FOI release

Response: Tech Industry meetings

Published 5 June 2025

Reference number	FOI2025-00300
Date of request	08 April 2025
Date of response	05 June 2025
Outcome	Information partially disclosed

The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (the department) received the following request for information which we responded to under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA):

Government transparency data shows the following meetings took place. SoS Peter Kyle met with: CMA (16/07/2024) Amazon (09/07/2024) Meta (09/07/2024) Microsoft (10/09/2024) Roundtable with Google, Amazon Web Services, Startup Coalition and others (14/08/2024)

I am writing to request briefings, readouts and other memoranda related to these meetings.

Our response

We can confirm that the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (the department) does hold the information in scope of your request, including:

Annex A

Briefing for Peter Kyle’s meeting with Amazon Web Services

Annex B

Briefing for the meeting between Peter Kyle and the CMA

Annex C

Readout of the meeting between Peter Kyle and the CMA

Annex D

Briefing for the roundtable on AI Regulation

Annex E

Readout of the meeting with Microsoft

Annex F

Briefing for the meeting with Microsoft

Annex G

Readout for the meeting between Peter Kyle and Nick Clegg

Annex H

Briefing for the meeting between Peter Kyle and Nick Clegg

Section 21: This information is accessible to you by other means

You can access the readout for the meeting with Amazon Web Services which you have requested here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/foi2024-00415-ministerial-meetings-with-amazon-web-services

Because the information is already reasonably accessible to you, technically it is withheld under section 21 of the FOIA. Section 21 states: (1) Information which is reasonably accessible to the applicant otherwise than under section 1 is exempt information. Section 21(1) is an absolute exemption under the FOIA therefore we are not required to conduct a public interest test when withholding this information.

Section 23: Bodies dealing with security matters

We have identified that some of the information you requested is exempt from disclosure as it was directly or indirectly supplied to public authorities by bodies dealing with security matters. Section 23 is an absolute exemption under the FOIA therefore we are not required to conduct a public interest test when withholding this information.

Section 24: National security

We have identified that some of the information you requested is exempt from disclosure under section 24(1) of the FOIA as its exemption is required for the purpose of safeguarding national security. Section 24(1) states: Information which does not fall within section 23(1) is exempt information if exemption from section 1(1)(b) is required for the purpose of safeguarding national security. This is a qualified exemption, which means we must consider the public interest in withholding the information.

Public interest test

In this case the public interest factors in favour of disclosure are:

Increasing transparency:

• A general public interest in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (the department) being open and transparent. There is a public interest in disclosing the information as it would increase transparency.

Accountability:

• It could instil trust and accountability of the department, fostering and encouraging public debate about the departments work and engagement with these companies and the measures taken on national security. The factors against disclosure are:

Increase in attacks:

• Disclosure of some information covered by your request will affect the United Kingdom’s national security. There has been an increase in attacks on critical national infrastructure through the use of digital services. This was set out in the Department for Culture Media and Sport’s (DCMS) public consultation in November 2022.

National infrastructure implications:

• By bad actors being able to uncover information on these digital services, the UK’s national infrastructure may be at risk of attack. Such widespread disruptions would influence the essential services administered, which would risk the wellbeing of the UK’s citizens. Such disruptions would also impact public confidence in the government. The protection of these digital services is vital to preventing interruptions which could case financial losses as interference would be likely to disrupt the operations and supply chain of such firms.

Mosaic effect:

• This information together with wider public information, also known as the “mosaic effect”, would be likely to harm the interests of the United Kingdom and its citizens, as bad actors would be able to piece together information received from this FOI request and information in the wider public domain to form a detailed image of the capabilities and vulnerabilities of the firms.

• These measures are proportionate and effective to protecting the security of UK citizens and the interests of the country. Having considered these factors, we are satisfied that it is appropriate to withhold the information.

Section 27: International relations

Some of the information you have requested is exempt from disclosure under section 27 of the FOIA.

Section 27 states:

(1) Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice - (a) relations between the United Kingdom and any other State, (b) relations between the United Kingdom and any international organisation or international court, (c) the interests of the United Kingdom abroad, or (d) the promotion or protection by the United Kingdom of its interests abroad. (2) Information is also exempt information if it is confidential information obtained from a State other than the United Kingdom or from an international organisation or international court. (3) For the purposes of this section, any information obtained from a State, organisation or court is confidential at any time while the terms on which it was obtained require it to be held in confidence or while the circumstances in which it was obtained make it reasonable for the State, organisation or court to expect that it will be so held.

The information you have requested falls into the category described in Section 27(1)(a). Section 27 is a qualified exemption. With this in mind, we have considered the public interest for and against disclosure.

Public interest test

In this case the public interest arguments in favour of releasing the information withheld under section 27 are:

Government transparency:

• There is a general interest in government transparency, including what information the UK shared with other states. Transparency helps to build trust and confidence in public authorities and their decision-making processes.

Effective international relations:

• The public has an interest in understanding how the UK conducts its international relations and the strategies it employs to further foreign and domestic policy goals. Disclosure of this information could enhance public understanding and scrutiny of the government’s actions. The arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption are:

Trust and confidence:

• The effective conduct of the UK’s international relationships relies on the UK gaining and maintaining the trust and confidence of international partners. A key part of the relationship is that the UK and its international partners or allies have the ability to exchange information freely and frankly.

Potential damage to relationships:

• Were the information in scope to be released, it would be likely to damage the UK’s relationship with international partners. This could adversely affect the ability to exchange information in this way and to have similar collaborative relationships in future challenging circumstances of international significance. This would not be in the public interest. Having considered these factors, we are satisfied that it is appropriate to withhold the information.

Section 35: Government policy

Some of the information you have requested is exempt from disclosure under section 35 of the FOIA. Section 35 states: (1) Information held by a government department or by the Welsh Assembly Government is exempt information if it relates to - (a) the formulation or development of government policy, (b) Ministerial communications, (c) the provision of advice by any of the Law Officers or any request for the provision of such advice, or (d) the operation of any Ministerial private office. The information you have requested falls into the category described in section 35 (1)(a). Section 35 is a qualified exemption. With this in mind, we have considered the public interest for and against disclosure. Public interest test In this case the public interest arguments in favour of releasing the information withheld under section 35 are:

• Promoting transparency: There is a strong public interest in the disclosure of the information to promote government transparency and enable the public to better understand the discussions and decision-making processes of government officials regarding Artificial Intelligence policy. Transparency in government actions and decisions is fundamental to a democratic society and helps build trust between the government and the public.

• Widening public engagement: Disclosure may serve to widen public engagement, which may in turn assist in the development and scrutiny of AI policy decisions. Engaging the public in policy discussions can lead to more informed and effective policies, as it allows for diverse perspectives and expertise to be considered.

• Encouraging accountability: Release of the information could encourage government accountability for the formulation of AI policy and its alignment with public interests. Accountability ensures that government officials are held responsible for their actions and decisions, which can lead to better governance and policy outcomes.

The arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption are:

• Prejudicing policy development: Disclosing the information at this stage could prejudice the ongoing development of government policy on Artificial Intelligence, as the discussions are still in progress and subject to change. There is a strong public interest in maintaining a “safe space” in which external third-party companies and government officials can develop their thinking and explore different options in communications and discussions.

• Limiting candid expression: Premature disclosure may limit the freedom of officials to express their views candidly, potentially hindering the formulation of effective policies. Officials need to be able to discuss and debate policy options freely without fear that their preliminary thoughts will be made public.

• Creating a chilling effect: The removal of this safe space could lead to a “chilling effect” where both the minister and third parties (external stakeholders) may be less willing to engage in the exploration of new policy ideas. This then creates the risk of an adverse public reaction should such proposals not be implemented.

• Misinterpreting intentions: Releasing incomplete or preliminary policy discussions may lead to the misinterpretation of government intentions. This may undermine the policy’s eventual effectiveness and cause unnecessary public concern. Having considered these factors, we are satisfied that it is appropriate to withhold the information.

Section 40(2): Personal data of third parties

Some of the information you have requested is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) because of the condition at section 40(3A) of the FOIA.

Section 40(2) and (40(3A) state: (2) Any information to which a request for information relates is also exempt information if - (a) it constitutes personal data which does not fall within subsection (1), and (b) the first, second or third condition below is satisfied. (3A) The first condition is that the disclosure of the information to a member of the public otherwise than under this Act - (a) would contravene any of the data protection principles, or (b) would do so if the exemptions in section 24(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018 (manual unstructured data held by public authorities) were disregarded.

The department has obligations under data protection legislation, and in law generally, to protect personal data. This exempts personal data from release if disclosure would contravene any of the data protection principles in Article 5(1) of the UK General Data Protection Regulation and section 34(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018. Release would breach the first data protection principle since it would be unlawful and unfair to disclose the information.

As section 40 is an absolute exemption, the department is not required to carry out a public interest test.

Section 43: Trade secrets and prejudice to commercial interests

Some of the information you have requested is exempt from disclosure under section 43 of the FOIA. Section 43 states: (1) Information is exempt information if it constitutes a trade secret. (2) Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person (including the public authority holding it). The information you have requested falls into the category described in Section 43(2). Section 43 is a qualified exemption. With this in mind, we have considered the public interest for and against disclosure.

Public interest test

In this case the public interest arguments in favour of releasing the information withheld under section 43(2) are:

Transparency and accountability:

• Disclosing information can promote transparency and accountability in government operations and commercial activities. It allows the public to understand how public funds are being spent and how decisions are made.

Public understanding:

• Providing access to information can enhance public of government policies and commercial practices, leading to more informed public debate and decision-making.

Preventing misconduct:

• Disclosure can help prevent or expose misconduct, fraud, or corruption within public authorities or commercial entities.

Economic benefits:

• In some cases, disclosing information can stimulate competition and innovation, leading to economic benefits for the public. The arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption are:

• Prejudice to commercial interests: Disclosure of the requested information could potentially prejudice the commercial interests of the public authority or third parties by revealing sensitive details about commercial strategies, financial information, or business operations. For example, detailing information about the approach that commercial partners have taken to developing their technologies would be likely to prejudice their commercial interests. It could hinder the ability of the authority or third parties to compete effectively in the marketplace. Additionally, social media platforms often share key commercial details with the department to help officials understand how harmful content will be combatted. These platforms trust that their commercial positions will not be published.

• Impact on department’s negotiation position: Disclosure could impact the effectiveness of ongoing or future negotiations, which in turn may harm our relationship with other companies. This would likely lead to a reluctance among commercial partners to engage in negotiations and further commercial engagement, which are essential for effective commercial management for the department.

• Confidentiality of commercial information: Disclosure could undermine the confidentiality of commercial information provided by third parties. It could expose individuals or organisations to risks of harm or retaliation for their involvement in commercial activities.

Having considered these factors, we are satisfied that it is appropriate to withhold the information and maintain the exemptions set out above. While we acknowledge the public interest in promoting transparency and accountability, we believe that the potential harm to commercial interests, the impact on ongoing and future negotiations, and the need to maintain the confidentiality of sensitive commercial information outweigh the benefits of disclosure. Therefore, we have concluded that the public interest is best served by withholding the requested information under Section 43(2) of the FOIA.