Draft Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2026

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. The regulations, which were laid before the House in draft on 6 July, make three targeted amendments. They improve information-sharing powers in the Digital Economy Act 2017 to support people living in fuel poverty.

First, the amendments enable specified public authorities to share information with energy suppliers for the purpose of identifying and supporting people living in fuel poverty who are experiencing energy debt. Secondly, the amendments, laid by the then Department for Science, Innovation and Technology on 6 July, specify that Department under the existing fuel poverty objective, enabling the Government Department responsible for data policy to support work assisting people living in fuel poverty, including the national data library kickstarter project. Following the machinery of government changes announced in July, that responsibility is transferring to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. Any technical changes needed to reflect the transfer will be made separately and will not affect how these measures operate. A third technical measure clarifies that the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero can rely on the fuel poverty objective, in accordance with the transfer of relevant functions to it in 2023.

Taken together, these practical and proportionate amendments will help to ensure that support reaches the right households at the right time. The information needed to identify households in difficulty is often held by different organisations. Properly governed data sharing can bring that information together, allowing public authorities and energy suppliers to identify need more accurately and target assistance more effectively.

The first amendment fills a specific gap in the existing framework. The current fuel poverty power supports households that cannot afford to keep their homes adequately warm, but it does not expressly cover households with outstanding energy debt. The change will help to ensure that households facing both fuel poverty and energy debt can be identified and supported, rather than falling through the gaps in existing arrangements. Although the two groups frequently overlap, fuel poverty and energy debt are not identical. The amendment therefore enables information sharing for the specific purpose of identifying and supporting households that are fuel-poor and that experience energy arrears.

The statutory instrument will provide the necessary legislation to enable the Government to support a future energy debt relief scheme. The precise design of any scheme remains under development by the Government and Ofgem, and the draft regulations do not themselves establish or fund such a scheme. They provide the legal data-sharing basis that would allow an appropriately designed scheme to operate effectively. If such a scheme proceeds, it is estimated to reduce the administrative burdens involved in identifying eligible households and providing further support to families in need. The proposal that the regulations would deliver received strong support in the consultation, with 98% of respondents supporting the proposed information-sharing arrangements.

The second amendment specifies the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology as a public authority that may share information with certain other public authorities for the existing fuel poverty objective, which will enable it to support fuel poverty initiatives such as the national data library kickstarter project. It will test ways to identify households in need by securely linking information such as earnings, benefits and energy use. That responsibility will transfer to DCMS when the machinery of government changes take place through the usual process. It will mean that, in effect, DCMS will have that function, which is more efficient than withdrawing the process and starting it again.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Will the Minister clarify how many people are within scope of benefiting from the regulation and what the total cost will be, in terms of the savings they will get?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I know that the right hon. Gentleman was a little bit late in arriving, but I did say that the scheme is the responsibility of the relevant Department. These regulations provide the legal framework for the data sharing.

I now turn to the third amendment, which concerns the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. Its predecessor Department—the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy—was able to share information with certain other public bodies under the fuel poverty objective, and the relevant functions were transferred to DESNZ in 2023, but the relevant secondary legislation was not consequentially amended at that time. This amendment corrects that omission in the interests of certainty.

Those measures sit alongside the Government’s broader action to tackle affordability. We have cut VAT on electricity bills, expanded the warm home discount to around 6 million households, and are delivering the warm homes plan and fuel poverty strategy to reduce bills, improve energy efficiency and help to lift up to 1 million households out of fuel poverty by 2030. These regulations help to ensure that support is targeted more effectively and reaches those who need it most.

I recognise that Members will rightly expect assurances about privacy, proportionality and the potential for scope creep. These regulations do not create a general data-sharing power. Information may be shared only by specified bodies, for specified purposes and within the existing statutory framework. All sharing remains subject to the UK GDPR, the Data Protection Act 2018, restrictions on reuse and onward disclosure. Bodies sharing data should have regard to the statutory code of practice, including recording information-sharing agreements on a public register. Those safeguards are integral to the operation of these powers. Responsible data use and public trust must go together.

The regulations will help public authorities to identify households experiencing fuel poverty or energy debt and ensure that support can reach them more efficiently. They make limited, targeted changes to existing powers, while retaining strong privacy and transparency safeguards. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Barclay]

I speak to my brief exchange earlier with the Minister. As the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted, said, the draft regulations are fairly benign and very welcome to help people who are struggling with their bills. Fundamentally, however, when changing the law, it behoves us to understand who is within the scope of that change and what adverse impacts there might be as a result.

A cohort of people will be just about managing to pay their bills, yet there will be a cost to this measure, welcomed though it has largely been by the Committee in the speeches so far. What is unclear to me, however, is the cost. For this measure to substantively help people with their energy debt in a meaningful way, one assumes a significant cost as a result of being able to share the data in order to write off those bills. Therefore, for the Minister to make the claim that it is helping—as she did—one assumes that she will know what the cost is of the change to the law that she has brought to the Committee.

Given that, it also behoves us to understand who will pick up the cost of the measure. I was therefore surprised that in the Minister’s remarks, she did not touch on that cohort just above the other one—some people who can pay the addition to their energy bills without any difficulty whatever. We all represent constituents—indeed, the Government frequently talk about the pressure of the cost of living on them—who are just struggling. Indeed, they are those who, to coin a phrase, need some breathing space. They are just about affording their bills, but they will not be covered by the protections in the draft regulations; quite the reverse—they will be the ones who bear the cost.

One assumes that the Minister has not brought in a change in the law without being clear about what the cost of that change is or what the impact might be on some of those struggling to pay their bills. In her wind-up, will she clarify those two figures? What is the cost of the amount of debt that is going to be written off, and how many people are potentially within scope of being pushed into that cohort because their bills will go up? We did not have those figures, but I hope she now has the inspiration from the Box to answer those points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Barclay]

When I was reading the draft regulations, I was confused, because I thought they mentioned a Department that had been scrapped. It seems odd to bring in a change in the law for a Department that the Government have already scrapped.

[Stephanie Peacock]

The right hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of this House and understands how changes to the machinery of government work. We could withdraw it and bring everyone back in a few months’ time, but the most efficient way to do it is to proceed with the Department as it is; the powers will come to DCMS later. I am sure he is aware of that from his time in government. That is also the answer to the question from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted for her point. It is absolutely right that we should take learnings from this. Indeed, towards the end of my speech, I spoke about some of the protections and some of the detail.

The right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire asked me some questions about who is in scope and who will benefit from the scheme. Again, had he been listening to my contribution, he would have heard—I will repeat my comments—that the precise design of any scheme remains in development by the Government and Ofgem. The draft regulations do not themselves establish or fund such a scheme; they provide the legal data-sharing basis to allow an appropriate design scheme to operate effectively.

As much as all the points are incredibly important—data poverty, fuel poverty and debt poverty, which I see in my own constituency—we are not in Committee to debate them; we are here to debate data sharing. That is what we have done, and I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Bronze-age Heritage: Cambridgeshire

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg—particularly after last night’s result at Anfield, which will make you a happy Chair this morning. I am pleased to respond to this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) on securing it and on the way in which he delivered his remarks.

It is worth saying that my hon. Friend is an outstanding Member for his constituency. If I had a pound for every time he has mentioned Peterborough in the House of Commons or to Ministers, lobbying on behalf of his constituency, I would almost be able to afford the train fare from Edinburgh to Peterborough to come and visit all the wonderful things he spoke about. He mentioned the “Doctor Who” exhibition there, but the person who is regenerating Peterborough is my hon. Friend himself—if that is not too outlandish a “Doctor Who” pun. Like my hon. Friend, my thoughts are with those affected by the horrific events over the weekend in his county.

I welcome my hon. Friend’s desire for better access to heritage, in particular those close to home: the Flag Fen archaeology park and Must Farm. Flag Fen was discovered during the extensive fenland survey supported by the Government’s arm’s length body Historic England, known as English Heritage at the time. Flag Fen was discovered when lead archaeologist Francis Pryor tripped on a piece of wood lying in a drainage ditch. That would lead to the discovery of more than 60,000 timbers, arranged in five long rows to create a unique historical wooden causeway across the fenland, constructed around 3,500 years ago. It is hard to believe that, without those efforts, the site might never have been discovered—indeed, if most of us had tripped over a piece of wood, it would have led to a few expletives, rather than to such a discovery.

The significance of the Flag Fen site was officially recognised through its designation by Government as a scheduled monument, which recognises the site as nationally important and provides statutory protection. I share my hon. Friend’s horror at the two recent incidents of arson at Flag Fen, but I am pleased that Historic England’s work to tackle heritage crimes continues to go from strength to strength, in partnership with the police, other authorities and a range of other stakeholders, including a growing number of local authorities. I am pleased that Cambridgeshire county council is among the leading local authorities in looking at heritage crime.

It is important that we can all experience and enjoy the heritage that surrounds us, which forms the backbone of our shared national story. One of the priorities of the Secretary of State for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is to create richer lives with choices and opportunities for all, including by increasing access to heritage and culture. My hon. Friend mentioned that in his speech, and I know that learning and educational experience is close to his heart.

I am therefore delighted that Historic England is working in partnership with Flag Fen archaeology park, Peterborough city council and the University of Cambridge on a strategic plan to increase access to and economic development for the site. That plan will include new opportunities for archaeological investigation, engagement with local communities and learning programmes for younger people. It will create an immersive and enjoyable visitor experience for a wider audience, and physically connect more audiences to Flag Fen through improved transport links. Since the discovery of Flag Fen, Historic England has given it more than £530,000 and will continue to work with that important site so that many future generations can benefit from and be custodians of it.

Cambridgeshire is also home of the famous Must Farm site at Whittlesey in East Anglia, in the constituency of the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay). That is of international importance and provides an incredible snapshot in time of sophisticated bronze-age domestic life.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Ian Murray]

I do not know whether that is a reference to the site itself or to the right hon. Gentleman—we are about to find out.

[Steve Barclay]

I pay tribute to my Cambridgeshire colleague, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes), for securing this debate. I am grateful that the Minister draws out that distinction. Must Farm, the 3,000-year-old settlement dubbed the “Pompeii of the fens”, is in Fenland in my constituency, yet the funding always seems to go to Peterborough next door. Some of that is logical, but will he clarify what share of this funding will go to Fenland residents so that they can benefit from a discovery in their local authority area?

[Ian Murray]

I will get back to the right hon. Gentleman with the specifics of the funding. On funding more generally, which my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough raised, we know that these are tough times for local authorities, which have been massively underfunded since 2010. There is a requirement to prioritise heritage, of which we are custodians for today and tomorrow—we want to pass it on to future generations. We need to work with the National Lottery Heritage Fund to make up the difference for local authorities. We should encourage local authorities to work together to ensure that everyone benefits.

The Secretary of State’s commitment to ensuring that there are arts and heritage for all, right across the country, should answer some of those questions, but I will write to the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire on the specific issues he raised. In general terms, we are very much committed to ensuring that all our heritage sites, and the custodians of them, are well funded. He mentioned that there was a sudden fire, earning the site the nickname “Britain’s Pompeii”. It boasts extensive structural remains and a range of material, giving us an insight into the way people lived nearly 3,000 years ago. This is a great advert for it, and people should go and see it: the circle of wooden houses are believed to be the best-preserved bronze-age dwellings ever found in Britain, and a further nine immaculately preserved longboats were discovered and excavated there in 2011. They range from the bronze to the iron age. The site is very much something that people should visit to educate themselves.

The major excavation, which took place almost a decade ago, was funded by Historic England and the landowner, Forterra. It received about £1.42 million of funding. The project won several archaeological awards, including rescue project of the year at the 2017 Current Archaeology awards, and best archaeological discovery at the 2012 British archaeological awards—snappily titled awards for that project.

I recognise the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough about the shortage of archaeological and heritage skills. That is a priority for the Minister for Heritage, Baroness Twycross. Such skills are essential to maintaining the fabric of these important sites. Baroness Twycross held a skills roundtable in July and is working to understand how the sector can benefit from a range of entry routes. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough raised skills with the Department, and this morning I have asked my officials to look at whether universities are producing enough archaeologists. In the last two days, I was at the informal meeting of EU Culture Ministers in Copenhagen, and the Cypriot Culture Minister raised her concern about the pipeline of British archaeologists. Places such as Cyprus rely on the archaeological expertise of the United Kingdom in preserving their own heritage. I will get back to my hon. Friend with more details as that progresses.

Earlier this month, the Prime Minister announced the 75 recipients of the £20 million museum renewal fund. I was delighted that Peterborough city council was awarded £168,000, part of which will help Peterborough Museum and Art Gallery display the world-famous Must Farm bronze-age collections. Everyone should go and see them when they are displayed.

My Department is responsible for designating heritage assets through listed buildings and scheduling monuments so that they are protected in law for future generations. In total, Cambridgeshire is home to 59 scheduled bronze-age monuments, mostly bronze-age burial mounds. The most recent is the remains of the Money Hill round barrow cemetery, which was scheduled only last month as a monument. I am delighted that the future of Money Hill is now secured through collaboration between Historic England and East West Rail, another stakeholder, demonstrating how effective planning discussions can ensure that development and heritage protections stand side by side. That is something that we are keen to protect.

The neighbouring city of Peterborough is home to a further 23 scheduled bronze-age monuments, including Flag Fen. Preserving and maintaining the rich heritage of Cambridgeshire, or any region across the country, poses challenges, many of which were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough. In addition to the previously mentioned funding, the Government and their arm’s length bodies, the National Lottery Heritage Fund, Historic England and others, have provided many millions to ensure the safety, maintenance and preservation of not only the region’s bronze-age heritage, but all of Cambridgeshire’s invaluable heritage assets.

Since the founding of the National Lottery Heritage Fund in 1994, it alone has awarded £153 million to 897 projects within the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority boundaries, which shows the huge importance of that fund. That money has gone towards projects such as Peatland Progress, which received £8.8 million towards uniting the north and south halves of the Great Fen to safeguard biodiversity and support the region’s natural heritage. This Government are committed to ensuring the protection of our wonderful heritage and creating an inclusive national story that reflects the lives of extraordinary people from extraordinary places all over the country.

Local heritage is a powerful storyteller, defining who we are and forming the essential cornerstone of our communities. The Government strongly believe in supporting communities to celebrate and adapt the heritage buildings they value, ensuring that they remain as relevant today as they will be tomorrow. Earlier this year, to mark the 60th anniversary of the first arts White Paper, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport announced a massive £270 million investment to fix the foundations of our arts venues, museums, libraries and heritage sector nationwide.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) are both right to praise the important work that rugby league and indeed rugby union clubs do in their communities. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to better balance that with the Public Accounts Committee’s cross-party criticism of how her Department is managing its covid loan book?

[Lisa Nandy]

This Labour Government will always protect value for taxpayers’ money, and we are determined to grip the issues that we inherited. We have already recovered 97% of the repayments scheduled to the Department and we will respond shortly to the serious issues raised about the handling of covid loans in the Public Accounts Committee’s report. I will then be in a position to update the House.