Use of AI 08/2026

FOI Reference: 08/2026

Request:

I am submitting an FOI request seeking to understand how public bodies are exploring or applying Artificial Intelligence (AI) to support service delivery. These questions are intended to gather insights into current practice, governance, and future planning. They should not be interpreted as critical; we are simply researching how public services are approaching emerging technologies.

Please provide answers to the following:

1. AI Use in Operations

Does your organisation currently use any form of Artificial Intelligence (AI) or automated systems in its operations?

• • If yes, please list the tools or systems in use and provide a brief description of their purpose (e.g., administrative support, triage, analytics, chatbot services, etc.).
  • If not, please state whether your organisation has explored or piloted any AI-based technologies in the past 3 years.

2. AI for Decision-Making

Does your organisation use AI or algorithmic systems to support or inform decision-making in any area (e.g., resource allocation, risk assessments, case prioritisation)?

• • If yes, please describe the type of decision-making supported and the nature of the AI’s role (e.g., advisory, automated assessment, automated decision).
  • Please also confirm whether human oversight is applied.

3. AI Chatbots and Customer Interaction

Does your organisation currently use chatbots or virtual assistants—AI-driven or rules-based—to support public enquiries or internal staff functions?

• • If yes, please specify their purpose, whether they are AI-based, and when they were implemented.

4. Policies and Governance

Does your organisation have any formal policy, strategy, or guidance relating to the use of Artificial Intelligence or automated decision-making?

• • If yes, please supply a copy or provide a link.
  • If not, please indicate whether such a policy is in development.

5. Data Protection and Ethics

If AI systems are used, what measures or frameworks does your organisation have in place to ensure:

• • Compliance with data protection and privacy obligations
  • Transparency for service users
  • Ethical or responsible use 

(For example, DPIAs, algorithmic impact assessments, ethical guidelines—if applicable.)

6. Trials, Pilots, or Future Plans

Has your organisation run any pilots, trials, or exploratory projects involving AI in the last 3 years, or does it plan to do so in the next 12–24 months?

• • If yes, please provide brief details of the purpose, timeline, and status of these initiatives.

7. Staff Training and Awareness

Does your organisation provide any training, guidance, or internal communications to staff relating to AI, its use, or its implications?

• • If yes, please describe the type of training or include documents if available.

 

Response 1 – 3:

Please note: The responses provided to all questions are at the date of when the request was submitted.

I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does hold the information requested, the details of which are as follows:

• No, but options are currently being investigated

Response 4:

I can confirm that there is no information held by Dyfed Powys police as there is no policy.

Response 5:

Not applicable, which is based on the response provided in relation to the above questions.

However, Dyfed Powys police utilises a DPIA process and any proposed use of AI would be subject to the DPIA process.  Consideration is made to publishing a summary of a DPIA as part of the process. The DPIA Policy can be found @ Data Protection Impact Assessment Policy | Dyfed-Powys Police. DPIA summaries can be found @ Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) | Dyfed-Powys Police

Response 6:

I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does hold the information requested, the details of which are as follows:

• ChatGPT trial will start early 2026 and will be confined to ICT usage initially.

Response 7:

I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does hold some the information requested, the details of which are as follows:

Please note: The below information is a summary of internal communications sent out to Dyfed Powys police personnel.

• Internal communication was provided on 03/12/24 and on 02/08/25 detailing the fact that the use of AI chatbots and/or any other AI systems to assist with report writing and/or other work in Dyfed Powys police was not permitted. In addition Dyfed Powys police users were advised not to access such systems using any force device and reminded that no Dyfed Powys police information should be sent, transferred or otherwise circulated to their own personal email address for use on any personal devices. It was stated that any data or information entered into an AI chatbot or machine learning system immediately becomes available to others, and the content could re-appear in documents created by others. It was also stated that there are Information Security Risks associated to using AI in this way, and it could be a breach of data protection legislation.
• An all user email was circulated on 05/12/25 by Chief officers. The contents of the email related to AI tools being deployed in online meetings with external partners and if these AI tools appear in any meetings that are being participated in; then to ensure that they are removed immediately. Additionally, if there is an insistence by other participants (i.e. non Dyfed Powys police personnel) on using these AI tools in that meeting then the Dyfed Powys police employee will not be able to participate any further. Also, if there is a guest account in the meeting that is not recognised, then challenge the user to identify themselves. If they fail to do so then to remove them from the meeting.

In addition to the above responses, Dyfed-Powys Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any other information with regard to an exempt body as the duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply by virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 24(2) – National Security

Section 31(3) – Law enforcement

Sections 24 and 31 are prejudice based qualified exemptions and there is a requirement to articulate the harm that would be caused in confirming or not that the information is held as well as carrying out a public interest test.

HARM

Having disclosed high‑level information about routine, non‑sensitive uses of Artificial Intelligence (AI), Dyfed Powys police will neither confirm nor deny whether it holds any further information that would indicate whether AI is, or is not, used in connection with counter‑terrorism, serious and organised crime, covert intelligence activity, or specialist digital forensics supporting those functions. The duty to confirm or deny is disapplied by virtue of sections 24(2) (national security) and 31(3) (law enforcement) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This response should not be taken as an indication of whether any additional information is held.

Confirming or denying whether AI is used by Dyfed Powys police in counter‑terrorism, serious and organised crime, covert intelligence or specialist digital forensics would enable hostile actors to infer the presence, absence or maturity of particular policing capabilities. This type of capability insight is of practical value to adversaries who routinely adapt their behaviour to exploit perceived weaknesses, overwhelm less technologically equipped forces, or adjust methods to avoid detection. Even a single confirmation or denial could be combined with publicly available information from other forces to build a detailed national picture of capability. This mosaic effect represents a realistic and actionable risk, providing information that could materially undermine national security and the effectiveness of law‑enforcement operations.

Public Interest Test – Section 24(2) (National Security)

Factors in favour of confirming or denying:

There is a strong public interest in openness and transparency about the use of AI in policing. Confirming or denying the existence of information could contribute to informed public debate about how emerging technologies are deployed, the safeguards in place, and whether they align with legal and ethical standards. Disclosure can enhance accountability, promote trust, and reassure the public that AI use is subject to appropriate oversight.

Factors against confirming or denying:

There is an overriding public interest in protecting national security. Confirming or denying the existence of information about AI deployment in CT, SoC, covert intelligence, or linked specialist forensics would provide adversaries with useful insights into operational capabilities and priorities. Even a simple confirmation or denial could enable hostile actors to adjust methods, exploit potential gaps, or test thresholds. The resulting risk to national security would be real and more than trivial, and is not mitigated by partial or local confirmations, because the cumulative mosaic effect across multiple forces would still disclose sensitive capability at a national level.

Public Interest Test – Section 31(3) (Law Enforcement)

Factors in favour of confirming or denying:

There is a general public interest in understanding how AI is used to support policing functions, including the efficiency and effectiveness of core processes, and in ensuring that novel technologies are used lawfully and proportionately. Confirmation or denial could support external scrutiny and promote confidence in policing practice.

Factors against confirming or denying:

Confirming or denying the existence of information relating to AI use in CT, SoC, covert intelligence, or specialist digital forensics would be likely to prejudice the prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, and the operation of law enforcement tactics and methodologies. Knowledge of whether specific capabilities exist, or do not exist, enables offenders to adapt behaviour, exploit capability gaps, frustrate investigations, and increase the cost and complexity of counter‑measures. The public interest strongly favours maintaining an NCND to preserve the effectiveness of law enforcement and the safety of the public.

Balance Test

For the reasons set out above, Dyfed Powys police will neither confirm nor deny whether it holds information indicating AI is used in CT, SoC, covert intelligence activity, or specialist digital forensics supporting those functions.

The public interest in maintaining the NCND position under sections 24(2) and 31(3) outweighs the public interest in confirmation or denial. This response should not be taken as an indication of whether any relevant information is held. A separate response has already provided high‑level information about routine, non‑sensitive AI use. To go further would risk disclosing sensitive capability by inference.

 

(This is a response under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and disclosed on 23/03/2026)

Os oes angen y wybodaeth yma arnoch yn Gymraeg, cysylltwch â: [email protected] If you require this information in Welsh, please contact: [email protected]