The bill was tabled by former Tory whip David Maclean, who is also a member of the House of Commons Commission, the governing body of parliament. It would exempt MPs and peers from the FoI provisions along with MPs' correspondence. Mr Maclean insists the legislation is needed to protect communications with constituents from unauthorised disclosure. The present act does exempt MPs' correspondence, subject to a public interest test.

Leading opposition to the bill, Liberal Democrat Simon Hughes said: "It would be extremely bad politics and extremely bad law for us at this stage - when parliament is hardly the most well regarded institution in the land - to seek to exempt the Commons and the Lords from the FoI Act. The public want to know what we are doing and in particular they want to know how we spend money on their behalf. It would be regarded as beyond acceptable if we said you can't know some or all of the information about what we do."

Fellow Lib Dem Norman Baker, who successfully fought for a detailed breakdown of MPs' travel expenses, warned the bill would "make MPs in the public eye look hypocritical. It will undermine the gains in FoI, spread a culture of secrecy again through the devolved administrations, local councils and the public sector generally, and is in danger of extinguishing the flame of FoI which is flickering rather dangerously and in a very fragile way in this country." Labour's David Winnick said that by not objecting to the bill there was "a suspicion that the government is collaborating" with the bill's sponsor.

Mr Maclean said the Speaker had assured MPs that details of expenses and allowances would still be published if the bill became law. But he conceded there was nothing to stop this being reversed in the future.