time has been set aside in the King’s Speech for a separate regulation of property agents Bill, so I hope that the Minister will seize the opportunity in front of him, and chip away at another practice that blights the lives of our constituents and undermines trust in institutions’ ability to deliver for them.

• 29 Jun 2026 · NHS Breast Screening · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for leading this important debate and setting out the argument so clearly. I welcome the petition upon which the debate is predicated, and I recognise the calls from the petitioners, including the 141 signatories from Mid Cheshire. Any measures that can increase breast cancer diagnosis rates, improve treatment options, enhance survival and, ultimately, save lives must be considered carefully. A diagnosis of breast cancer is devastating at any stage, but when it comes too late—when opportunities for early detection have been missed—the consequences are profound and irreversible. Behind every statistic is a person, a family, a future altered forever. Today, I want to focus on the story of my constituent Sarah. Sarah was identified as being at higher risk of developing breast cancer due to her family history. In March 2020, she took the responsible step of seeing her GP and was referred for genetic testing, but as the covid-19 pandemic took hold, all non-symptomatic breast screening, including family history assessments, was paused locally. Sarah did everything right—she repeatedly followed up and sought answers, and was assured that she remained on a waiting list—but the appointment never came. Just over a year later, in May 2021, Sarah found a lump in her breast. Following investigations, she was diagnosed with triple negative breast cancer, an aggressive form of the disease. She underwent a mastectomy and chemotherapy, but even then her journey was marked by delays in test results and in the start of treatment. Less than a year later, in April 2022, Sarah discovered another lump. This time, the cancer had spread. What had once been treatable was now incurable; treatment could only manage it. Again, delays followed—delays that no patient in such a fragile situation should ever endure. Nevertheless, Sarah wrote: “I would like to make it clear that I very much appreciate the care and support I have received despite the obvious overwhelming and continuing pressures on the NHS. Almost every single NHS employee has been extremely kind and professional and have made many difficult experiences at least a little easier. They appear to share many of the frustrations.” Tragically, Sarah passed away in May 2024, aged just 46. Even in the face of her own mortality, Sarah fought for change. She spoke out about her experience and called for improvements to ensure timely testing and treatment. Crucially, she argued that non-symptomatic screening must never again be paused, even in times of crisis, because early diagnosis saves lives. Sarah was absolutely right to highlight the significant impact that pausing non-symptomatic screening had on early diagnosis, treatment options and patient outcomes. Any disruption to early detection has lasting and devastating consequences. Her call for us to ensure that future pandemic preparedness protects vital screening services must be heeded. After Sarah’s death, her husband Dave carried forward her campaign with extraordinary courage and determination. His advocacy, born of grief, was powerful and inspiring, but tragically Dave took his own life a few short months ago. We cannot let their story end here. Their experience lays bare the cost of delay, the cost of inaction and the cost of systems that fail to prioritise early diagnosis. We must act by strengthening screening programmes, ensuring resilience in times of crisis and delivering timely care for every patient. Let this be the legacy of Sarah and Dave: a legacy not of loss alone, but of change. We owe it to them, and to every family, to ensure that no one else endures what they did.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Draft REACH (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I will endeavour not to detain hon. Members longer than is necessary. I thank the Minister for her opening remarks and for clearly making the case for extending the submission deadline for chemicals registered for EU REACH. I agree that allowing more time for Government and industry to get this right strikes the right balance, particularly given that the vast majority of substances were previously registered under EU REACH and have established and well-understood risk management measures in place. As the Minister will undoubtedly be aware, Mid Cheshire is arguably the birthplace of the UK chemicals industry. Brunner, Mond and Company was established in Northwich in 1873 and was one of the four main companies that merged to create ICI. It was in Northwich that polyethylene was discovered, and the chemicals we produce today at Lostock works are critical to maintaining our clean water supply. The chemicals industry has welcomed the recent support from the Chancellor in the form of the £350 million critical chemicals resilience fund. Nevertheless, a £2.5 billion regulatory burden was created by the previous Government’s chaotic departure from the European Union and consequently from the EU REACH scheme. That needs to be addressed. My constituents voted to leave the EU, but I sincerely doubt that a single one of them did so because they yearned to be free of the yoke of European chemical hazard registration requirements. Turning to her husband on 24 June 2016, Mrs Trellis of Winsford did not say, “Finally, Brian, our great country can now diverge from the EU on registration and management of the risk of hazardous chemicals.” But leave we did, and that decision has had consequences for companies in my constituency. Last year, I visited Indaver, a company with a site in Middlewich that specialises in the recycling of chemicals. A key issue that it has raised involves the registration requirements for chemicals after they have been recycled. Prior to Brexit, when a chemical or molecule was registered under REACH in the EU, recycling processes would not trigger the need for re-registration. This assumed that the chemical’s identity and structure remained unchanged during recycling, allowing the same registration to be used for both the original and the recycled material. Post Brexit, even if the molecular structure of recycled chemicals remains unchanged, UK companies are required to re-register those chemicals with the EU REACH scheme before they can sell or distribute them within the EU market. In contrast, EU-based companies continue to operate under the previous system, under which re-registration of recycled chemicals is not required. The clear regulatory disparity that has been created is not only time-consuming, but costly, as it involves new testing, documentation and potentially lengthy approval timelines. For Indaver, this means that recycled chemicals must undergo the same rigorous procedures as new chemicals, despite no changes having been made to their chemical composition. These added costs and administrative burdens place UK businesses at a significant competitive disadvantage, especially in comparison with their EU counterparts that can bypass the process. I know that the Minister’s Department continues to work to develop UK REACH, and I recognise that this is the situation that she has inherited and that she has a responsibility to make the system work. However, I ask her to consider whether, given the importance of regulatory alignment between EU REACH and UK REACH, mutual recognition of these schemes can be made a priority as part of future negotiations over our relationship with the EU. Ensuring consistency and mutual recognition of registrations would not only support local businesses, but foster fair competition and facilitate smoother trade between the UK and the EU.

• 4 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  More than 15 people have died in water-related incidents in the recent hot weather, including 17-year-old David Tita Junior, who sadly lost his life at Pickmere lake near Northwich last Tuesday. My thoughts, and the thoughts of the entire House, are with David’s family at this difficult time. The tragic incident highlights the importance of water safety education, and particularly the risks associated with cold water shock. Will the Leader of the House arrange to have the Minister responsible look at this and other recent cases, and consider how water safety education in schools might be strengthened?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Small Towns: Transport Links · Hansard source

  More

  The biggest single issue holding back economic growth in my constituency is the poor transport connections. In a non-mayoral area, we have found it difficult to access development funding to solve that problem. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to find a way of getting money into non-mayoral areas so that we can punch above our weight and be on a level playing field?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Small Towns: Transport Links · Hansard source

  More

  Would the hon. Gentleman like to reflect on the fact that what makes road transport more difficult is the massive pothole backlog that built up under his Government through the systematic underfunding of local government? Does he accept that this Government have put significant resources into fixing that?

• 21 May 2026 · Middle East: Economic Response · Hansard source

  More

  Madam Deputy Speaker, you will of course be aware that the best summer attraction is the Northwich piña colada festival, which is enjoyed by boys and girls of all ages. I thank the Chancellor for her statement. The relief she is providing to the chemicals industry will be welcomed by sector businesses in Mid Cheshire. Their expertise and innovation contribute significantly to both local employment and national resilience. I have previously spoken about the rising input costs and regulatory challenges that these businesses face, and I look forward to hearing more about how she will consult with the industry on eligibility for the funds. Does she agree that the forthcoming summit with the EU presents an opportunity to bear down on regulation further by seeking alignment and mutual recognition on the UK and EU REACH—registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—regulations?

• 19 May 2026 · High Speed 2: Impact on Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; she is being very generous with her time. She talks about green spaces. My constituency is in a section of the route that has now been cancelled, and is in the process of being removed from the Bill. We still have planning safeguards in place, and uncapped boreholes from ground investigations. Our situation mirrors that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), in that we have void properties, as does the constituency of my neighbour, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey). Ours have been void for a long time, and HS2 is not letting them; it is just leaving them empty. Does the hon. Lady agree that there needs to be a proper winding-up plan for the sections of the route where construction has not started and will never start because it has been cancelled?

• 23 Apr 2026 · Housing Conditions in Temporary Accommodation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her statement and for her leadership of the Select Committee during this inquiry. I would like to start by commending Cheshire West and Chester council for its efforts to substantially reduce B&B use for temporary accommodation. However, not every local authority is in the same position as mine, and this is a really difficult issue. I join my hon. Friend in thanking the people who attended our roundtable, particularly the families with lived experience of temporary accommodation who came and shared their experiences with the Committee. Many of them talked about how they had to sign in daily or risk losing their accommodation. Some talked about their fears of what are in effect reprisal evictions: if they complained about the state of the accommodation, the landlord or the B&B owner would be straight on the phone to the council, and they would lose their place. One young lady very bravely told us about how the council had provided her contact details to the hotel reception, for understandable reasons, but the hotel reception staff used that information to make unwanted advances to her. That was some of the absolutely disgusting behaviour we heard about. I particularly want to mention the evidence we heard from another woman about the increased travel time to school for her children because of her out-of-authority placement. We know that this inevitably leads to poor attendance, and can lead to off-rolling—in short, it is a safeguarding disaster. That was outside the scope of our inquiry, but does my hon. Friend agree that we should be tracking the outcomes of children who have experienced temporary accommodation, in much the same way as for children who have experienced care— I think we would find similar problems—and that doing so would affect the policy solutions we come forward with?

• 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?