Freedom of Information: Open democracy under threat from Parliament

The silence is almost deafening. Why won't the Government say whether it supports or opposes a law that would exempt MPs from the scrutiny of this country's newly passed freedom of information regime? Historically the law has always regarded silence as evidence of acquiescence and it is difficult to interpret the Govern-ment's position on the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) in any other way. In the context of ministers' recent proposals to water down the right to public disclosure there is strong corroborative evidence to show that the Government would be quite happy to let a Tory MP use his Private Members' Bill do its bidding.

The Bill in question is being championed by David Maclean MP and by a parliamentary quirk it returns to the Commons today after opposition MPs talked it out of time last week. They will have to repeat their efforts today if they want to kill it off for good.

Under the Bill, the House of Commons and the House of Lords would be exempt from the FOI Act's provisions and a new exemption for all MPs' correspondence would be created. Mr Maclean says that the law is needed to protect correspondence between MPs and their constituents. "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," Mr Maclean has recently explained.

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.

But MPs and freedom of information campaigners opposed to the Bill argue that such correspondence is only disclosed when there is a strong public interest in doing so. To grant MPs and peers a blanket exemption for all correspondence would give them unfair protection and strike at the heart of open democracy.

Simon Hughes, one of four MPs who spoke against the Bill last week, described the restriction as "seriously misguided" and "extremely bad politics". He said a key benefit of the current system was that MPs were forced to be "more accountable" because their activities were in the public domain.

Maurice Frankel, of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, says that there already exists protection in the legislation to stop constituents' private correspondence being made public. The new Bill would go much further and prevent scrutiny of an MP's correspondence with public authorities. This raises the question as to whether MPs are more concerned about keeping secret any correspondence that might embarrass them if made public than with protecting the privacy of any constituent.

On all this the Government says it remains neutral, arguing the matter is for MPs to debate and resolve, not something on which ministers need to take a political stand.

So it is left to opposition MPs and freedom of expression campaigners to try to block the move. "If MPs' correspondence alone is withheld, regardless of the circumstances, while everyone else's is disclosed, we think this is likely to diminish rather than enhance the esteem in which MPs are held," says Mr Frankel.

It will undoubtedly suggest that improper lobbying (eg for unwelcome decisions to be deferred till after an election) is taking place. We hope that MPs will avoid seeking such special protection for their own role.