This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk_politics/6574145.stm

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
MPs to debate info exemption plan MPs info exemption plan scuppered
(1 day later)
MPs are to discuss a bill to exempt themselves and peers from freedom of information inquiries Opponents have effectively scuppered a bill which would exempt MPs from Freedom of Information Act inquiries
Former Conservative chief whip David Maclean introduced the measure in a private member's bill, which will be debated in the Commons on Friday. Ex-Tory chief whip David Maclean had brought in the private member's bill.
He has said he wants to prevent letters written on behalf of constituents to "authorities", such as companies and councils, being released. He says he does not want letters on behalf of constituents published - but it would also curb requests about issues such as MPs' expenses claims.
Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker has described the plans as "outrageous". Lib Dem MP Norman Baker and a handful of MPs from all parties managed to talk out the planned bill by making sure the debate continued for five hours.
The two-clause bill effectively removes both the Commons and House of Lords as public authorities obliged to release information under the 2000 act, which came into force in 2005. This means the bill now goes to the bottom of the queue for private member's bills and has virtually no chance of becoming law unless it gets government backing.
Agreement The two-clause bill would effectively remove both the Commons and House of Lords from the list of public authorities obliged to release information under the 2000 act, which came into force in 2005.
It is like the relationship with a priest. We will write to an authority with their problem, but we guarantee that that information will not be leaked David Maclean
It also protects all MPs' correspondence from release and stops authorities being able to confirm or deny whether they have received a letter from an MP.It also protects all MPs' correspondence from release and stops authorities being able to confirm or deny whether they have received a letter from an MP.
Mr Maclean said he had already discussed the bill with the Speaker, Michael Martin, who had assured him Parliament would still publish general details of MPs' expenses and allowances, as now, even though it would not be legally obliged to do so. Mr Maclean told MPs at an earlier stage: "When we write on behalf of constituents... we must be able to look them in the eye and say that in all circumstances what they tell us will not get out.
However, the Labour MP Andrew Dismore has tabled an amendment to ensure that this agreement is put in the measure which will be debated on Friday. "It is like the relationship with a priest. We will write to an authority with their problem, but we guarantee that that information will not be leaked by us, or get into the public domain."
The bill gained its second reading in the Commons in January. Data Protection Act
He said Speaker Michael Martin had assured him Parliament would still publish general details of MPs' expenses and allowances, as now, even though it would not be legally obliged to do so.
It's about covering up Norman Baker
Mr Baker, who successfully fought a two-year Freedom of Information battle for a detailed breakdown of MPs' travel expenses, said that a constituent's inquiry would not be "leaked" as it was already covered by the Data Protection Act.
"There is no question that this already exists as a proper means of protecting constituents," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
Of the Bill he said: "This is not about constituents' correspondence, this is about exempting MPs from scrutiny in the House of Commons on how, for example, we get our expenses."
He added: "It's about covering up and it shows, I'm afraid, that the Freedom of Information Act culture that we hoped was becoming established in this country, is not actually in the bloodstream yet."
The bill gained its second reading in the Commons in January and also got through its committee stage, meaning it has got further to completing its Commons stages than most private members bills.
However it was "filibustered" by Mr Baker, who personally spoke for about two hours, and colleagues as they managed to keep the debate on the bill - and a large number of amendments - going from its 0930 BST start to the cut-off deadline of 1430 BST.
Ironically, the first delaying tactic was to call for a time-consuming vote - which did not succeed - on whether the whole debate should be conducted in private.
In a separate move, ministers are attempting to limit the amount of resources spent on freedom of information requests to £600 - including officials' time.In a separate move, ministers are attempting to limit the amount of resources spent on freedom of information requests to £600 - including officials' time.
The Department for Constitutional Affairs is running a consultation exercise on the proposal until 21 June.The Department for Constitutional Affairs is running a consultation exercise on the proposal until 21 June.