APPENDIX: CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THE
SCIENCE BUDGET ALLOCATIONS LETTERS
Letter dated 23 February 2009 from the Department
for Innovation, Universities and Skills to Mr Phil Willis MP,
Chairman of the Committee
Thank you for your letter of 27 January to Andrew
Shaw, requesting copies of the Allocation Letters from the Department
for Innovation, Universities and Skills to the Research Councils
with respect to the Science Budget Allocations 2008/09-2010/11
for the seven UK Research Councils. I am replying as Andrew Shaw
has now left the Department.
Upon receipt of a written request for information
the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ("the Act") obliges
this Department to (a) say whether we hold the information requested
and if we do (b) to disclose it. However, these obligations are
subject to exemptions which, where applicable, permit us to withhold
information. If an absolute exemption applies then we can simply
withhold the information. If a qualified exemption applies then
we can only withhold the information if the public interest in
maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest its disclosure.
While I can confirm that we hold the information
you have requested we are not prepared to disclose it because
it is exempt from disclosure under sections 35, and 43 of the
Act as explained below.
Section 35—This
exempts information held by a government department if it relates
to the formulation or development of government policy. Section
35 is a qualified exemption. We have considered carefully whether
the public interest in disclosing the information overrides the
public interest in maintaining the exemption and withholding the
information. We recognise there is a general public interest in
the disclosure of information as greater transparency makes Government
more accountable and we also recognise there is a public interest
in being able to assess the quality of information which is used
in policy formulation.
However, against this good government depends on
good decision making and there is a clear public interest in ensuring
that decisions are made based on the best advice available and
a full consideration of all the options. Not only is it important
that Research Councils provide us with full and detailed information
but it is also essential that policy officials are able to have
a full and frank dialogue with them on budgetary issues. If details
of these communications were made public we consider that the
Councils might be less open with us and policy officials would
not have the space to discuss such issues freely.
We have also taken into account that details of the
overall strategic priorities for the research base and related
funding decisions (including the rationale behind them) are set
out in the "Science Budget" allocations booklet which
is published after the outcome of each spending review. There
follows a link to this at
http://www.dius.gov.uk/publications/URN07114.pdf.
Simultaneously Research Councils published their
delivery plans 2008-2001 at
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/aboutrcuk/deliveryplan.
These delivery plans set out each Council's approach
to research priorities, sustainability, economic impact, international,
specific financial commitment information and targets for efficiency
and effectiveness.
In our view, therefore, the balance of the public
interest clearly lies in withholding the information you have
requested.
Section 43—this
exempts information if disclosure would, or would be likely to,
prejudice the commercial interests of any person. This is a qualified
exemption. You will understand that, in budgetary discussions,
Research Councils share with us a good deal of information relating
to development plans that they have which by its very nature is
not in the public domain, is commercially sensitive and the disclosure
of which would, or would be likely to, prejudice their commercial
interests.
While we recognise that there is a general public
interest in disclosure of information relating to how budgets
are agreed, for largely the same reasons as articulated above
regarding the exemption in section 35 we consider the balance
of the public interest in this case falls in favour of withholding
the information. In particular, we consider that good decision
making depends upon the quality of the information on which it
is based and we are concerned that if Research Councils felt we
might disclose information that they regard as commercially sensitive
then they will be less frank with us in the future and that would
damage the decision making process.
Accompanying this letter are details of our appeals
procedure if you are unhappy with the result of your request for
information. Please quote the reference number above in any future
communications.
Letter dated 24 February 2009 from Mr Phil Willis
MP, Chairman of the Committee, to the Rt Hon John Denham MP, Secretary
of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills
I am writing to ask that you provide the Committee
with copies of the Allocation Letters sent to the seven UK Research
Councils with respect to the Science Budget Allocations 2008/09-2010/11.
The reasons for this request are two-fold. First,
concerns over the extent to which the Government influenced the
formulation of the Research Councils' Delivery plans continue
to be raised with the Committee. An examination of the Allocation
letters would allow us to lay this matter to rest. Second, the
Allocation letters sent to HEFCE and the Learning and Skills Council
are published as a matter of course. It therefore seems anomalous
that the Research Councils' letters are not made public, and in
the interests of transparency we believe they should be placed
in the public domain.
I would also like to point out that I have written
to the Department previously asking that the Allocation letters
be made available to the Committee under the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 (letter dated 27 January 2009). I am disappointed to
say that despite more than 28 days elapsing since this request
I have had no reply.
As an interim measure, I would ask for the letters
to be supplied to us in confidence. As you will know it is well
precedented for Committees to be supplied with information on
this basis.
Letter dated 20 March 1009 from The Rt Hon John
Denham MP, Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and
Skills, to Mr Phil Willis MP, Chairman of the Committee
Thank you for your letter of 24 February, in which
you requested copies of the allocation letters sent to the seven
Research Councils be provided to your Committee.
The Government explained in its response to the Innovation,
Universities, Science and Skills Select Committee in June 2008
that it did not intend to publish its specific interactions with
Councils on the allocations process and that remains our position.
As you are aware the Department has published the
booklet on Science Allocations (which is the equivalent of the
published Allocation letters sent to the Higher Education Funding
Council for England and the Learning and Skills Council) and at
the same time the Councils produced their own delivery plans.
A letter was sent to you on 23 February in response
to your Freedom of Information request and this clearly outlined
why it would be inappropriate to release these letters.
I hope the above information is helpful.
Letter dated 2 April 2009 From Mr Phil Willis
MP, Chairman of the Committee, to the Rt Hon John Denham MP, Secretary
of State for Innovation, Universities & Skills
I have received your letter of 20 March 2009.
I am disappointed by the Department's continued refusal
to supply us with copies of the allocation letters sent to the
Research Councils. The Committee will discuss what action to
take after Easter.
In the meantime I repeat the request, made in my
letter to you dated 24 February, that "As an interim measure,
I would ask for the letters to be supplied to us in confidence.
As you will know it is well precedented for Committees to be supplied
with information on this basis."
E-mail dated 29 April 2009 from Secretary of State's
Private Office, Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills,
to the Clerk of the Committee
I understand that you were asking for a response
to Phil Willis' letter of 2 April to the Secretary of State, John
Denham, regarding science budget allocation letters.
The Secretary of State has confirmed that his position
has not changed since his letter of 20th March to Phil Willis.
Please see correspondence attached for ease of reference.
E-mail dated 5 May 2009 from the Clerk of the
Committee to the Secretary of State's Private Office, Department
of Innovation, Universities and Skills
Thank you for your email.
I wonder if this has been sent to me in error. It
is not normal practice for a reply to a letter from a Chairman
of a Select Committee to a Secretary of State to be received in
the form of an official-to-official email. In addition I'd point
out that the email does not address the specific question in the
Chairman's letter.
The Chairman looks forward to receiving the Secretary
of State's reply.
E-mail dated 8 May 2009 from Secretary of State's
Private Office, Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills,
to the Clerk of the Committee
The Secretary of State asked me to convey his response
to you, which I did. As far as we are concerned no further response
is needed.
| 
