It's absolute rubbish to suggest this Bill has anything to do with MPs' allowances. No supporter of the Bill has ever argued for it on the basis of suppressing the release of information about allowances. What it is about is protecting constituents who go to their MP for help, and find that letters written by the MP to public bodies to get them to take action are released - sometimes to the people who are the cause of their original problem. Despite claims that Data Protection laws prevent this release it has been proved to happen. Some of the FOI requests have apparently come from the BNP and other extremist groups.

I'm amazed that a Labour government is supposedly 'neutral' when the Tories are attacking a key element of their constitutional reforms. As that list shows in reality they have been anything but neutral. Private Members Bills are notoriously difficult to get though Parliament and it has only been able to get as far as it has, as quickly as it has because of tacit support from the government.

For anyone who is interested there is a facebook group campaigning against David Maclean's Bill see http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2365842882

Gordon Brown's initial response of 'it's an issue for MPs I won't get involved' was also woefully inadequate. You are an MP Gordon show some leadership! At the very least you could say how you would have voted.

It's good to see that he is getting more involved in defending FOI now though

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/23/nbrown23.xml

Chancellor will block moves to water down FOI

By Graeme Wilson and George Jones Last Updated: 2:20am BST 24/05/2007

Gordon Brown is poised to kill off moves by the Lord Chancellor to water down the Freedom of Information Act, it became clear last night.

Gordon Brown is poised to kill off moves by the Lord Chancellor to water down the Freedom of Information Act Gordon Brown wants to see the Private Members' Bill rewritten The Chancellor is ready to block plans drawn up by Lord Falconer which critics claim are designed to make it more difficult for people to obtain information from Whitehall.

For the sake of complete info, here are the Labour MPs who voted against the Third Reading of the Bill: Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) Jim Cousins (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) rh Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead) Mark Fisher (Stoke on Trent Central) Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow) Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) Dan Norris (Wansdyke) Sir Peter Soulsby (Leicester South) Mr. David Winnick (Walsall North) As this was unofficially whipped, I'm very surprised to see Norris in there. And I still don't understand why line breaks aren't showing up - any ideas?

The research on this post needs a little work, the Lib Dem MP leading the opposition to the bill is Norman Baker not Norman Lamb. The situation with MP's expenses is also a little more complex. The House is no longer obligated to publish MP's expenses although the current Speaker has agreed that they will still be published, future speakers could potentially stop the publication.

The problem with this bill is that any confidential correspondence that may have entered the public domain would undoubtedly have arisen as a result of a misunderstanding of the way the FoI act interacts with the data protection act. It is uncertain whether adding this amendment would really solve the actual problemit's intended to solve.

Overall, the justification for the bill seems pretty weak.

Alexander, completely agree, it is an outrage.

Whatever the law says it is quite clear that an MP would be sorely in breach of trust were he to publish constituents' letters or complaints.

A QC wrote to The Times this week stating that the Data Protection Act does cover correspondence. Further, the Information Commissioner when interviewed on the Today programme recently stated that he had not dealt with one case of constituents correspondence. A number of issues are raised for me. It is not acceptable that the Speaker has ruled that he will publish MPs expenses each year. This "gentlemans agreement" would end when a new speaker is elected. MPs have been aware for months that the public were not in favour of excluding the House from FOI. Many newspapers covered this bill; comment online was firmly opposed. There was also a petition on the No10 website. In all, those who voted for this bill have behaved abominably. They have treated the electorate ( and taxpayer)with disdain. There were a number of debates in the House - they were covered in the media so MPs knew their decision would cause public offence and further diminish the low reputation of the political classes. Whatever way they dress up the issue, I am of the opinion that many MPs believe that their conditions of service should be witheld. I have no concern about how much MPs claim in allowances as long as it is within the rules and they provide documentation to support payment. I would prefer MPs not to vote on issues surrounding their employment and believe that this should be done by a separate body. I feel insulted that MPs believe that they can "con" me into believing that this bill is in the interests of their constituents. It seems relevant now to start asking pertinent questions vis: Do we need so many MPs? All government departments can be contacted directly online - no requirement to go through MPs. In addition, FOI permits individuals to obtain information relevant to any community action. My experience with MPs is not good. They have not supported local action and behaved as a mail box in forwarding correspondence on to relevant departments. As Tony Banks said - MPs are poorly qualified to deal with Social Work problems. Constituents letters on such subjects would best be directed to CAB. Should MPs be able to continue with their careers? I often feel aggrieved that many work during parliamentary sessions. I am very happy for them to undertake "voluntary" work during their long holidays. Should MPs not have to retire at a specific age the same as other professions? Should MPs have to attend Parliament on a given number of sessions? The House has a Modernisation Committee. It is about time that some of the issues above were discussed.