Businesses in Rural Areas

Debate between James Naish and Steff Aquarone

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Steff Aquarone]

On balance, I agree—partly to manage the local housing supply and encourage the local tourism economy, but also for reasons of public safety and improved standards. The people I speak to and who approach me are usually the ones whose standards I have no worries about, but there are many out there who probably would benefit from registration. That is the right, balanced approach, so I support what the hon. Lady says.

Going back to buses, with the right public transport infrastructure constituents of mine could commute to the many thousands of jobs emerging in what is fast becoming the global centre of excellence for agritech. Likewise, those bringing their expertise to Norfolk could more fully enjoy the environmental and lifestyle benefits of our county and my constituency, while bringing a new and expanding clientele to our local businesses.

I look forward to hearing from many others about the rural businesses in their areas. I am grateful for the interventions so far and I expect that we will hear of many shared challenges and frustrations, but I am also excited about the opportunities just waiting for the support they need to kick-start them. The rural economy is a sleeping giant waiting to be awoken. Let us do for rural and coastal communities what we did as a country for industrialised towns and cities in the second half of the last century. We just need the Government to grasp the reins and tackle the challenges that we face.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I believe there was a rural White Paper in 1995, followed by a similar one in 2000, but then a 15-year gap until the productivity plan and another eight-year gap until the “Unleashing rural opportunity” paper of 2023, which was 28 pages in total. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need a clear, defined rural strategy that ties all those elements together to release the potential of rural Britain?

[Steff Aquarone]

I agree, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the perfect platform to remind the House of my support for a coastal communities Minister—but that is outside the scope of this particular debate. This issue requires not only strategic vision and leadership from the top, but empowerment and resources on the ground; if another strategy will help that, I support it. The number of papers the hon. Gentleman referred to reminds us all of the cross-party ambition here—we just have to get on and do it, and this feels like a good time to grasp that nettle. We already contribute hundreds of billions to the economy, but there are billions more just waiting to be unlocked all over our country. With real support, vision and strategy, we can transform the rural economy into the powerhouse it has been before and should be in the future.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Debate between James Naish and Steff Aquarone

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

My new clause 7 would ensure that, alongside the creation of a digital verification framework, there would be a right to use non-digital ID. Digital exclusion is a major challenge for many communities around the country, including in North Norfolk. Part of the answer is to improve digital education and bring those numbers down, but, as Age UK rightly says,

“it will never be possible to get everyone online.”

The progress we make in the digital age must ensure provision for those who will not be supported by it, or that they are not left behind or excluded.

Older people are not the only ones who struggle with digital exclusion—poverty is also a significant driver. A study in 2021 showed that more than half those who are offline earned less than £20,000 a year. The Government told the Lords that if it turned out that people were being excluded, they could consider legislating, but how many people earning less than £20,000 a year will be taking a business through the courts—perhaps as far as the Supreme Court—to secure their rights? Why are we waiting for it to go wrong, placing the onus on vulnerable people to generate test cases and legal precedent when we could put this matter to bed once and for all with this simple addition to the Bill?

I will also speak in support of new clause 1. It has become abundantly clear to us all that we cannot trust the social media giants to keep our children safe. In fact, I would go as far as to say that they have very little interest in keeping children safe. The algorithms that drive these platforms, which are designed to keep users scrolling for as long as possible to maximise ad revenue, can be deeply damaging to children and young people. It is important to emphasise just how pervasive the content stream can be. Not every hon. Member may have experienced it, but pervasive, targeted content is not the same as a child seeing something distressing on the news. Once seen—if only fleetingly—there is the potential for them to be exposed to unsubstantiated, misleading or even traumatic content, or versions of that content, over and over again every few swipes as the algorithm realises it can suck them in, keep them scrolling and make profit for its social media giants. That is not what social networks set out to do, but it is what they have become.

Whatever the social media giants told the Government or the Opposition, whether “It is too complex,” “It would cost too much,” or, “The flux capacitor is not big enough,” that is just rubbish. If we simply removed the right to process personal data for under 16s, we would remove the algorithms’ ability to target them with content based on what they say and do. If the social networks cared about children’s wellbeing, they would have done that already. I hope that today we will finally take the action necessary to protect the next generation.

Overall, my views on the Bill remain broadly similar to the frustrations I expressed months ago on Second Reading. There is important, commendable and sensible stuff in the Bill, and I welcome that, but what is not in the Bill is more frustrating, as it could have put it in a much better position to harness the power of data. We could have addressed the litany of failures in public sector data use that the Government’s own review outlined just months ago. We could be equipping our civil service and public sector with the talent, culture and leadership to make us a global trailblazer in data-driven government. It is really frustrating that the Bill does not contain any of the steps necessary to make those improvements.

If we use data better, we do government better. I am sure that the whole House and all our constituents are keen to see that.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

As all hon. Members in the Chamber know, data is the DNA of our modern life. It drives our economy, our NHS and our public services, often silently but ultimately powerfully. For too long, outdated data infrastructure across the British state has held us back, costing us billions and draining frontline resources. This ambitious Bill sets out to change that, so it should be welcomed.

For our NHS, the Bill will mean faster and safer care. More transferable and accurate patient data could save 140,000 hours of staff time annually, reduce duplicate lab tests, prevent up to 20 deaths each year from medication errors and improve overall patient safety and outcomes—that is real impact. It will also free up 1.5 million hours of police time, letting officers spend more time on our streets, not behind desks. The national underground asset register, as has been mentioned, could bring £4 billion to our economy by preventing costly infrastructure delays and accidents. The Bill will seek not just to cut red tape, but boost research, protect personal data and allow scientists and online safety experts to better access information to keep us all safer. I welcome that.

On Government amendment 16 on artificial intelligence and the creative industries, we have all seen the potential of AI, but that promise must not come at the expense of those who create. In that regard, I thank the dozens of constituents who have contacted me about their concerns. I welcome the Government’s recognition of the complex intersection between AI and copyright, and the need to get this right. It is clear that we must tread carefully and base any changes on robust evidence. I am therefore pleased that the Government are committed to publishing a full economic impact assessment and reporting to Parliament on key concerns, such as how AI developers access copyrighted materials, the transparency of their methods and licensing. I will also continue to support Equity with its work on the principle of personality rights.

New clause 21 proposes mandatory recording of sex at birth across all public authorities. The new clause would require all public authorities, whether the NHS, which I could potentially understand, or the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, which I certainly could not, to record and retain people’s sex at birth even when someone has a gender recognition certificate. The new clause would seemingly require that regardless of context, purpose or relevance. That feels neither proportionate nor respectful of existing legal frameworks or the trans community at this difficult time.

It is important that we acknowledge that transgender, non-binary and intersex people already face considerable barriers in public life, and many of my constituents have shared with me in recent weeks just how much fear and uncertainty they are experiencing. Rushed amendments and changes, without dialogue with those impacted, are not in any way welcomed and could have very negative consequences.

Finally, on the theme of privacy, proportionality and protecting vulnerable people, will the Minister say whether any steps will be taken by his Department to end the collection and sharing of sensitive personal data when people use police, public, university or other websites to report crimes or abuses and the subsequent sharing of that data with third parties through tracking pixels? The use of such tools means people inadvertently share information with advertisers. I hope the Government will look into that and take it seriously.