MPs to be exempt from Freedom of Information requests

Opponents failed in a marathon rearguard action to block further progress on the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill which secured its third reading by 96 votes to 25, a majority of 71.

Introduced by Tory former chief whip David Maclean, it now passes to the Lords for consideration where it is likely to face a further mauling.

A cross-party group of MPs battled for five hours to kill the Bill, using every procedural tactic in the book to eat up the parliamentary time available. These included presenting a series of petitions, debating amendments at length, raising points or order and taking multiple interventions.

Supporters of Mr Maclean's Bill say it will protect the confidentiality of correspondence between constituents and MPs.

But opponents warn the real aim is to block embarrassing disclosures about MPs' expenses and allowances.

Both the Government and Conservative frontbench insist their position is "neutral" but both have given tacit support in previous votes.

As today's highly-charged debate got underway, Mr Maclean insisted his Bill was not intended to strike a general blow against transparency laws.

But his membership of the Commons Commission, which overseas the administration of the House, had alerted him to the "growing problem" of correspondence being released.

However, this was repeatedly challenged by opponents who said there was a dearth of evidence that this was happening.

They argued that any threat to correspondence should be tackled by amending data protection laws not by exempting Parliament in its entirely from its own FOI Act.

Mr Maclean also sought to reassure MPs that the measure would not block detailed disclosure of MPs' expenses.

Speaker Michael Martin had made it "absolutely clear" that this information would still be published, he added.

But a number of MPs hit back that there was no guarantee this assurance would be given by a future Speaker.

Amid increasingly heated - and often personal - exchanges, constitutional affairs minister Bridget Prentice said several MPs had raised the matter with her and Commons Leader Jack Straw.

Stressing it was for MPs to decide whether the FOI Act was robust enough, Ms Prentice said she would not be voting on the amendments or on the Bill's third reading.

Shadow solicitor general Jonathan Djanogly said: "We are neutral on this Bill and believe it is for Parliament to take a view on how best to proceed on a free vote basis."

However, senior Labour MP David Winnick (Walsall N), a leading opponent, condemned it as a "squalid" measure.

"I believe it is wrong. I believe it is against the interest of Parliament. I believe we are in danger of bringing ourselves into disrepute," he warned.

And he exhorted MPs: "The House of Commons should set an example to the country of honesty and integrity, not find some squalid little way in order to get out of the law."