FOI Surge Threatens to Delay Essential Scottish Services

Scottish Government civil servants say rising numbers of freedom of information requests and parliamentary questions are disrupting essential work. Officials said small teams were struggling to manage the combined workload, lacked suitable processing systems and were being diverted from tasks including checks for farmer payments and work on plans for walk-in GP services.

Staff also reported growing demands for internal notes and briefings. Some officials believed artificial intelligence was being used to generate large batches of parliamentary questions, with up to 20 submitted at once. The complaints were posted on the Scottish Government’s internal message board and obtained through freedom of information laws.

Scottish Government figures show annual freedom of information requests almost doubled between 2017 and 2024. The Scottish Information Commissioner said public bodies received 111,241 requests in 2025-26, 13 per cent more than the previous year, while appeals to his office rose by 83 per cent.

Scottish Conservative MSP Stephen Kerr criticised the officials’ complaints, saying MSPs have a duty to question ministers and that his questions were based on concerns raised by members of the public. Kerr submitted more than 1,500 parliamentary questions and made over 2,000 contributions in the previous year, making him Holyrood’s most active MSP by those measures. He called for reduced internal bureaucracy and clearer answers.

The Scottish Government said its five-year change plan would make the organisation smaller and less bureaucratic by improving technology and staff skills.

Original Sources: scotsman.com, dailyrecord.co.uk, heraldscotland.com, scottishdailyexpress.co.uk, scotsman.com, scotsman.com, heraldscotland.com

Category: Political

Keywords: agriculture, appeals, artificial, briefing, bureaucracy, centres, civil, commissioner, farmer, freedom, government, information, intelligence, officials, parliamentary, payments, questions, requests, scottish, servants, skills, staff, systems, technology, workload

The article offers very little direct help to an ordinary reader. It describes pressure caused by freedom of information requests, parliamentary questions, briefing demands, and possible use of artificial intelligence, but it gives readers no clear action to take. It does not explain how to submit a request responsibly, how to check whether an existing request has been answered, how to contact the relevant public body, or how to challenge a delay. The article refers to freedom of information systems and the Scottish Information Commissioner, but it does not explain how those resources work or when a person should use them.

Its educational value is limited. It shows that public-sector staff time is finite and that small teams can struggle when several reporting obligations arrive at once. It also suggests that administrative demands may affect practical services such as health provision and agricultural payments. However, it does not explain how requests are assessed, why some require more work than others, what legal duties officials must meet, or how officials distinguish legitimate scrutiny from excessive or repetitive demands. The article also raises the possibility that artificial intelligence is being used to generate batches of parliamentary questions, but it provides no evidence, examples, or explanation of how this was identified. That makes the claim difficult for readers to assess.

The figures are presented without enough context. The near doubling of annual freedom of information requests between 2017 and 2024 sounds significant, but the article does not explain whether the increase reflects more public concern, changes in government recording practices, repeat requests, media activity, or other factors. The figures for requests and appeals are also not connected to response times, staffing levels, successful appeals, or the proportion of requests that are straightforward. Without those comparisons, readers cannot tell whether the system is failing, coping with higher demand, or improving in some areas despite the increased workload.

The subject has some personal relevance. Anyone may need information from a public body, particularly about healthcare, benefits, farming payments, transport, education, or local services. Excessive administrative pressure could also affect the speed or quality of public services. However, the article does not show how an individual’s request was delayed or what a person should do if an important service is affected. The relevance is therefore indirect. It concerns the functioning of government, but it does not give readers enough detail to make a specific personal decision.

The article provides a limited public service by highlighting a possible conflict between transparency and the capacity of public bodies to deliver services. It reminds readers that requests and oversight work consume real staff time. That is useful context, but the article does not explain the other side of the issue: freedom of information rights exist because public bodies need scrutiny, and administrative inconvenience alone does not show that requests are unreasonable. A balanced public-service report would explain both the value of transparency and the conditions under which demand can become difficult to manage.

There is no meaningful practical advice. Readers are not told how to make a focused request, avoid asking for information that is already publicly available, narrow a broad question, or follow up appropriately. Nor are they told how to protect their right to information if a public body delays or refuses a request. The article therefore describes a problem without showing ordinary people how to participate responsibly or seek help when necessary.

Its long-term value is modest. It may encourage readers to think more carefully about the effect of repeated or poorly focused requests. It may also prompt people to consider whether a question can be answered through an existing publication before submitting a formal request. However, it gives no lasting framework for judging whether a public body is being transparent, whether a delay is justified, or whether a reform plan is working. It focuses on current pressure rather than durable understanding.

The emotional effect is likely to be concern about waste, delay, and government inefficiency. The references to healthcare work being delayed and agricultural payments being placed under pressure may make readers feel that administrative demands are directly harming essential services. Those concerns could be reasonable, but the article does not establish the scale of the effect or explain whether these are isolated examples or a widespread pattern. Without that context, the article may create frustration or suspicion without giving readers a fair way to judge responsibility.

The article is not obviously clickbait or advertising. Its framing is fairly restrained. However, the suggestion that artificial intelligence may be generating large batches of parliamentary questions could attract attention because it combines technology, politics, and concerns about wasted public resources. The claim needs careful qualification, especially because the article does not provide evidence about who used such systems, how often they were used, or whether the questions were low quality. Without supporting detail, that part of the story risks becoming more provocative than informative.

The missed opportunities are substantial. The article could explain the difference between freedom of information requests, parliamentary questions, and internal briefing demands. It could show how much work a typical request involves, why some requests are complex, and what safeguards exist against unreasonable use. It could compare the number of requests with staffing and response performance. It could also explain what the Scottish Government’s proposed investment in skills and technology is expected to change and how the public could judge whether it succeeds.

A reader can investigate the issue more intelligently by comparing accounts from the government, information rights bodies, civil servants, journalists, and people who have used the request system. It is useful to distinguish between the number of requests received and the number answered on time, refused, appealed, or found to have been mishandled. Readers should also ask whether examples presented in an article are representative or selected because they are especially striking. When artificial intelligence is mentioned, they should look for evidence of actual use rather than treating suspicion or anecdote as proof.

The article also fails to give practical guidance on submitting better requests. A person seeking information can usually improve the chance of a useful response by identifying the public body that is most likely to hold the information, asking for a specific record or defined period, using plain language, and avoiding several unrelated questions in one request. Before submitting anything, it is sensible to check whether the information has already been published. A focused request is easier for officials to process and more likely to produce an answer that is clear and useful.

If a request is delayed or refused, the person should keep a copy of the original request and any reply, check the stated reason, and follow the review or appeal process described by the public body. Important deadlines should be recorded rather than relying on memory. If the matter affects a payment, healthcare decision, legal right, or other urgent need, the person should pursue the relevant service directly instead of assuming that an information request will resolve the practical problem. An information request can reveal records, but it is not a substitute for an application, complaint, appeal, or emergency contact route.

When judging claims about administrative overload, readers should look for evidence of scale, not just vivid examples. Useful questions include how many staff are involved, how much time the work takes, whether services are actually delayed, whether delays are temporary or persistent, and whether proposed technology has been tested for accuracy, privacy, and accountability. These simple checks would help readers understand the issue more accurately than the article alone.

The phrase “taking staff away from essential work” uses strong language to frame requests as harmful distractions. It presents work on information requests and parliamentary questions as less important than other government duties. This may hide that openness, accountability, and political scrutiny can also be part of public work. The wording supports the view that the requests create a problem for government staff.

The claim that “some officials believe artificial intelligence is being used” is presented as speculation, not proof. The words “some officials believe” show that the claim is not confirmed in the text. Mentioning that “as many as 20” questions may be submitted together makes the practice sound large and excessive. This may lead readers to treat a suspected practice as an established cause of the workload.

The phrase “large batches of parliamentary questions” carries a negative tone. The word “batches” makes the questions sound like mass-produced objects rather than separate requests for information. This framing can make the people submitting them seem careless or abusive without explaining why the questions were asked. It helps the government side of the issue by making the requests appear unreasonable.

The sentence about “work on GP walk-in centres being delayed” uses a clear harm frame. It links requests directly to a delay in health work, although the text does not show how long the delay lasted or whether other causes were involved. This can make readers blame information requests for problems in health services. The wording helps the argument that officials need fewer demands.

The example that an information request “had interrupted checks needed to help ensure farmers’ payments were made on time” also links openness work to possible financial harm. The phrase “help ensure” is cautious, but the sentence still suggests that requests put farmers’ payments at risk. No details show whether any payment was actually late. This may create a stronger impression of damage than the evidence in the text supports.

The statement that “small teams were struggling” uses emotional language about pressure and weakness. It presents officials as overloaded and vulnerable, while the people making requests are not described in the same human way. This creates sympathy for civil servants and concern about their working conditions. It may hide whether staffing, planning, or management choices also contributed to the problem.

The figures “almost doubled between 2017 and 2024” and “rose by 83 per cent” use large increases to create a sense of crisis. The text does not give the starting number for the first increase or explain how many appeals the 83 per cent represents. It also gives no comparison with staffing, population, or the number of requests successfully answered. The numbers may be accurate, but their presentation supports the claim that the system is under severe strain.

The text presents the Scottish Information Commissioner as evidence that demand is rising, but it gives no other interpretation of the figures. Rising requests could indicate greater public interest, greater awareness of rights, or more disputes, but those possibilities are not discussed. This makes the workload explanation the main story. The selected evidence therefore favors the government officials’ concern.

The phrase “lacked suitable systems” softens responsibility for the problem. It describes the systems as unsuitable without saying who designed, funded, or managed them. This turns a possible management failure into a general technical problem. The wording helps protect institutions from direct blame.

The government statement that the plan “would reduce bureaucracy and invest in staff skills and technology” uses positive reform language. “Reduce bureaucracy” sounds beneficial but is not defined, so readers cannot tell what would change. “Invest in staff skills and technology” suggests progress and care without giving costs, targets, or measures of success. The statement presents the government response favorably while leaving its results untested.

The order of the text first describes delays, pressure, and rising figures, then gives the government’s reform plan. This builds concern before offering the plan as a solution. The structure encourages readers to accept the need for change before they hear any limits or opposing view. No requester, opposition politician, campaign group, or independent critic is quoted, so the account mainly reflects officials and the government.

The text uses a mostly official and government-centered frame, but it does not show clear left-wing, right-wing, nationalist, religious, racial, sex-based, or class-based bias. It also contains no strawman argument because it does not misstate a person’s position in order to attack it. There is no clear virtue signaling or gaslighting in the wording. The main bias comes from presenting public requests as burdens, using selected examples and large percentages to support that view, and giving the government’s response the final word.

The text expresses strong concern about the growing workload faced by Scottish Government civil servants. Phrases such as “taking staff away from essential work,” “being delayed,” and “struggling to manage” suggest that important public services may be affected. This concern is moderate to strong because the problem is linked to GP walk-in centres and farmers’ payments. Its purpose is to show that the increase in information requests is not only an office problem. It may also slow work that directly affects people’s health and income.

A sense of pressure and frustration appears in the description of staff dealing with “large batches” of parliamentary questions and many requests at the same time. The claim that up to 20 questions may be submitted together makes the workload seem heavy and difficult to control. The word “interrupted” adds to this feeling by showing that officials must stop one task to deal with another. These emotions encourage sympathy for civil servants and suggest that the current system is placing unreasonable demands on small teams.

There is also worry about delay and possible failure. The statement that checks for farmers’ payments were interrupted creates concern that people could receive important financial support late. The delay to work on GP walk-in centres creates a similar fear about public health planning. This worry is not presented as panic, but it is serious because the effects may reach beyond government offices. It guides readers to see the issue as a risk to public services rather than as a minor complaint from staff.

Suspicion is present in the suggestion that artificial intelligence may be used to create large batches of parliamentary questions. The wording “some officials believe” shows that this claim is not confirmed, but it still raises doubts about whether the questions are being produced in a thoughtful and responsible way. The reference to AI also introduces unease about technology being used to increase pressure on public workers. This suspicion may lead readers to question whether existing political and administrative processes are being used efficiently.

A feeling of helplessness appears when officials say that small teams lack suitable systems to process requests efficiently. The combination of limited staff and weak systems suggests that workers are willing to do their jobs but do not have the tools needed to manage the demand. This creates sympathy and makes the problem seem structural rather than personal. At the same time, it supports the idea that changes to technology and working methods are necessary.

The statistics create a strong sense of scale and urgency. Freedom of information requests almost doubled between 2017 and 2024, while the Scottish Information Commissioner reported more than 111,000 requests in 2025-26. The 13 per cent rise in requests and the 83 per cent rise in appeals make the pressure appear measurable and widespread. These figures reduce the risk that the issue will seem like an isolated complaint. They build credibility and encourage the reader to accept that the system may need serious reform.

The final paragraph introduces cautious reassurance and a limited sense of hope. The Scottish Government’s promise to reduce bureaucracy and invest in staff skills and technology suggests that action is planned. However, this reassurance is restrained because the changes are described as part of a five-year plan, so improvement may not happen quickly. This balance prevents the ending from sounding either hopeless or overly confident. It encourages the reader to accept reform as necessary while remaining aware that the problem will take time to solve.

Together, these emotions guide the reader toward sympathy for civil servants, concern about delays to public services, and support for better systems. The text also encourages the reader to view the growth in requests as a wider administrative problem. It does not mainly create anger toward one person or group. Instead, it builds pressure for more efficient processes and responsible use of staff time.

The writer increases emotional impact by moving from individual examples to official statistics. The examples about GP walk-in centres and farmers’ payments make the problem personal and easy to understand. They show how administrative pressure can affect real services and real people. The statistics then expand the issue, showing that the workload is growing across the wider public sector. This movement from personal impact to national scale makes the argument more convincing.

Repetition of ideas linked to delay, workload, rising numbers, and poor systems reinforces the sense of pressure. Words such as “growing,” “large batches,” “delayed,” “interrupted,” “struggling,” and “lacked” are more forceful than neutral terms such as “increased” or “managed.” They present the situation as difficult and urgent. The contrast between essential public work and the time spent answering requests also shapes the reader’s judgment by suggesting that valuable resources are being diverted.

The text uses careful attribution to control the strength of its claims. Phrases such as “some officials believe” and “officials also said” show that certain points come from staff reports rather than confirmed findings. This cautious wording protects the text from overstating the evidence while still allowing concern and suspicion to develop. The closing promise about a five-year change plan adds a forward-looking note, but it does not erase the problems described earlier. Overall, the writer combines human examples, strong wording, official figures, and cautious claims to make the reader see the workload as serious, damaging, and in need of practical reform.