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

1,373 disclosures

  1. FOI2026/00314: Battery Innovation Programme Round 1 Competition: Feasibility Studies

    Request Received: 10 April 2026

    For Innovate UK's Battery Innovation Programme Round 1 competition, please could you release the following information for the Feasibility Studies strand:

    1.      The number of applications submitted.
    2.      The number of assessed applications.
    3.      The number of successful applications.
    4.      The success rate.
    5.      The minimum successful score.
    6.      The maximum successful score.
    7.      The maximum score of failed applications.
    8.      The average grant fund value per project.
    9.      The average score of funded projects.
    10.     The average number of partners within consortiums for successful applications.
    11.     The count of assessed applications by theme (Theme 1: UK equipment manufacturing and process capability for cell and battery production, Theme 2: UK battery reuse, recovery and recycling, Theme 3:  UK battery sector with localised battery supply chain and industrial resilience). If it is the case that some applicants submitted under more than one theme, please capture the most popular theme submitted into.
    12.     The count of successful applications by theme. If it is the case that some applicants were successful under more than one theme, please capture the most popular theme funded.
    13.     The number of unsuccessful applications, if any, which scored above the minimum funded score.

    Published: 8 May 2026

  2. FOI2026/00315: Battery Innovation Programme Round 1: Concept Development

    Request Received: 10 April 2026

    For Innovate UK's Battery Innovation Programme Round 1 competition, please could you release the following information for the Concept Development strand:


    1.      The number of applications submitted.
    2.      The number of assessed applications.
    3.      The number of successful applications.
    4.      The success rate.
    5.      The minimum successful score.
    6.      The maximum successful score.
    7.      The maximum score of failed applications.
    8.      The average grant fund value per project.
    9.      The average score of funded projects.
    10.     The average number of partners within consortiums for successful applications.
    11.     The count of assessed applications by theme (Theme 1: UK equipment manufacturing and process capability for cell and battery production, Theme 2: UK battery reuse, recovery and recycling, Theme 3:  UK battery sector with localised battery supply chain and industrial resilience). If it is the case that some applicants submitted under more than one theme, please capture the most popular theme submitted into.
    12.     The count of successful applications by theme. If it is the case that some applicants were successful under more than one theme, please capture the most popular theme funded.
    13.     The number of unsuccessful applications, if any, which scored above the minimum funded score.

    Published: 8 May 2026

  3. FOI2026/00303: Hartree Centre PaaS Revenue

    Request Received: 9 April 2026

    I would like to make a FOI request. This relates to the Hartree Centre, a department of STFC. Please could you provide:

    1. The total revenue to STFC/UKRI from Hartree Centre's 'Platform-as-a-Service' (PaaS) offering in the 2024/2025 financial year.

    2. The split of the PaaS revenue in that year across the Hartree Centre's compute platforms, such as 'Scafell Pike'.

    3. The total number of customers invoiced for PaaS in that financial year generating that revenue.

    Published: 6 May 2026

  4. FOI2026/00299: UKRI board meeting minutes

    Request received: 08 April 2026

    Please may I request the minutes for item 6 'Reforming UKRI' at the November 2025 UKRI board meeting that were withheld from publication in the published minutes:

    https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/UKRI-240326-BoardMeetingMinutesNovember2025.pdf

    Published: 6 May 2026

  5. FOI2026/00212: CESIUM reports

    Request received: 11 March 2026

    I am requesting all reports from 2019 onward related to Project CESIUM.

    This was funded by Innovate UK and awarded to Trilateral Research, Lincolnshire Police and the NWG Exploitation Response Unit. The reports should include project and financial reports.

    Published: 1 May 2026

  6. FOI2026/00132: Innovate UK Application Dates

    Request Received: 20 February 2026

    Please could you provide the date on which the Innovate UK grant applications were submitted for the projects involving the following organisations:

    • James Mae Water

    • Aspcold Manufacturing

    If more than one application exists involving these organisations, I would be grateful if you could provide the application date(s) for each relevant grant, along with the grant title or competition name. I do not require any commercially sensitive information beyond the application submission date.

    Published: 29 April 2026

  7. EIR2026/00154: Isotopic Datasets

    Request Received: 22 February 2026

    I contacted the author of this published paper (https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/12280) requesting a copy of the data many years back and it was refused.

    It states in the paper:

     "compilation of isotopic datasets by the British Geological Survey (BGS) over the past 25 years combined with (relatively scarce) published studies by other researchers makes it possible for the present paper to attempt a synthesis.”

    And in the acknowledgements:

     "Most of the groundwater data considered in this paper have come from studies carried out by staff of the British Geological Survey over the past quarter-century.”

    Could the BGS please provide all the oxygen and hydrogen isotope data for groundwater and surface water that the BGS contain?

    Published: 29 April 2026

  8. FOI2026/00204: Quarterly reports for AI Skills Hub

    Request received: 09 March 2026

    Please provide copies of all formal written Quarterly Reports submitted to Innovate UK to date under the AI Skills Hub (UKRI-3797) contract, as required under section 5 (Reporting Requirements) of the specification.

    Published: 29 April 2026

  9. FOI2026/00276 - Investment mid-point Reviews

    Request received: 30/03/2026

    Under the Freedom of Information Act, can you please provide:

    1) the most recent mid-point review for:
    a) Administrative Data Research UK (to the extent that MRC holds this information about ADRUK),
    b) Data and Analytics Research Environments UK programme,
    c) Health Data Research UK,
    d) Population Research UK,
    e) UK Biobank,
    f) UK Health Data Research Alliance,

    2) the response of each organisation (a-f) to the findings of their review.

    Published: 28 April 2026

  10. FOI2026/00133: AI Training Programme

    Request Received: 18 February 2026

    I would like to make a freedom of information request about the costs of the AI training program that has been announced in the news today, specifically this announcement: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/free-ai-training-for-all-as-government-and-industry-programme-expands-to-provide-10-million-workers-with-key-ai-skills-by-2030

    I understand that the cost to end users will for the most part be zero. I would like to know the cost to the taxpayer.

    Please could you tell me how much the government has spent on setting up this scheme, and what the budget is for annual running costs.

    I note that the scheme is delivered in partnership with tech companies such as Microsoft and Google. If they have provided contributions to the program at less than a fair market rate, then please tell me what those contributions were, how much they actually charged for them, how much a fair market rate would have been, and what they have been given or promised in return for delivering their services below a market rate.

    Please could you also tell me what cost-effectiveness analysis, if any, was done regarding the likely benefits of these costs, and what the results of that cost-effectiveness analysis was.

    Published: 28 April 2026