Dr Chris Garrard
cjpgarrard@gmail.com
BY EMAIL
7 October 2016

Dear Dr Garrard

Outcome of Internal Review: Ref No: FOI-2016-0039-FQ1
We refer to your email of 17th June 2016 where you requested information about sponsorship of
SMG’s new interactive galleries and our response of 13 th July 2016. SMG disclosed some
information in response to part 1 of your request, but relied upon the exemptions under s.41 and
s.43(2) of FOIA to refuse to disclose the requested information in response to part 2 of your request.
Part 2 of your request was a request for:
"The amount paid by Statoil in order to be the title sponsor of the Science Museum's new
'Wonderlab: The Statoil Gallery' and by Urenco to be the major sponsor".
Further to your request for an internal review of our response (in which you asked us to focus on part
2 of your request), we have now conducted such a review of SMG's handling of your request and I am
writing to set out my findings.
The decision not to disclose the value of the sponsorship arrangements has been upheld in part for
the following reasons:


The application of the exemption under s.41 of FOIA to the information you requested
has not been upheld. This is because the sponsorship amount does not constitute
‘information obtained in confidence’ as the figure was not obtained from a third party. In
addition, the confidentiality clause in the contract with Statoil Ltd contains an exception
for information disclosed under the law, which would apply to information disclosed
under FOIA.



The application of the exemption under s.43(2) of FOIA to the information you requested
has been upheld. It is considered that the release of this information would be prejudicial
to the commercial interests of SMG and Statoil and that the public interest benefit arising
from the release of the information does not override the public interest factors which
support the application of the exemption.

 Although we acknowledge that we are obliged to approach all FOIA enquiries in an ‘applicant blind’
manner, we can see from your internal review request that you are particularly interested in our
relationship with Statoil; however, please note that in accordance with your original request, I have
now also considered the application of s.43(2) of FOIA insofar as it applies to the amount of
sponsorship paid by Urenco and uphold the use of that exemption in relation to the amount of
sponsorship received from Urenco.
In your request for an internal review, you asked to be provided with an analysis of the arguments
considered for and against disclosure. You also raised further arguments for consideration and
requested a response to these. We have considered these arguments and a summary of our
conclusions is contained within the Annex (attached).
We hope that you understand SMG's reasoning in refusing to disclose the requested information to
you (which is a decision we have taken with some care), but if you are not content with the outcome
of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:
Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.
Yours sincerely,

Jane Ellis
Director of Corporate Services, SMG