Andrew Cooper MP: speeches

Speeches

• 19 Nov 2025 · Northwich Railway Station: Accessibility · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend and her councillors on securing that improvement. I agree with her entirely, and I am sure the Minister has heard what she has said. Passengers in Northwich who cannot use stairs cannot get to the Chester-bound platform. There is no lift and no ramp; there is just a steep footbridge with 41 steps. That means that wheelchair users, people with limited mobility, elderly passengers, parents with prams and anyone with heavy luggage are all put at a disadvantage or, worse, locked out completely. For some, that means missing trains; for others, it means giving up on rail travel altogether. When we talk about building stronger, fairer communities or encouraging greener travel, we have to ensure that our public transport is open to everyone. A railway station that only some of us can use is not truly public transport—it is exclusion by design. I have spoken with residents who are unable to visit family, attend job interviews or enjoy a simple day out because they cannot use their local station. Local charity Disability Positive has highlighted how disabled passengers are being denied equal access, with one user telling them they had to be driven miles to another station simply to start their journey because Northwich was a no-go. Others are forced to rely on staff-organised taxis to get between stations, turning a simple journey into a logistical headache. While Northern Rail does its best to accommodate passengers, that is not a real solution; it is a workaround for an infrastructure failure. It does not offer dignity or spontaneity—it just underlines the problem. Let us not forget: this is happening at a station that about 65,000 people live within 5 km of. Northwich is not a minor rural stop—it is a key part of the Mid-Cheshire line. Yet we have a station that in practice serves only part of the population. What makes this worse is that we had the perfect opportunity to fix it. In 2021, the gable end of the station building collapsed on to the station’s Victorian canopy, causing major disruption and narrowly avoiding killing three people. Part of the station building had to be demolished and rebuilt, and has in fact yet to reopen four and half years later. That should have been the moment to deliver step-free access. The construction teams, plant and equipment were already going to be on site, line possessions were going to be in place and detailed plans had already been prepared as part of the station’s soon-to-be-submitted Access for All application. Cheshire West and Chester council, Northern Rail, Network Rail and local campaigners including the Mid Cheshire Rail Users Association were all united behind a proposal and were vocal in their support. The right thing to do—for the Exchequer in long-term saving and for what might be considered adequate compensation to the people of Northwich—was obvious. Instead, the previous Conservative Government declined to act, simply authorising a like-for-like rebuild, and directed campaigners to Access for All.

• 19 Nov 2025 · Northwich Railway Station: Accessibility · Hansard source

  More

  From a debate about the personal property rights of crypto tokens, we move seamlessly into a debate I am proud to have secured on railway station accessibility, specifically at Northwich in my constituency. My thanks go to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and Mr Speaker for giving me the opportunity to talk about it. This is a long-standing issue that affects not just disabled people but the entire community of Northwich. For more than a decade, the station has lacked any step-free access to its second platform, leaving many passengers effectively cut off from half the station and unable to complete their journeys. As we all know, rail travel is not just about getting from A to B; it is about connecting lives and communities. Our railways provide essential links for people who might otherwise face isolation and exclusion, offering vital access to employment, learning and healthcare and keeping us connected to the people and communities that matter most. They are the backbone of opportunity, helping people to participate fully in society. By doing this, rail services drive economic growth, strengthen social cohesion and improve health and wellbeing across the country. However, these benefits matter only if everyone can use the network with confidence, which means removing the obstacles that make rail travel challenging or impossible for some people. Accessibility is not an optional extra—it is fundamental to ensuring that our railways serve every passenger, regardless of their needs. That is not the case at Northwich station today. Since 2013, when the old barrow crossing was removed, passengers have had no step-free way to access the Chester-bound platform, meaning that passengers who cannot use stairs cannot get to it.

• 19 Nov 2025 · Northwich Railway Station: Accessibility · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. If we are going to give people dignity, we have to make sure that we are catering for everybody’s needs. When the previous Government declined to act in Northwich, a funding application was submitted to the Department for Transport under the Access for All programme. The previous Conservative Government dithered for three years before turning it down just before the general election. A once-in-a-generation chance to build access into the heart of the station was squandered: we put the walls back up and left the barriers in place. This was not just a missed opportunity to install a lift. It was a chance to show that disabled people matter, that we are serious about inclusion and that public transport is for everyone, and a chance to spend public money more efficiently by combining projects and minimising disruption, and we let it slip through our fingers. The result is that Northwich station remains inaccessible for many people—a neglect made all the more galling by the £99 million underspend on Access for All in Network Rail’s control period 6. Northwich deserves to be part of that progress. It should not be left behind. Every year of delay means more people excluded from rail travel, more opportunities missed and more money wasted on temporary fixes. That is simply unacceptable. I welcome the Government’s plan to establish Great British Railways and I recognise that structural reform takes time. I also welcome the very recent publication of the road map to an accessible railway, the commitment to end the short-term, stop-start approach to delivering step-free access and the £373 million committed over five years for Access for All projects, which I am sure the Minister will talk more about shortly. This is a significant step forward, and I commend the Government’s genuine commitment to inclusion, but I also say this: warm words are not enough. Funding must follow need, and few stations in the country demonstrate that more clearly than Northwich. I have a few questions to ask the Minister directly. Will the Department publish the process for how stations will be submitted for consideration for delivering step-free access following the road map’s publication? Will the Minister set out a timescale for when that will occur and when communities can expect the next batch of stations for improvement to be announced? Will he consider Northwich station for inclusion in the next round of Access for All projects, ensuring that stations like ours—overlooked and underserved for too long—are given the priority they deserve? Will he commit to working with Network Rail and train operators to ensure that in future, when rebuilds or refurbishments take place, accessibility improvements are delivered at the same time? We cannot afford to miss opportunities like that again. We cannot afford to leave communities behind. Accessibility is not just about ramps and lifts; it is about dignity, independence and fairness, and it is time that Northwich had a station that reflects those values. Let us make sure that no one in Northwich is left behind simply because the station was not built with them in mind. Let us put that right. Let us deliver a railway that works for everyone.

• 18 Nov 2025 · Flood Risk and Flood Defence Infrastructure: North-west England · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend mentioned Storm Christoph. Both Northwich and Winsford in my constituency flooded twice in an 18-month period, most recently during that storm. Our section 19 investigation found that although Northwich’s flood walls held, the ancient Victorian combined sewerage system was not up to scratch. Does she agree that when we talk about investment in flood defences, it is about not just flood walls, but investment in our sewerage infrastructure?

• 13 Nov 2025 · Rogue Builders · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) on securing this debate. We have heard some harrowing stories from right hon. and hon. Members from across the Chamber. I am pleased that the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) was able to share his story in full; what his constituents went through was utterly outrageous. I want to focus on the other end of the market and highlight a deeply troubling issue that has left families in my constituency and across the north-west region paying the price for the reckless and irresponsible actions of a house builder that failed to meet its most basic obligations. The collapse of Stewart Milne Homes North West England in January 2024 exposed a glaring loophole in our housing system, which allows developers to sell homes without first securing the legal agreements that guarantee the adoption of essential infrastructure such as roads and sewers. In my constituency, three estates built by Stuart Milne were completed years ago but their infrastructure was never legally adopted. The streets were not adopted by the local authority, nor the sewers by United Utilities. Why? Because the developer failed to secure either the necessary bonded section 38 agreement, the section 104 agreement, or both. The result is that homeowners who purchased their properties in good faith are now told they must foot the bill to bring roads and sewers up to standard: we are talking about thousands of pounds for infrastructure that should have been properly delivered and adopted from the outset. In Middlewich, residents on one estate had been waiting for a decade for the adoption of their sewers. It has been up to residents themselves to navigate the complex process of securing sewer adoption. After years of persistence, significant personal investment and tireless effort, their determinations have paid off, and the sewers on their development are now fully adopted. I pay particular tribute to Claire Bertram for seeing this through—but this situation is not just unfair; it is unacceptable. People buying a home should not have to become experts in planning law or infrastructure adoption. They should be able to rely on a system that protects them from exactly this kind of exploitation. We need urgent reform to close those loopholes and prevent that situation from happening again. It must be a legal requirement that no home can be sold unless the infrastructure that it relies on—roads, sewers, drainage—is fully secured through binding adoption agreements. This is not a radical proposal; it is a basic standard of consumer protection. We already have a legislative tool: section 42 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, passed by the previous Government, which provides a mechanism to ensure that sewer adoption is properly regulated. It is time to activate and enforce this provision through secondary legislation. We also need a parallel mechanism for highways—one that ensures that developers cannot shirk their responsibilities and leave communities in limbo. This is about restoring trust in the housing sector. Families should not be punished for a developer’s failure. We need stronger regulation, better oversight and a clear legal requirement that no home can be sold unless the infrastructure that it relies on is secured, adoptable and protected by law. Only then can we prevent this kind of injustice from happening again.

• 3 Nov 2025 · Ukraine: Military Support · Hansard source

  More

  I strongly welcome the Defence Secretary’s continued leadership on Ukraine. I visited Estonia in early September, just prior to the incident in which three MiG-31 Russian fighter jets entered Estonian airspace and stayed for 12 minutes, in a further dangerous escalation of tensions in the region. Even before that incident, the sense I got from the Estonian politicians I met was that they were very much on the frontline, and there was deep concern that, if Russia succeeds in Ukraine, they will be next. What assurances can the Defence Secretary give that contingency plans are in place to support our NATO allies in the face of continued Russian aggression?

• 3 Nov 2025 · Ukraine: Military Support · Hansard source

  More

  5. What recent discussions he has had with allies on military support for Ukraine.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Infected Blood Compensation Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his statement and for his very clear personal commitment on this issue. He will be aware that building and maintaining trust between the affected families and the Government is essential. I am sure he will agree that the Hillsborough law, which comes before the House next week, is one example of how we can continue to repay that trust and demonstrate that we are determined to see recommendations, such as the duty of candour, put in statute. My constituents who are affected by the scandal still continually ask me for reassurance on transparency, so will he consider publishing regular data on claims received, assessed and paid, so that the public can clearly see the progress that is being made—exponential or otherwise?

• 27 Oct 2025 · Holidays During School Term Time · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on leading this debate and making many a point that I am about to make and agree with. I thank those who created and signed the petition, including 357 of my constituents. I have heard from many families who are deeply concerned about the current approach to school attendance and the impact of fines for term-time holidays. Those concerns are especially pressing for those facing challenging circumstances, including financial pressures and limited flexibility in their work schedules, along with those who have children with special educational needs and disabilities, for whom routine, flexibility and emotional wellbeing are often more complex and nuanced. At the heart of this issue is a tension between two important priorities: ensuring that children benefit from consistent education, and recognising the value of quality time spent together as a family. There is no doubt that regular school attendance is vital. Department for Education research published in March showed a strong correlation between attendance and attainment, with just 10 days’ absence in year 6 reducing the likelihood of achieving the expected standard by 25%, as has been mentioned. Persistent absenteeism can lead to gaps in learning, reduced engagement and difficulties reintegrating into the classroom, all of which can have long-term consequences and act as a significant barrier to opportunity. We must also acknowledge that family time matters. Shared experiences strengthen family bonds, support emotional wellbeing and create lasting memories, which are vital for a child’s overall development. Those moments are not just desirable; they are necessary. We also need to consider the needs of individual children, particularly those with SEND, including neurodivergent pupils. Any parent of a neurodivergent child—including myself—will say that busier environments, unfamiliar routines and crowded travel periods can be overwhelming and distressing. For some, taking a holiday during quieter times may be the only way a family can ensure their child feels safe, regulated and able to enjoy the experience. In those cases, flexibility around term-time absence is not just helpful; it is a matter of inclusion and wellbeing. Being unable to choose when to take time off is another broader but related challenge that many families face. For some constituents who have contacted me—notably, an airline pilot—holiday periods are allocated or restricted by employers, limiting parents’ ability to align their leave with school breaks. That lack of flexibility makes it difficult for families to spend meaningful time together, even when school holidays are available. As we have heard a lot, the most common concern I hear—one that every person here with a child of school age will have experienced—is the inflated cost of holidays during school breaks. Those price hikes make holidays unaffordable for many, meaning that children miss out on valuable experiences, simply because their parents cannot afford to travel during peak times. For parents on lower incomes who decide to take their children on holiday during school term time, the financial challenges they face are often compounded by the imposition of a fine, which many families struggle to afford. That unfairness is exacerbated by a perception of inconsistency. Families tell me that requests for authorised absence are handled differently from one school to another—in particular, between schools in the state sector and independent schools. That lack of uniformity creates confusion and frustration, and can feel unfair to parents trying to do the right thing. There is no straightforward answer to any of these challenges, but I have long been an advocate of switching to the five-term school year. That model would offer more evenly distributed holidays throughout the year, reducing pressure on the summer break and giving families greater flexibility. It could also help ease the financial burden by spreading demand more evenly across the calendar, potentially lowering travel costs. For teachers, the benefits of a five-term year are equally compelling. Teaching is a demanding profession, and the current long stretches between holidays can lead to fatigue and burnout. More frequent, shorter breaks would allow teachers to recharge regularly, improving wellbeing and job satisfaction. It would also support better curriculum planning, reduce the pressure of end-of-term assessments and create a more sustainable rhythm for teaching and learning. It is important to recognise that each family has its own unique circumstances, and there is not a one-size-fits-all rule for when spending time together is appropriate. While I agree that school attendance must remain a priority, we must recognise the realities that families face. A more compassionate, flexible and consistent approach that values both education and family life is not only possible but necessary. By rethinking the structure of the school year and advocating for greater flexibility in the workplace, I believe we can create a system that works better for everyone.

• 27 Oct 2025 · Statutory Maternity and Paternity Pay · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure everybody recognises how important it is to do this once and do it right. Is the Minister able to commit to legislating in this Parliament?

• 27 Oct 2025 · Statutory Maternity and Paternity Pay · Hansard source

  More

  I have been contacted by a number of constituents concerned about the requirement to have worked continuously with the same employer to qualify for statutory maternity pay. Women who change jobs shortly before pregnancy are excluded from statutory maternity pay. They miss out on the six weeks at 90% of average weekly earnings and instead receive a lower maternity allowance. That creates a financial strain, forcing people to return to work early and harming the wellbeing of mothers and children. Does my hon. Friend agree that that issue must be addressed and that we need to provide fair support for all working mothers?

• 27 Oct 2025 · Statutory Maternity and Paternity Pay · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We have established a principle in this country of changing our electoral system via referendum. We had a referendum on the alternative vote system during the coalition era. The Bill is going to switch the system back to single transferable vote as it was when it was originally envisaged, so I believe that it is fair enough to go ahead without a referendum. But what the hon. Lady is proposing would be to change to an entirely different system without any democratic mandate to do so.

• 23 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T9. I recently met Estonian MPs to hear about their experience of using digital ID over the last two decades, and particularly about how people’s ability to see who has accessed their data is the cornerstone of the data privacy controls at the heart of their system. They talked about the efficiency gains across the public and private sector, such as when someone changes their name after marriage or buys a property. How does the Minister see modernisation of the state improving the delivery of public services in the UK?

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman’s argument. In many ways, it is the ultimate Conservative argument that the status quo is exactly right and exactly what we need. Has the hon. Gentleman done any research on public opinion of local government reorganisation in London in the 1960s, or the 1974 local government reorganisation in. I read a leading article in The Times from April 1974 in which there was a criticism of planning being at the district council level and highways being at the county council level, as that created problems between the two. Things change, do they not? To suggest that the state of local government is optimal as we have it right now seems ridiculous to me. It is divorced from our experience, and many of us Government Members served as councillors. Surely we need to reorganise things so that they can run more efficiently.

• 21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Lady is saying. If she likes “piña coladas, and gettin’ caught in the rain”, may I suggest that she looks no further than the Piña Colada festival in Northwich, which is delivered by Northwich town council and adds £500,000 to the local economy? I completely agree with her about the contribution that town and parish councils can make with stuff like this, but she would place a duty on the mayor that they “must” consult, and not all parishes are the same. Will she comment on that?

• 21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My problem with the hon. Lady’s argument is that her amendment states: “Engagement…must include…consulting town and parish councils”— not “can include”, but “must include”. Of 300 parish councils, some might be home to only 150 people and some to 20,000 people, so they are completely different. I do not think that “must include” is appropriate.

• 21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I agree entirely with the principle of mayors holding responsibility for police and crime commissioners where the boundaries of the roles are coterminous, and the idea of appointing a deputy mayor to that role makes absolute sense, as does the power to align boundaries where it makes sense administratively. That all works in principle. My concern is about how this will be applied in Cheshire. Halton local authority is part of the Liverpool city region. That was a decision made when the Liverpool city region was first proposed—at the time the Minister may well have been in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government as a civil servant—and for Halton, then, it was the only game in town. The proposed Cheshire and Warrington combined authority will cover the remainder of Cheshire—Cheshire West and Chester, Cheshire East and Warrington—and is not coterminous with Cheshire police, which covers all of Cheshire and includes Halton, as does Cheshire fire and rescue. This measure will therefore allow the Home Secretary to change the police boundaries, and there are significant concerns within Cheshire police that, were this to go ahead, their viability would be at risk, as well as practical concerns about the location of the custody suite. This power already exists regarding fire and rescue services, but, under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, the Secretary of State is required to consider whether the order is in the interests of public safety before it is made. That test is not included in this Bill. In her summing up, could the Minister provide some reassurance that this power will not be exercised in Cheshire’s case without due consideration of that public safety factor, as well as significant consultation with local stakeholders to make sure that any future alignment is right for Cheshire?

• 21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Where in the legislation does it says that mayors will be prohibited from talking to town and parish councils? The way that the hon. Member phrased that implies that something in the Bill stops them from doing so, but I am not clear where that is.

• 21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We are about to embark on a devolution deal for Cheshire and Warrington. The county of Cheshire alone has more than 330 civil parishes. Is the hon. Lady not concerned about the burden that would be placed on a mayor? Her amendment would require the views of all those parishes to be set out, so requiring the mayor in statute to report on that seems like a big ask.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Post-16 Education and Skills Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  This is a timely set of proposals in an area that is too often overlooked by Government. In my constituency, further education has not functioned properly since the Tories’ failed top-down review of post-16 education in Cheshire led to the closure of the main FE campus. NEET levels in Winsford are now five percentage points higher than the borough-wide average. To this end, the proposed enhanced support for 16 and 17-year-olds to take up education or training and stay engaged will be critical. What role can the Secretary of State see the mayoral combined authorities having in setting the strategic direction and providing governance for post-16 education in places such as Mid Cheshire?

• 14 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I was a town councillor for a good decade and a half before I became an MP. We went through unitarisation in Cheshire in 2008, so I recognise a lot of what the hon. Lady is saying about town and parish councils being asked to take on more services—I saw it under the last Conservative Government as funding was taken away from Cheshire West and Chester council. The reason why I am mystified is that my experience of town and parish councils is that they are not shy about expressing themselves. I am not sure what the hon. Lady is looking to achieve with the amendment, because town and parish councils are perfectly free to express their view in the consultations that already happen when these authorities are set up. Is she suggesting that town and parish councils should have a veto? From the way her amendment is worded, that seems like an entirely different proposition. Could she clarify that?

• 14 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As the hon. Lady refers to Greater Manchester, I am minded of the role that Chris Boardman has played in Greater Manchester in rolling out active travel. He is unelected, and I think it would be a shame if we could not take advantage of such a person’s expertise. Does she accept that is a risk with what she proposes?

• 16 Sept 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q The Bill will create several new mayoral combined authorities, and we might reasonably expect to see more mayoral development corporations created afterward. In recent years, there have been significant questions about the accountability and transparency of mayoral development corporations. Do you think you have sufficient powers currently? Will the Bill provide sufficient powers for the National Audit Office or the Local Audit Office to scrutinise mayoral development corporations properly, or should it be strengthened to clarify that mayoral development corporations should come under either yourselves or local audit? Gareth Davies: My view is that they are part of the local government landscape. They should be properly audited as part of the local government landscape, and the strengthening that this Bill brings to local government audit needs to apply to those parts of local government as well. I certainly would not try to lift them out of the local government set-up and make them subject to the National Audit Office. We are absolutely national; it should be the Local Audit Office that has a remit for mayoral corporations. I think this is less about the structural picture than about strengthening the local audit arrangements so that every part of the local set-up is audited effectively, including those.

• 16 Sept 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Do you believe that this Bill will do that? Gareth Davies: As we have said, it is not going to be quick or easy, but this is the right approach. It is just going to need substantial application of shoulder to the wheel and strong leadership of the new Local Audit Office, when that is created. That will make a big difference because it will have a loud voice in this area of work, and all the levers necessary to acquire the capacity required to perform to a high standard and to restore proper accountability. Even though we know that will not be easy, and we have explained why it is not simple, I think that is the right approach. Bill Butler: This is getting tedious, but I agree with Gareth. It is a local issue. It is fundamentally important that we recognise that these are local democratic bodies and that the Local Audit Office, and auditors, need to operate independently from them and without unnecessary interference from anywhere else. The job needs to be done properly, and framework in the Bill for reforming local audit is exactly the right direction to go. As I think we said, we need to address a number of environmental issues now to see that benefit. The risks you described apply to all 716 sets of unassured accounts. In my experience in this area, although audit does not always find a problem, I find it difficult to believe that there are not significant problems lurking where audits have not been completed. I hope there are not many. I would be delighted, but very surprised, if there were none.