
Information Rights Unit
HM Treasury
1 Horse Guards Road
London
SW1A 2HQ
Madhu Murgia
020 7270 5000
xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
www.gov.uk/hm-treasury
10 March 2022
Dear Madhu Murgia
Ref: FOI2022/02118 and
FOI2022/02117
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Thank you for both your enquiries of 2 February 2022, which we have considered under
the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the FOI Act). We are grouping your
requests and responding to the together, as they both relate to meetings.
On 2 February 2022, you asked for the following information (FOI2022/02118):
“For the meeting held on 27/02/2020 between Rt Hon Steve Barclay MP and
Google UK, with purpose Meeting to discuss technology policy
could you please provide the following information:
• A full list of attendees, including full names and titles as well as who the
attendee represents
• A copy of the meeting agenda
• Meeting notes/minutes taken during the meeting, as well as any briefing notes
and papers
• Any correspondence associated with the attendees, including debriefs of the
meeting via email or other forms of communication.”
In a separate request on the same day, you also asked for the following information
(FOI2022/02117:)
“For the meeting held on 15/03/2021 between Rt Hon Rishi Sunak MP and Google
UK, with purpose To discuss digital skills
could you please provide the following information:
• A full list of attendees, including full names and titles as well as who the
attendee represents
• A copy of the meeting agenda
• Meeting notes/minutes taken during the meeting, as well as any briefing notes
and papers
• Any correspondence associated with the attendees, including debriefs of the
meeting via email or other forms of communication.”
Following a search of our records, we can confirm that HM Treasury does hold information
within the scope of your request.
Rt Hon Rishi Sunak MP met with Google UK on 15/03/2021 and we have attached
documents related to the meeting including details of attendees, email correspondence
associated with them, the meeting agenda, notes and associated briefings.
Rt Hon Steve Barclay MP met with Google UK on 27/02/2020 and we have attached
documents related to the meeting including details of attendees, email correspondence
associated with them, the meeting agenda, notes and associated briefings.
Certain information in scope engages Section 40(2). Section 40(2) of the FOI Act, by virtue
of section 40(3)(a)(i) provides an absolute exemption for third party personal data, where
disclosure would contravene the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation
(GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018. Personal data of third parties can only be
disclosed in accordance with the data protection principles. In particular, the first data
protection principle requires that disclosure must be lawful and fair and must comply with
one of the conditions in Article 6 of the GDPR. We do not think that it is fair to release the
names of junior members of staff and third parties and do not think that any of the
relevant conditions apply.
Certain information in scope falls under exemption in Section 43 (2) (prejudice to
commercial interest) of the FOI Act. This is a qualified exemption and we are required to
balance the public interest between disclosure and non-disclosure.
We recognise that there is a public interest in knowing that the Government is achieving
value for money and that commercial activities are conducted in an open and honest way.
However there is a strong public interest in the government not undermining the
commercial position of private companies by releasing information which would normally
remain confidential.
Given this we consider it is appropriate and in the public interest to withhold some of the
information that you have requested.
The information that we have identified also engages section 35(1)(a) and section 35(1)(d)
of the FOI Act. Section 35(1)(a) is engaged because the information in scope relates to the
formulation and development of government policy. This is a qualified exemption and we
are required to balance the public interest between disclosure and non-disclosure.
In relation to the release of this information, we recognise that there is an inherent public
interest in transparency and accountability of public authorities. We also recognise the
broad public interest in furthering public understanding of the issues with which public
authorities deal. There is a clear public interest in the work of government departments
being transparent and open to scrutiny to increase diligence.
Balanced against this, with regard to section 35(1)(a) is the public interest in protecting
the government’s ability to discuss and develop policies and to reach well-formed
conclusions. The Information Commissioner has recognised that policy development needs
some degree of freedom to enable the process to work effectively and we consider that
there is a strong public interest in protecting information where release would be likely to
have a detrimental impact on the ongoing formulation and development of policy. There
is a strong public interest in protecting against encroachment on the ability of ministers
and/or officials to formulate and develop policy options freely and frankly.
With regard to information engaging section 35(1)(d), the process of arranging ministerial
meetings is necessarily an iterative process, developed collaboratively by officials over
different timescales depending on the nature, scale, location and other factors. This work
takes place on the Minister’s behalf. With regard to information engaging section 35(1)(d),
we recognise the public interest in understanding how the ministerial private office
operates, however this information on its own will not add anything to the sum of public
knowledge in terms of the way in which they are run, or in respect of the administrative
support provided to Ministers. By contrast to this minimal public interest in disclosure, we
believe that disclosure would likely prejudice the effective running of the ministerial
private office.
Having set out our public interest considerations above and having taken into account all
the circumstances of this case, we consider that the balance of the public interest favours
withholding some of this information.
We consider some of the information in scope engages section 41(1)(b) of the FOI Act,
which relates to information provided in confidence. Section 41(1)(b) provides that
information is exempt if disclosure of the information to the public (otherwise than under
this Act) by the public authority holding it would constitute a breach of confidence
actionable by that or any other person. This is an absolute exemption which does not
require us to consider the public interest balance in disclosure.
If you have any queries about this letter, please contact us. Please quote the reference
number above in any future communications.
Yours sincerely
Information Rights Unit
Copyright notice
Most documents HM Treasury supplies in response to a Freedom of Information request,
including this letter, continue to be protected by Crown copyright. This is because they will
have been produced by Government officials as part of their work. You are free to use
these documents for your information, for any non-commercial research you may be doing
and for news reporting. Any other re-use, for example commercial publication, will require
the permission of the copyright holder. Crown copyright is managed by The National
Archives and you can find details on the arrangements for re-using Crown copyright
material at: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/re-using-public-
sector-information/uk-government-licensing-framework/crown-copyright
/
Your right to complain under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
If you are not happy with this reply, you can request a review by writing to HM Treasury,
Information Rights Unit, 1 Horse Guards Road, London SW1A 2HQ or by emailing us at the
address below. Any review request must be made within 40 working days of the date of
this letter.
Email: xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
It would assist our review if you set out which aspects of the reply concern you and why
you are dissatisfied.
If you are not content with the outcome of the review, you may apply directly to the
Information Commissioner for a decision. Generally, the Commissioner will not make a
decision unless you have exhausted the complaints procedure provided by HM Treasury
which is outlined above.
The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner’s
Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF (or via their website at:
https://ico.org.uk).