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/6667431.stm

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

Version 0 Version 1
Info exemption bill back with MPs Brown will not block secrecy bid
(about 23 hours later)
A battle over exempting MPs and peers from Freedom of Information (FOI) laws is to return to the Commons later. Gordon Brown has rejected calls to block a controversial move by MPs to get out of freedom of information laws.
Tory MP David Maclean's bill returns for debate just weeks after opponents thought they had "killed it off". MPs pushed the plan closer to becoming law earlier in what critics called a "shameful day for Parliament".
He says exemption is needed to protect letters to constituents, but critics say the bill is aimed at keeping expenses and allowances secret. The MPs say they want to protect private letters from constituents - but critics say the move would also allow them to keep their expenses secret.
The government says it is neutral on the issue, prompting claims it tacitly backs a bid to undermine its own laws. Mr Brown, who takes over as Labour leader and prime minister next month, has pledged more "open" politics.
Private member's bills rarely become law without government support as they need to be granted Parliamentary time to be debated. A spokesman for the chancellor said he had also promised not to dictate to MPs.
Parliamentary quirk "Gordon has also spoken about the sovereignty of Parliament. If MPs have voted this measure through then that is a matter for them", his spokesman said.
Despite the government's neutral stance, Labour's parliamentary committee has e-mailed Labour MPs urging them to turn up to support the law. 'Ashamed'
Last time the bill was in the Commons, opponents debated it for so long it ran out of Parliamentary time - which they thought would be the end of it. Critics say despite its neutral stance, the government is in favour of the Private Members' Bill and has allowed it the time to progress through Parliament.
An unholy alliance of Conservative and Labour MPs is backing this attempt to water down public access to freedom of information Sir Menzies Campbell href="/1/hi/uk_politics/6654675.stm">MPs renew info exemption fight My bill is necessary to give an absolute guarantee that the correspondence of members of parliament, on behalf of our constituents and others, to a public authority remains confidential David Maclean class="" href="/1/hi/uk/4143657.stm">Q&A: Freedom of Information href="/1/hi/uk_politics/6670749.stm">In full: MPs who backed bill
But, due to a procedural quirk, it is returning to the Commons on Friday. Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker, who has led calls to block the Freedom of Information (Exemption) Bill, claims MPs were prevented from debating it more fully earlier, saying the events made him "ashamed to be an MP".
Lib Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell has written to Gordon Brown, the prime-minister-in-waiting, urging him to oppose the bill "in the spirit of openness and transparency". He is to make a formal complaint to the Commons speaker after MPs voted for the bill, by 96 to 25, to give the bill a third reading. It will now proceed to the Lords for further consideration.
In an e-mail to Lib Dem members, he added: "An unholy alliance of Conservative and Labour MPs is backing this attempt to water down public access to freedom of information. Mr Baker and fellow critics had hoped to "talk out" the bill by using up all its allocated time in the Commons, but after a five-hour debate, and with five minutes to go before time ran out, supporters voted for it to proceed to the Lords.
"They have the clear support of the government, which, unusually, did not block the bill at second reading and therefore seems happy to see its own FOI Act watered down." 'Flickering candle'
'Lip service' If passed, the FOI 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.
And in a letter to the Times, several groups, including the Campaign for Freedom of Information and Liberty, condemned the bill. It is an effrontery for the House of Commons to make the deeply hypocritical move of exempting itself from a law that applies to every other public body in the country Norman Baker
They wrote: "To pass this bill would send an extraordinary signal to the public - MPs feel an obligation to pay lip service to transparency but are unwilling to take on serious openness obligations themselves." The bill also protects all MPs' correspondence from release and stops authorities, such as councils or companies, confirming or denying whether they have received a letter from an MP.
Members on both sides of the House have found their correspondence to a public authority already revealed to a third party Martin SalterLabour MP During the debate, Mr Baker described the Freedom of Information Act as "a flickering candle" which "could be extinguished in many ways" by the bill.
But its supporters insist the bill is necessary to protect the "priest like" confidentiality of correspondence between constituents and MPs. "Let me make it plain the best solution entirely is that this bill doesn't go through because the present arrangements are working really quite well and there is no need to change them."
Labour's Martin Salter dismissed critics' arguments that correspondence was already protected under data protection laws. After the vote, he vowed to continue his fight to block the bill.
"Members on both sides of the House have found their correspondence to a public authority already revealed to a third party," he said. "It is an effrontery for the House of Commons to make the deeply hypocritical move of exempting itself from a law that applies to every other public body in the country."
"This is completely unacceptable." Ministers
He continued: "It is also deeply undemocratic that MPs on both the government and Conservative benches have clearly collaborated to ensure that those with a contrary view, fighting for open government, were silenced after barely any debate on amendments to the bill."
Several ministers voted in favour of third reading, including Caroline Flint, Phil Woolas, Joan Ryan, Meg Munn, Ian McCartney, Tony McNulty, Parmjit Dhanda, and Maria Eagle.
Members of the backbench committee of the Parliamentary Labour Party have also emailed colleagues to say they "feel strongly" that the bill's measures were "worthy of support".
Tory backbencher David Maclean, who is sponsoring it, said it would protect MPs' correspondence.
During the debate, Mr Maclean said his bill was necessary "to give an absolute guarantee that the correspondence of members of parliament, on behalf of our constituents and others, to a public authority remains confidential".