It will affect the disclosure of MPs' expenses, the research document (page 22) states:

Mr Maclean said he had already discussed the bill with the Speaker, Michael Martin, who had assured him that parliament would still publish general details of MPs' expenses and allowances as now, even though they would not be obliged under his amendment. The bill would also prevent challenges to the information commissioner or to an information tribunal if a member of the public wanted an MP to provide more information.

While I don't believe that MP's are voting for this bill with the intention of hiding information, this bill will give them the power to do so. A subsequent speaker could choose not to publish MP's expenses.

Can you give examples of any of the cases of disclosure of MP's private correspondence?

[ Parent ]

I never mentioned 'Blairite' in my post (not paranoid are we?), but as you ask, I said you were 'ultra-blair' in your rather dodgy interpretation of the facts. If I gave the impression that the bill was 'Blairite' then I humbly apologise for any misconception. Of course, the bill was introduced by an ex-Tory whip and can be described as 'right wing'. However, it only amounts to MP's having the right not to have their dirty washing hung out in public, and could never be so anti-liberterian as to be labled 'Blairite'.
To get to the point, your reply still does not answer the question I put to you, that is to provide one example, just one will do me, of a disclosure of correspondence, who's disclosure could not have been prevented using existing legislation.
Until you can do that, please stop peddling the lie (now thats what I call 'Blairite') that this pernicious bill is solely about protecting MP's correspondence.
On the all-party support notion, Ming Cambell and David Cameron (belatedly) have spoken out against the bill, Brown hasn't.

[ Parent ]