<P> The Act was subsequently amended by the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Act 2003 . The amendments introduced fees for non-personal requests and restricted the kinds of material which could be accessed . </P> <P> On 14 October 2014, the Freedom of Information Act 2014 repealed the 1997 and 2003 Acts, removing most of the restrictions introduced in 2003 and widened the range of bodies covered to all public bodies, unless specifically exempt . It also allowed for the Government to prescribe (or designate) other bodies receiving significant public funds, so that the FOI legislation applies to them also . </P> <P> One particular controversy which has caused concern to journalists and historians is that traditionally government ministers would annotate and sign any major policy or report documents which they had seen . However this practice has fallen out of favour because of the new openness . This annotation and signing of documents has often given a paper trail and unique insight as to "what the minister knew" about a controversy or how he or she formed an opinion on a matter . Also civil and public servants have become more informal, in keeping written records of potentially controversial meeting and avoiding writing memos as a result . While this information would not often be released, and sometimes only under the thirty year rule, the fact that government ministers now do not annotate and sign documents creates the concerns that while government is open it is not accountable as to who did or saw what or how decision making process works . </P> <Table> <Tr> <Td> </Td> <Td> The neutrality of this section is disputed . Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page . Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met . (September 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) </Td> </Tr> </Table>

Why have countries such as france and china instituted language controls (5 points)