FOI release

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

Some or all of the information requested was not provided because we determined that the cost to do so would exceed the appropriate limit.

Case reference FOI2026/00706

Received 12 August 2026

Published 4 November 2026

Request

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.

Response

Response sent: 10 September 2026

We can confirm that UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) holds information falling within the scope of your request. However, we estimate that the cost of complying with your request would far exceed the appropriate limit set out in the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004.

 

We have therefore refused your request under section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

 

Section 12(1) of the FOIA allows a public authority to refuse a request where it estimates that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the prescribed limit.

 

For UKRI, the appropriate limit is £450, equivalent to 18 hours of staff time, calculated at the statutory rate of £25 per hour.

 

When estimating whether the cost limit would be exceeded, a public authority may take into account one or more of the following activities:

 

·        determining whether information is held;

·        locating the information;

·        retrieving the information; and

·        extracting the requested information.

It may be helpful to explain why UKRI estimates that responding to your requests would exceed the appropriate limit.

 

Information falling within the scope of your requests is held across multiple business areas, electronic repositories, records management systems, shared workspaces and other corporate records.

 

The requests span a period of more than 18 months and involve numerous stakeholders, boards, committees, programme teams, facilities, external organisations and government departments across both UKRI and STFC, requiring extensive searches across multiple sources and the review of a substantial volume of potentially relevant records.

 

UKRI estimates that the work required would significantly exceed the statutory limit of 18 hours and has therefore refused your requests under section 12(1) of the FOIA.

Full details of this response are provided in the attached document

Documents

• FOI Response_FOI2026_00706 and 00707_Redacted.pdf (299.9 KB)

This is UK Research and Innovation's response to a freedom of information (FOI) or environmental information regulations (EIR) request.

You can browse our other responses or make a new FOI request.