Freedom of information (FOI) releases from UK Research and Innovation (UKRI)

This is a disclosure log of UK Research and Innovation's responses to freedom of information (FOI) or environmental information regulations (EIR) requests that might be of wider public interest.

If you can't find the information you're looking for, you can make a new FOI request.

Filters

Clear filters

  • Keywords filters

  • Year filters

  • Month filters

1,505 disclosures

  1. FOI2026/00723: Professor Panos Koutrakos and AHRC Peer Review College declarations

    Request received: 05 August 2026

    I am preparing an article concerning Professor Panos Koutrakos, his membership of the Arts and Humanities Research Council Peer Review College and the handling of potential conflicts arising from his marriage to Kelly Dart, daughter of Kenneth Dart.

    Our reporting establishes that Professor Koutrakos is married to Kelly Dart. The evidence presently available indicates that their relationship or marriage may have begun during or around the COVID-19 period. We are therefore principally examining Professor Koutrakos’s AHRC activities from 2020 onward.

    We are not suggesting that the family relationship itself disqualified Professor Koutrakos from serving as a reviewer or panellist. We are also not suggesting that he is responsible for Kenneth Dart’s business or investment activities.

    The questions concern whether Professor Koutrakos’s membership overlapped with the relationship, what declarations were required, and whether AHRC had sufficient information to identify any particular application or decision in which a relevant personal, household or family interest arose.

    We are not seeking the names or contents of confidential funding applications.

    Please answer the following questions.

     

    1.     On what date did Professor Koutrakos first join the AHRC Peer Review College?

     

    2.     During which membership terms has he served, and does he remain a current member?

    3.     Has he served only as an external reviewer, or has he also participated in assessment, moderating or funding panels?

    4.      How many reviews and panel assignments has he completed in each year from 2020 onward? We are not seeking the identities of applicants. Annual aggregate figures would be sufficient.

    5.      What conflict-of-interest and declaration rules applied to Peer Review College members during each relevant year?

    6.     Were members required to disclose interests held by:

    a.      a spouse;

    b.      a close family member;

    c.      a person living in the same household;

    d.     a family trust;

    e.     or a company or investment structure from which the member or household benefited?

     

    7.     Were members required to maintain a general declaration or register of interests, or were conflicts assessed only when an individual application was assigned?

    8.     Did Professor Koutrakos notify AHRC that he was married to Kelly Dart or connected through marriage to Kenneth Dart?

    9.     Did he declare any financial, beneficial or household interest connected with the Dart family, a Dart family trust or a Dart-controlled entity?

    10.  If such information was provided, when was the first disclosure made?

    11.  Was Professor Koutrakos required to update AHRC when his personal or household circumstances changed during a membership term?

     

    12.   Has he ever declined or been removed from a review or panel assignment because of:

    a.     his relationship with an applicant or project partner;

    b.     a financial or household interest;

    c.      a Dart-related connection;

    d.     his external legal practice;

    e.     or another personal conflict?

     

    13.  Has AHRC ever sought advice or additional information from Professor Koutrakos concerning a possible conflict?

    14.  Were his declared interests available to the staff responsible for allocating reviews and panel appointments?

    15.   Has Professor Koutrakos ever reviewed or participated in the assessment of an application involving:

    a.     Kelly or Kenneth Dart;

    b.     a Dart-controlled entity or foundation;

    c.      an institution receiving material Dart support;

    d.     or a named project partner in which his household possessed a financial or beneficial interest?

     

    16.  Where confidentiality prevents a case-specific response, please confirm whether any such situation was identified and appropriately managed.

     

    17.  Does AHRC’s system depend on a reviewer personally recognising a connected person or organisation, or can declared interests be screened centrally against applications and project partners?

     

    18.  Can AHRC confirm that Professor Koutrakos completed all declarations required during his membership?

     

    19.  Can AHRC confirm that it has identified no occasion on which he reviewed or ranked an application despite an undisclosed relevant personal, household or family interest?

     

    20.  Has this enquiry prompted AHRC to review his membership dates, declarations, review assignments or panel participation?

     

    21.  Is there any factual or procedural context that should be included to ensure fair and accurate reporting?

    Published: 4 November 2026

  2. FOI2026/00706: STFC prioritisation exercise 2026–2030, Executive Board, Multidisciplinary Facilities and PPAN

    Request received: 12 August 2026

    I am writing to request recorded information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 concerning the STFC prioritisation exercise and the STFC prioritisation outcomes for 2026 to 2030.

    For this request, I am primarily seeking information held within STFC, including information held by its Executive Chair, Executive Board, Science Boards, directorates, facilities and relevant programme teams.

    The relevant period for this request is 1 January 2025 to 12 August 2026, covering the development of the STFC Transformation and prioritisation process through to the announcement of the final prioritisation outcomes and PPAN project-level outcomes.

    Please provide the following information.

    1. STFC Executive Board correspondence

    Please provide all emails, including relevant attachments, concerning the STFC prioritisation exercise that were sent or received by members of the STFC Executive Board during the above period.

    This should include correspondence concerning:

    ·        the requirement to bring STFC to a balanced financial position by 2029/30;

    ·        the scale of savings or cost reductions required;

    ·        prioritisation principles and methodology;

    ·        proposed savings options;

    ·        individual facilities, laboratories, programmes or projects being considered for reduction, restructuring, mothballing, alternative funding or closure;

    ·        the allocation of reductions between PPAN, Multidisciplinary Facilities, National Laboratories and Estates, professional services and other parts of STFC;

    ·        alternative scenarios considered;

    ·        scientific, financial, operational or reputational risks;

    ·        recommendations made to UKRI; and

    ·        the final prioritisation outcomes.

    Routine emails unrelated to the prioritisation exercise can be excluded.

    2. Executive Board and Multidisciplinary Facilities

    Please provide all emails and relevant attachments concerning the prioritisation exercise exchanged between members of the STFC Executive Board and the directors, senior leadership or representatives responsible for STFC's Multidisciplinary Facilities.

    This should include correspondence relating to:

    ·        Diamond Light Source;

    ·        ISIS Neutron and Muon Source;

    ·        the Central Laser Facility;

    ·        Lasers for Science Facility;

    ·        ISIS muon beamlines; and

    ·        proposals for efficiency savings, reduced operating time, reductions in user or technical support, alternative operating models, additional external income or possible closure of capabilities.

    Please also include relevant correspondence between the Executive Board and Facilities and Laboratories Directors relating to the development and assessment of these options.

     

    3. Executive Board and PPAN

    Please provide all emails and relevant attachments concerning the prioritisation exercise exchanged between members of the STFC Executive Board and:

    ·        Science Board PPAN;

    ·        the chairs or members of relevant PPAN advisory panels;

    ·        STFC officials responsible for Particle Physics, Astronomy and Nuclear Physics;

    ·        relevant programme or portfolio managers; and

    ·        representatives of individual PPAN projects where their future funding was discussed as part of the prioritisation exercise.

    This should include correspondence relating to:

    ·        the budget-reduction scenarios supplied to or considered by Science Board PPAN;

    ·        the appraisal of individual projects;

    ·        proposed portfolio reductions;

    ·        rankings, scoring or prioritisation of projects;

    ·        recommendations made by Science Board PPAN;

    ·        subsequent changes made by the Executive Board to those recommendations;

    ·        decisions to maintain, reduce, reprofile or cease future support for projects;

    ·        the level of protection afforded to PPAN grants, postdoctoral researchers, PhD studentships and fellowships; and

    ·        consideration of whether PPAN should remain within STFC.

    4. Minutes and records of meetings

    Please provide minutes, agendas, papers, presentations, briefing documents, action logs, decision logs and contemporaneous meeting notes for meetings at which the STFC financial position or prioritisation exercise was substantively discussed.

    This should include relevant meetings of:

    ·        the STFC Executive Board;

    ·        STFC Council;

    ·        Science Board PPAN;

    ·        Science Board Facilities and Laboratories;

    ·        meetings between the Executive Board and Facilities and Laboratories Directors;

    ·        meetings between the Executive Board and PPAN representatives;

    ·        meetings involving the cross-UKRI Facilities Strategic Advisory Group where records are held by STFC;

    ·        joint or extraordinary meetings convened specifically to consider prioritisation or financial reductions; and

    ·        meetings between STFC and UKRI concerning the proposed prioritisation outcomes.

    Where formal minutes were not produced, please provide any recorded notes, summaries, action records or decision records that exist.

    5. Prioritisation methodology and evidence

    Please provide all recorded information describing how options were assessed and prioritised, including:

    ·        prioritisation criteria;

    ·        scoring frameworks;

    ·        ranking methodologies;

    ·        decision matrices;

    ·        project assessment forms or pro formas;

    ·        instructions or guidance supplied to assessors;

    ·        budget-reduction scenarios;

    ·        financial assumptions;

    ·        impact assessments;

    ·        risk assessments;

    ·        equality or workforce impact assessments where these relate to the prioritisation decisions;

    ·        scientific assessments;

    ·        recommendations from advisory boards or panels; and

    ·        documents showing how recommendations were modified or balanced by the Executive Board.

    I am particularly interested in the recorded output of the exercise described publicly as Science Board PPAN's comprehensive appraisal of options across different funding-reduction scenarios.

    6. Options for Multidisciplinary Facilities

    Please provide recorded information relating to the options considered for the Multidisciplinary Facilities before the final decisions were reached, including:

    ·        potential operating reductions;

    ·        possible facility or capability closures;

    ·        alternative operating models;

    ·        external-income assumptions;

    ·        reductions to user support;

    ·        reduced facility operating time;

    ·        savings estimates;

    ·        financial and scientific consequences of each option; and

    ·        the criteria by which options were accepted or rejected.

    Where different savings scenarios were prepared, please provide each scenario or version that was formally considered by the Executive Board or Science Board.

    7. PPAN project-level decisions

    For the PPAN projects included in the final prioritisation annex, please provide the recorded information used to reach the project-level outcome, including where held:

    ·        the project's submission or pro forma used in the prioritisation exercise;

    ·        assessments of that submission;

    ·        scoring or ranking information;

    ·        recommendations made to the Executive Board;

    ·        Executive Board decisions or amendments;

    ·        recorded reasons for maintaining, reducing, re-profiling or not prioritising future support; and

    ·        any correspondence communicating or discussing the proposed outcome before it was formally announced to the project.

    8. Correspondence with UKRI

    Please provide emails and relevant attachments exchanged between the STFC Executive Chair or STFC Executive Board and:

    ·        the UKRI Chief Executive;

    ·        UKRI Executive Committee;

    ·        UKRI Board or Board secretariat; and

    ·        UKRI finance or strategy officials

    concerning the STFC prioritisation exercise, the proposed savings package, the balance between PPAN, Multidisciplinary Facilities and National Laboratories, and approval of the final recommendations.

    This should include the recorded recommendation submitted by STFC Executive Board to the UKRI Executive Committee and any correspondence concerning changes requested or made before the proposal was considered by the UKRI Board on 1 July 2026.

    9. External correspondence

    Please provide relevant emails and attachments exchanged by STFC senior management concerning the prioritisation exercise with external stakeholders, including where applicable:

    ·        Diamond Light Source and its shareholders;

    ·        Wellcome;

    ·        universities and research organisations;

    ·        representatives of PPAN projects;

    ·        facility user communities;

    ·        scientific societies or representative organisations;

    ·        international scientific partners; and

    ·        government departments.

    I am seeking correspondence specifically relating to prioritisation proposals, proposed reductions, alternative funding arrangements, impacts of the proposals or the final decisions, rather than routine operational correspondence.

    10. Community engagement

    Please provide recorded information arising from the engagement roundtables and town halls that informed the prioritisation exercise, including:

    ·        agendas;

    ·        presentations;

    ·        written submissions;

    ·        meeting notes;

    ·        summaries of feedback;

    ·        reports analysing the feedback; and

    ·        records showing how that feedback influenced or altered the final recommendations.

    Format and handling

    I would prefer disclosure electronically to my email address. Where spreadsheets or scoring matrices exist, I would prefer them in their original electronic format where reasonably practicable.

    For emails, please include relevant attachments.

    Where part of a record is exempt, please redact the exempt material and disclose the remainder wherever reasonably possible.

    If information is withheld, please identify the exemption relied upon and, where a qualified exemption applies, explain the relevant public-interest assessment.

    If compliance with the request in full would exceed the section 12 cost limit, I would ask you to provide advice and assistance under section 16 before refusing it outright, including an estimate of which elements create the greatest burden and how the request could be narrowed.

    If prioritisation is necessary to remain within the appropriate limit, my preferred order is:

    1.     minutes, papers and decision records of STFC Executive Board and the two Science Boards;

    2.     prioritisation criteria, scoring, scenarios, recommendations and decision matrices;

    3.     emails between the Executive Board and Multidisciplinary Facilities leadership;

    4.     emails between the Executive Board and PPAN/Science Board PPAN;

    5.     correspondence between STFC Executive Board and UKRI Executive Committee/UKRI Board;

    6.     project-level PPAN records; and

    7.     other internal and external correspondence.

    For each numbered part of this request, please confirm whether information falling within that category is held, even if disclosure of some information is subsequently refused.

    Published: 4 November 2026

  3. FOI2026/00644: Contracts for Innovation: Enabling Commercial Quantum Networking

    Request Received: 28 July 2026

    For Contracts for Innovation: Enabling Commercial Quantum Networking competition, please could you release the following information:

    1. The number of applications

    2. The number of assessed applications

    3. The number of applications invited to the interview stage

    4. The number of successful applications

    5. The success rate

    6. The minimum successful score

    7. The maximum successful score

    8. Average grant fund value per project

    9. Average score of funded projects

    10. Names of the winning companies

    Published: 3 November 2026

  4. FOI2026/00638: UKRI EDI Expenditure

    Request Received: 27 July 2026

    Please provide the total amount UKRI has spent on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI), equality, diversity and inclusion, and related activities for each of the last five financial years, broken down by year.

    Please include, where held:

    staff costs

    training

    consultancy

    external contracts

    campaigns, events, and publications

    grants or programme spending specifically designated for DEI-related work.

    If possible, please also provide any internal budgets, spending lines, or programme names used to classify this expenditure.

    Published: 2 November 2026

  5. FOI2026/00633: Gender Data and Diversity Reporting Across UKRI Funding

    Request received: 22 July 2026

     

    I am writing on behalf of a constituent regarding UKRI's collection and publication of data relating to the gender of applicants and recipients of research and innovation funding.

    My constituent has drawn my attention to UKRI's published diversity reporting and has queried whether the published data captures all funding routes administered across UKRI and its constituent councils.

    Specifically, she has asked whether UKRI can clarify:

     

    1.       What information is collected regarding the gender of funding applicants and recipients.

    2.       Whether UKRI holds historical data on the proportion of funding awarded to male and female applicants.

    3.       Which funding programmes are included within published diversity reports and which are excluded.

    4.       How Catapult programmes, strategic programmes, direct awards and invitation-only funding routes are reflected within diversity reporting.

    5.       Whether further datasets or analysis are available that could assist in understanding the overall gender distribution of UKRI-funded activities.

    Published: 2 November 2026

  6. FOI2026/00494: Alan Turing Institute Review April 2026

    Request received: 08 June 2026

    Internal Review request received: 08 August 2026

    A copy of Alan Turing Institute Review referenced in April 2026 website post

    Published: 30 October 2026

  7. FOI2026/00685: AI Champions: Frontier AI Phase 1

    Request received: 06 August 2026

    I am writing to make a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 concerning the 2026 Innovate UK AI Champions: Frontier AI Phase 1 competition for which applications closed on 29 April 2026.

    I would be grateful if you could provide the following information regarding this competition:

    1. A list of the projects and lead organisations that were notified as successful / approved for funding, following the communication of funding decisions to applicants on or around 3 June 2026.

    2. A list of the projects and lead organisations that entered into a funding agreement and/or commenced under this competition (projects being required to start by 1 August 2026).

    3. If the two lists above differ, please identify the projects or organisations that were approved for funding at the decision stage but did not commence or proceed to a funded project.

    Published: 30 October 2026

  8. FOI2026/00747: UK-Israel Eureka Bilateral Collaborative R&D Competitions

    Request Received: 20 August 2026

    I would like to request information relating to the following UK-Israel Eureka Bilateral Collaborative R&D competitions (hereafter the ‘UK-Israel competitions’):

    • UK Israel Open Collaborative Competition 2018

    • UK Israel Open Collaborative Competition 2019

    • UK-Israel Eureka Bilateral Collaborative R&D (2022)

    • UK-Israel Eureka Bilateral Collaborative R&D Round 2 (2023)

    • UK-Israel Eureka Bilateral Collaborative R&D Round 3 (2024)

    I have reviewed the spreadsheet “Innovate UK funded projects from financial year 2016 to 2017 to present”. However, the dataset appears to be incomplete. For example, it records no projects were funded in 2022, only one project in 2024 and two projects in 2018. These figures appear inconsistent with the funding available under the respective competitions. In addition, a number of the projects listed do not identify the Israeli participant, and one project (CREST) does not include a project description.

    Year

    Competition Reference

    Total funding available

    Total amount awarded

    Total projects funded

    2018

    1811_INT_ISRAEL

    £1 million

    £334,274

    2

    2019

    1911_INT_ISRAEL

    £2 million

    £783,824

    7

    2022

    No CR appears to be unpublished

    £2 million

    N/a

    0

    2023

    2306_UK_ISRAEL_BILATERAL_CALL2

    £2 million

    £619,891

    3

    2024

    2406_EUREKA_UK_ISRAEL_CRD_R3

    £1 million

    £249,927

    1

    Information missing from projects listed in the dataset

    Please could you provide the Israeli participant(s) for the following projects:

    • CREST (Chrysanthemum RESistant to TSWV) (2018)

    • SafeCell - Novel Battery Monitoring and Control System (2019)

    • SHADOW - Sensing Hazards and Accidents with Doppler Over Wi-Fi (2019)

    • Real-time volumetric video recording of large capture areas (2019)

    • Enabling Post-Consumer Recycled Plastics in the Built-Environment using Nanocomposite Flame-Retardants (2023)

    • Nanosensor enabled analytics and predictive maintenance of heat exchangers (2023)

    • Development of tomato resistance to tomato brown rugose fruit virus (2023)

    Please could you also provide the project description for:

    • CREST (Chrysanthemum RESistant to TSWV) (2018)

    Projects missing from the dataset

    Finally, please could you provide the following information for any projects awarded funding by Innovate UK under the UK-Israel competitions that are not listed in the “Innovate UK funded projects from financial year 2016 to 2017 to present” dataset:

    • Project title

    • UK participant(s)

    • Israeli participant(s)

    • Amount of Innovate UK funding awarded

    • Project start date

    • Project status

    If the dataset does list all projects awarded funding under these five competitions, please confirm this for each competition.

    Published: 28 October 2026

  9. FOI2026/00655: Battery Innovation Programme Round 2

    Request Received: 30 July 2026

    Could you please release information detailed below for the Battery Innovation Programme Round 2 Feasibility Studies and Concept Development competitions?

    1. The number of applications

    2. The number of assessed applications

    3. The number of applications invited to the interview stage

    4. The number of successful applications

    5. The success rate

    6. The minimum successful score

    7. The maximum successful score

    8. Average grant fund value per project

    9. Average score of funded projects

    10. Names of the winning companies

    Published: 28 October 2026

  10. FOI2026/00656: Process used to administer staff surveys

    Request received: 30 July 2026

    I would like to know details of the process used to administer the staff surveys which are issued to all staff, and details of the processing of the results of those surveys.

    In particular, I would like to know how the information is aggregated, anonymised, and with whom it is shared and for what purposes.

    I would also like information relating to any incidents where the anonymisation of this data may have been compromised, whether it have been through technical means such as cyberattack, mis-configuration, etc, for via administrative means – either deliberate or erroneous.

    In particular, I am looking for instances of where specific answers given by employees were shared with line managers of those employees.

    While any such incidents would be of interest, I am particularly interested in occurrences that would have happened since July 2023.

    I would like to know what responses where shared, from whom and to whom, the circumstances under which they occurred, and what corrective action was taken once they were discovered – such as whether disciplinary action was taken against the person who shared it, or results of a root cause analysis investigation if the breach was the result of cyberattack.

    If no such incident has occurred, I would like for that to also be confirmed in writing.

    I appreciate that the surveys are undertaken by DJS Research on UKRI’s behalf, however the guidance I have received so far informs me that the FOI request should be “submitted to the organisation or council that commissioned the work”.

    Published: 28 October 2026