An orderly and stable transition
Freedom of information is such an easy and effective way to extract all sorts of information from public authorities that before long everyone will be doing it and authorities will be unable to cope with the administrative burden. That's one point of view.
Another is that FOI is such a slow-moving and ineffective process that no one who tries it once will ever bother again.
I've heard both these views expressed, but the from the Department for Constitutional Affairs suggest that both are way off the mark. They show (Table A) that, apart from the pent-up demand in the first quarter FOI was in force, the number of FOI requests seems to have been remarkably stable - in the region of 8,000-9,000 or so per quarter for the government departments and selected major quangoes that the DCA monitors.
If anything, this suggests that the experience of early users of FOI has been sufficiently productive that it's not going to fade away, but not so productive that it's going to become a much more popular activity.
A 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
Slow moving and ineffective is a description you could ascribe to one part of the FOI process - that is, when appeals end up on the Information Commissioner's desk. If anything is likely to deter people using the Act, it is the length of time that appellants are being forced to wait for the outcome of challenges they have lodged.
I have today spoken to the IC's office over an appeal I lodged in June this year. I was told it had been assigned to "Team Five" and as things stood, Team Five was still in the throes of dealing with appeals from September 2005. That means it has nine months worth of appeals to get through before it even gets to take a look at mine. When I asked if there was any way in which the process might be accelerated, you could almost hear the wry chuckle. Efficient? Hardly. Likely to bring the Act into disrepute? Definitely.
I'm a big fan of the Act and - but I'd like to make a bid for the record for longest ever internal review. It's taken the Cabinet Office - on behalf of Downing Street - NINE MONTHS to consider my request for a review.
In January, I requested a copy of a report on nuclear power written by
Lord Birt. At that time, the Government was carrying out its energy
review and was said to be leaning towards nuclear. It seemed like a
fairly straightforward request, as Downing Street had already released
several other reports written by Birt
(https://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/foi/reading_room/topic/policy.asp).
They refused my request, so I wrote requested an internal review. That
was February 16.
Summer came and went. The energy review was finished and announced. The Civil Servant handling my request retired and was replaced...
Their response finally arrived on October 11. "I apologise for the delay
in replying to you," it said - and confirmed that Birt's report would
not be released.
I have put in a complaint to the ICO. Can I claim the record for the longest internal review ever - or do other people have even worse stories?