Britain's AI datacentre policy apparently had room for 137 businesses and no environmental groups. A very efficient way to achieve consensus, provided you define consensus as everyone who received the invitation.

According to a Spotlight on Corruption investigation reported by the Guardian on Tuesday, ministers and senior officials involved in developing the policy met those businesses, some repeatedly, while meeting only two community groups and no environmental organisations. The findings cover policymaking between July 2024 and June 2026, not every conversation ever held about a server.

That is a consequential guest list. The policy was designed to make enormous datacentre developments easier to deliver. Electricity, water and nearby communities were not optional accessories to be ordered after checkout. They were part of what the government was making decisions about.

You can see why the companies wanted meetings. They wanted to build things. The more interesting question is why the people responsible for public policy apparently needed so little input from people concerned about what those things would require.

We have already covered the power-supply problem behind Britain's AI announcements. This is a different failure mode: not whether the electricity arrives, but whether the people asking about it get into the room before the press release leaves.

Make powerful people uncomfortable.
Subscribe to Democrawonk.

The investigation used 40 freedom-of-information requests to 18 agencies. It also identified 38 ministers, senior civil servants and special advisers hired into AI-company roles between July 2024 and September 2026. Nine came from the science and technology department.

Those moves do not, by themselves, establish bribery, a secret bargain or wrongdoing by each person involved. They do make the consultation imbalance harder to dismiss as a clerical oversight. The industry seems to have been remarkably easy to locate, both for meetings and for the next job.

The report says a handful of civil-society meetings occurred only days before the policy launch, too late for meaningful input. There is a difference between helping write the menu and being asked whether you enjoyed dinner while the plates are being cleared.

The government says datacentres should create British jobs, use water responsibly and prioritise clean power. It says it welcomes views from environmental groups and communities, points to local planning processes, and notes that English councils hosting AI growth-zone datacentres will be able to retain the additional business rates.

Those can be useful benefits and useful processes. They do not answer the original question about whose concerns shaped the national plan. Asking a council how to manage a development is not the same as asking, before designing the policy, what conditions should govern the whole expansion.

The government's invitation is now admirably broad. Next time, it could try sending it before the decisions.