Not involved, no, except in the sense of being on the receiving end like everyone else   It was of course an 'independent'  report, not something done internally, commissioned by the then Chancellor who <cough> had no idea at all what it might come up with. 

I think it is fair to say though that (as is the fate of all these endless efficiency reports) 'Gershon' itself isn't quite the force now as it was when it was first published and has been overtaken by other similar reports. It happened to be the one in the air when the TNO proposal was being mooted. But that isn't to say that the 'efficiency' theme, variously interpreted according to political taste, isn't as strong as it was then, was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be. I only say that to give people an excuse not to plough through all the soul-draining management-speak in it if they don't feel up to it. I've just been looking again at the DCMS references which are remarkably opaque about how the supposed efficiencies are to be achieved. To be fair though, the equivalent chapter in the Government response is even more opaque.

Could you possibly enlighten on how to use/invoke the act, George?

You haven't been having union with your clenched fist again, have you Ollie?

First, unclench and then...relax.

You don't strictly need to do anything to invoke it since all requests for information should be treated as falling under the terms of the Act. However, it never harms to add something along the lines "This is a formal request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000" or something like that.

Apart from anything else it helps concentrate minds, it probably means that the organisation concerned will send a copy to their 'FOI officer' or whatever they happen to call them, it gives a good solid starting point if you subsequently want to put in an appeal to the Information Commissioner about the decision and it also requires the organisation to give you a reason for their decision (in the specific terms of the Act) if they turn you down. This last, as well as helping to focus on grounds for appeal, often provides wry amusement if nothing else.

The other thing worth doing is making the request for information as specific and particular as possible. The more generalised the question, and the less it relates to clearly delineated information, the easier it is for them to answer it by giving generalised waffly policy answer.

I would also recommend intoning Ollie's admirable Invocation Chant.

Oi! Watch it! Double entendres are very childish but if its your round then mines a large one.

Have just heard on the radio that James Purnell, the erstwhile Culture Secretary, has just been moved to Dept. of Work and Pensions following the resignation of Peter Hain. No word yet on who will replace Purnell, but it does strike me as rather typical that the minister responsible for Arts cuts can now pass the buck to a successor - and of course the McMaster report can now be ignored by the new minister...

Heard Graham Sheffield, late of Radio 3 as I recall, now Nick Kenyon at the Barbican on Any Questions
just now. Q about Olympics had GS, 'heavily involved' in Olympiad culture posse, eulogisong Purnell, and noticeably fudging closure of Bristol Old Vic through ac cuts-fairly high profile local current issue evidently. The paradox is when impoverished ideas networks-boxed ticking becoming 'excellence', whatever that is deemed to mean-stick together passing round the fig leaves. GS made some encouragingly astute points about the wider world, but this was not good.