FOI release

Response: Ministerial meetings with Amazon Web Services

Published 25 October 2024

Reference number	FOI2024-00415
Date of request	27 September 2024
Date of response	25 October 2024
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):

Please may the following information be provided with regard to any ministerial meetings [Peter Kyle, Lord Vallance, Chris Bryant] or ministerial correspondence between DSIT and Amazon and/or Amazon Web Services since July 2024 that relate to the £8 billion of investment by Amazon Web Services.

• A full list of attendees of any ministerial meetings.

• A copy of the agenda for any ministerial meetings.

• A copy of minutes recorded during any ministerial meetings.

• A copy of any correspondence between the DSIT and Amazon and/or Amazon Web Services regarding any ministerial meetings.

We have responded to your request for recorded information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

Our response

We can confirm that the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (the department) does hold some information in scope of your request. We can confirm that the Secretary of State (SoS) met with Amazon/Amazon Web Services on two occasions, the 9 July and the 3 September 2024, respectively.

The agenda for the meeting on the 9 July 2024 included:

1. Introductions

2. Amazon in the UK

3. Data centre investments

4. UK public sector use of cloud

5. [If raised] Policy issues

The agenda for the meeting on the 3 September 2024 included:

1. Introductions and Amazon in the UK

2. Autumn 2024 announcement

3. Future data centre investments

4. UK public sector use of cloud

5. [If raised] Policy issues

• CMA investigations

• Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act

• AI Opportunity Action Plan

• Frontier AI Safety Legislation

• Online Safety Act – Categorisation

• National Data library

• Cyber Security and Resilience Bill

The readouts for the meetings that SoS attended on the 9 July and the 3 September 2024 are enclosed in annex A and B, which also include the full list of attendees. Ministerial correspondence with Amazon since July 2024 is enclosed in annex C, D and E.

Annexes

Annex A: Readout of a meeting between the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology and Amazon on 9 July 2024

Annex B: Readout of a meeting between the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Chancellor with Amazon Web Service on 3 September 2024

Annex C: Email from Amazon to Minister Chris Bryant’s private office

Annex D: Email from Amazon Web Services to Minister Clark’s private office

Annex E: Email exchange between Amazon and Minister Jones’ private office scheduling an introductory meeting

Section 36: Prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs

Some of the information you have requested is exempt from disclosure under section 36 of the FOIA. Section 36 states:

(1) This section applies to:

(a) information which is held by a government department or by the Welsh Assembly Government and is not exempt information by virtue of section 35, and

(b) information which is held by any other public authority.

(2) Information to which this section applies is exempt information if, in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person, disclosure of the information under this Act:

(a) would, or would be likely to, prejudice:

(i) the maintenance of the convention of the collective responsibility of Ministers of the Crown, or

(ii) the work of the Executive Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly, or

(iii) the work of the Cabinet of the Welsh Assembly Government.

(b) would, or would be likely to, inhibit:

(i) the free and frank provision of advice, or

(ii) the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation, or

(c) would otherwise prejudice, or would be likely otherwise to prejudice, the effective conduct of public affairs.

In the reasonable opinion of the qualified person, some of the information you have requested falls into the category described in Section 36(2) (b) (i) and (ii). Section 36 is a qualified exemption. With this in mind, we have considered the public interest for and against disclosure.

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:

(1) 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.

(2) 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 36 and section 43 are:

• There is a public interest in the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology (the department) being open and transparent. This allows ministers and officials to be held accountable for their actions and decisions and allows the public to understand the work of the department and safeguard the democratic process.

• There is a public interest in releasing information about the issues considered by ministers in their engagements with their key stakeholders. Disclosing the information would increase trust and government accountability, encouraging public confidence in the decision-making and deliberation process.

• There is a public interest in releasing information about the ways in which ministers are encouraging and supporting investment in the UK economy. Disclosing this information may increase public confidence in the government’s commitment to attracting and supporting international investment.

The arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption are:

• Releasing the candid advice of officials in written briefings would remove the safe space which ministers require at the beginning of a new administration to be able to receive information about the issues that are important to their stakeholders. Disclosure would not be in the public interest because without this safe space, officials would not be able to effectively prepare ministers for their conversations with key stakeholders, which would result in the ministers having less effective engagements and reduce their ability to deliver on their policy commitments.

• Releasing the candid views of key stakeholders shared in their early meetings with ministers of a new administration would also remove the safe space for key stakeholders to candidly articulate sensitive matters which concern them or where they may require additional government support. Disclosure would not be in the public interest because without this safe space, key stakeholders will be less likely to articulate and receive the support which they need from government to invest in the UK economy, which would in turn reduce opportunities for economic growth and greater prosperity in the areas where stakeholder are seeking to invest.

• Releasing commercially sensitive information shared by third parties would not be in the public interest as disclosure may compromise their ability to make investments in the UK economy and would be likely to reduce their willingness to be candid with ministers about their commercial interests and opportunities to work collaboratively with the government on future investments.

Having considered these factors, we are satisfied that it is appropriate to withhold the information and maintain the exemptions set out above.