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

1,514 disclosures

  1. FOI2026/00664: Clean Maritime Demonstration Competition Round 3 project 10057223

    Request received: 1 August 2026

    I request the following information relating to the Innovate UK-funded project “Zero Emission Cross River Ferry” (reference 10057223), funded under the Clean Maritime Demonstration Competition Round 3 and led by Collins River Enterprises Limited (project dates 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2025).

    Each numbered item is severable. If any item is exempt or would exceed the appropriate cost limit, please process the remaining items independently and identify which item or items could not be provided and why.

    1. The final grant payments made for the project, broken down by consortium partner.

    2. The monitoring, progress and evaluation reports submitted by the consortium during the project and at its conclusion, including any information relating to the ferry’s usage, patronage, service frequency, operating performance or operating costs.

    3. The project’s final or completion report or, if this has not yet been submitted or approved, the most recent version held by Innovate UK.

    4. Any reports, returns, datasets or other material relating to this project that were provided for the evaluation of the UK SHORE programme, including any post-completion or in-service reporting held by UKRI and received after the project’s closure. I note that the demonstrated service entered public operation as Orbit Clipper on 5 December 2025, after the project end date, so any in-service information may have been submitted separately from the project’s own monitoring.

    If any of the requested information is held by the Department for Transport or another public authority rather than by UKRI, I would be grateful if you could advise me accordingly and, where appropriate, transfer or forward the relevant part of this request.

    The published project description states that the project would assess operational performance, operating costs and wider societal impacts. Given that this was a publicly funded demonstration project intended to inform wider deployment, I ask that any consideration of sections 41 or 43 carefully weighs the strong public interest in disclosure. Where only parts of a document are exempt, I request that exempt material be redacted and the remainder disclosed.

    For clarity, I have seen the published CMDC3 winners spreadsheet, the project’s entry on Gateway to Research and the published evaluation of the UK SHORE programme. This request concerns information not contained in those sources, particularly the final payment figures and the project-level reporting and returns.

    Published: 9 November 2026

  2. FOI2026/00788: UKRI-Funded Project 133966, Hupela-PCOS-Filipina

    Request received: 29 August 2026

    I am currently applying for a research grant on PCOS/PMOS in the Philippines. While checking the prevalence of PCOS/PMOS in the country, I found that only one study funded by Innovate UK provided an estimate of approximately 4.5 million Filipinas affected by PCOS/PMOS.
     
    With this, I am writing to respectfully request detailed information on the number of Filipino women with PCOS/PMOS in the different regions of the Philippines, if such data are available in the project report. Alternatively, I would like to inquire how the estimate of 4.5 million Filipinas with PCOS/PMOS was obtained. The project details are as follows:
     
    Hupela-PCOS-Filipina: A feasibility study for a lifestyle programme for women with polycystic ovary syndrome living in the Philippines.
    Lead Participant: LUDGER LIMITED
    Funder: Innovate UK
    Project Reference: 133966
     
    I only need data on PCOS prevalence in the Philippines, particularly regional data if available in a word or pdf file. We are not requesting any confidential, patient-identifiable, or personally sensitive information. Any information shared with us will be used solely for proposal development and research planning.

    If possible, I would also appreciate guidance on whether the project report or related information can be accessed through UKRI, Innovate UK, or another appropriate office.

    Published: 9 November 2026

  3. FOI2026/00840: Follow up to FOI2026/00749 - Innovation Loans Expressions of Interest

    Request Received: 16 September 2026

    This is a follow up request to FOI2026/00749. We therefore require meaningful information showing:

    1. The precise period covered by the application figures you have supplied.

    2. The total number of applications received during that period.

    3. The number and percentage of applications submitted by universities.

    4. The number and percentage submitted by private companies.

    5. The number and percentage submitted by other types of organisations, with those organisations categorised.

    6. The number and percentage of successful applications within each of those categories.

    7. The amount of funding awarded to each category of organisation.

    Published: 9 November 2026

  4. EIR2026/00809: Index to Statutory Borehole Notifications (BGS Ref - IDA 311107)

    Request Received: 2 September 2026

    Under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3391), regulation 5(2), I request an extract from the Index to statutory borehole notifications, that is the index of notifications made under section 198 of the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Mining Industry Act 1926. I understand the statutory response period is 20 working days, extendable to 40 working days for a complex request.

    The request is a narrow one, and it turns on a single question: does the notification index carry a purpose field that would allow ground source heating and cooling boreholes to be counted?

    (1) Please tell me which fields the notification index holds for each entry, and in particular whether the purpose or intended use of the borehole is recorded as a structured field or a coded value, and if so, what values that field can take.

    (2) If a purpose field exists, please supply the count of boreholes notified per year with the purpose recorded as ground source heating, ground source cooling, geothermal, heat pump, or any equivalent value, for each year from 2015 to 2025 inclusive.

    (3) For the same entries, in electronic format (CSV or XLSX), and with no owner names and no street addresses:
    (a) notification index number, and the municipality, local authority area or postcode district;
    (b) the purpose or use value as recorded;
    (c) the notification date, and the intended or actual start of drilling date where held;
    (d) the notified or recorded depth, and the number of boreholes covered by the notification;
    (e) the notifying party or drilling contractor where held;
    (f) whether a completion record or log was subsequently deposited against the notification.

    (4) Please also give the number of notifications recorded per year from 2015 to 2025 in total, so that the geothermal count can be read against the whole, and any figure you hold on the rate at which notifications are matched to a deposited borehole record.

    (5) If the index carries no purpose field, please say so expressly. That answer is complete and useful in itself: it establishes that the statutory notification stream cannot be used to count ground source heat pump boreholes, and I will not press further. In that case I would be grateful if you would tell me whether any other BGS holding, for example the National Well Record Archive or the onshore borehole records in GeoIndex, carries a usable purpose classification.

    Include, if held, any field indicating whether the borehole replaced, re-drilled or reused an existing borehole at the same address, and any abandonment or decommissioning record for a previous borehole at that address.

    Published: 9 November 2026

  5. EIR2026/00791: GeoReports Sales Volumes and Well Construction Notifications

    Request Received: 2 September 2026

    I am writing to request the following information under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and, where applicable, the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

    1. For each financial year from 2021–22 to 2025–26 inclusive: the number of GeoReports sold by BGS, broken down by product code (including but not limited to GRC_C003, GRC_C105, GRC_C106, GRC_C107 and GRC_C108) and, where held, by customer region or country.

    2. For each calendar year from 2021 to 2025 inclusive: the number of notifications of water well or borehole construction received by BGS pursuant to the Water Resources Act 1991, broken down by county or, if not held at that level, by region.

    Published: 9 November 2026

  6. FOI2026/00835: Use of Animals in Research (FOI2026/00709 revised request)

    Request Received: 15 September 2026

    Thank you for your response to my request for information - FOI2026/00709.

    You indicate that you will be able to provide information for the first part of my request, and have already done so in a previous FOI request for 2023.  Please can you supply the following information:

    The total value (in £s) of funding provided by UKRI to research projects using animals conducted under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, for 2024, 2025 and 1st January - 31st August 2026 - providing separate yearly figures.

    Published: 6 November 2026

  7. FOI2026/00827: Research Involving the use of Live Animals (FOI2026/00743 revised request)

    Request Received: 14 September 2026

    Thank you for your attached response to my FOI reference FOI2026_00743. Thank you also for your advice and assistance under Section 16 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

    I am now filing a new FOI request having removed my original question 2.

    MRC, EPSRC, Innovate UK, BBSRC, NERC

    For each of the above 5 councils for calendar years 2024 and separately for 2025 please may I have:
     
    (1) The total amount granted for research involving, the use of live animals, licenced under ASPA 1986.

    (2) The amounts granted and the number of grants specifically where, in full or part, the less commonly used species of dogs are used or are intended to be used.

    (3) The amounts granted and the number of grants specifically where, in full or part, the less commonly used species of Non- Human Primates are used or are intended to be used.

    If any on your other councils grant money for research under ASPA 1986 please can I also have figures as above for these years. I understand that data is collected by financial year for BBSRC, could you please let me know the start and end dates of the financial year.

    Published: 6 November 2026

  8. FOI2026/00786: MRC-Funded Research Involving Animals

    Request Received: 30 August 2026

    I am writing to request aggregate information concerning MRC-funded research involving animals regulated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA).

    For each financial year from 2019/20 to 2025/26, please provide:

    1. All regulated animal research

    • The number of MRC-funded research grants awarded involving animals regulated under ASPA.

    • The aggregate total value of those grants.

    2. Research involving dogs

    • The number of those grants involving dogs.

    • The aggregate total value of those grants.

    3. Animal costs

    Where this information is held in an existing and reasonably extractable form, please provide:

    • the aggregate value of animal purchase/acquisition costs included within the grants in question; and

    • the aggregate value of animal maintenance/upkeep costs included within those grants.

    If possible, please provide these figures separately for:

    • all ASPA-regulated animal research; and

    • research involving dogs.

    For clarity, I recognise that the total value of a grant involving animals is not necessarily the amount spent on the animal component of that research. I am therefore requesting these figures separately rather than treating the total grant value as expenditure on animals.

    I am seeking aggregate information only and do not require the names of individual researchers, institutions or projects.

    If any of the requested information is not held in recorded or readily extractable form, please simply confirm that it is not held in that form; I am not asking UKRI to create new information.

    Published: 6 November 2026

  9. FOI2026/00445: UK Biobank discussions - Follow up to FOI2026/00276

    Request received: 20 May 2026

    Follow up to FOI2026/00276 - UK Biobank discussions

    MRC previously stated “MRC maintains continuous engagement with these investments and does not undertake formal mid-point reviews. Progress is monitored and discussed through established management structures and agreed monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, which operate on an ongoing basis” in response to an FOI request with your reference FOI2026/00276 which is visible here1.

    Under the Freedom of Information Act, further to that previous response, can you please provide:

    1) any emails, teams/slack/other messages, or documents concerning "monitoring and evaluation mechanisms” (as described above) for UK Biobank, that were "monitored and discussed through established management structures" visible to members of the MRC Senior Executive Team between 10 March 2026 and 13 May 2026.

    2) any “lines to take” or briefings for media inquiries to MRC concerning UK Biobank between 10 March 2026 and 13 May 2026. (this can be limited to only those where UKBiobank is the primary investment discussed in the document - if they’re mentioned only as one of multiple UKRI/MRC projects then that document is not of interest)

    3) Any internal MRC discussion related to the website at biobank.rocher.lc

    References to the 10 March include those immediately prior to the Guardian disclosures that Biobank had leaked re-identifiable data to the internet hundreds of times, the BMJ editorial in mid April, and events surrounding the statements to Parliament in late April which announced UK Biobank had a 10 May deadline (which they missed).

    Clarification received: 16/06/2026

    By 'visible to', I mean, for example that if an email/message includes a link to the document, then it is in scope, but if there's no reference to it in other communications, then it is not in scope. That an FOIable document was shared by means of a link to a shared office365/googledoc rather than an attachment (as previously) should not be a mechanism to evade this request.

    On your reference to Biobank's ongoing issues. I am not particularly interested in communications after the 13 May, but if MRC wish to extend the period of my request to provide a more complete (but not misleading) view, MRC are welcome to do that at MRC's discretion (without the extended period being covered by the cost limit). It is, of course, better that more correct information is in the public domain.

    Clarification received: 24/08/2026

    [UKRI advised the requestor that in its current form their request would exceed the cost threshold under section 12 of the FOI Act and were asked to refine their request]

    In terms of sequencing, please prioritise part 2, part 3, and then part 1.

    If it helps, you can limit part 1 to material originated by the Senior Executive Team of MRC.

    Published: 5 November 2026

  10. 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