Mark Fisher: The credibility of Parliament is at stake

So low is the public esteem in which MPs and Parliament are held that it takes real imagination to devise ways in which it could be lowered further. But David Maclean, a former Tory Chief Whip, has managed to do so. His Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill, if passed by the Commons on Friday, would remove Parliament from the scope of the Freedom of Information Act and exempt all communications between MPs and public bodies while expecting all other public servants, officials and authorities to abide by its provisions.

Related articles

• Leading article: Cynical and slippery behaviour

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 throws open the shutters on the workings of government and public authorities, giving people access to information and papers held by such public bodies as the police, local councils, health trusts and MPs: the right to know what is being done in their name and with their taxes. In seeking to close the parliamentary shutters on such information, Maclean's Bill will, I suspect, bring Parliament into disrepute, even provoke ridicule.

It is a Private Member's Bill, but it is being supported by the Government and Conservative front benches and by Jack Straw, the Leader of the House and the government minister who introduced the Freedom of Information Act in 2000. He claims that MPs are afraid that it could lead to the publication of MPs' correspondence which would, in his words, "drive a coach and horses through the relationship that we have with constituents". It is a phoney fear and displays a surprising lack of familiarity with the Act that he steered through Parliament.

An MP's correspondence can indeed contain information that is personally sensitive or which identifies potential criminal offences, but the Freedom of Information Act already contains several exemptions to prevent such disclosures. Any personal data whose disclosure would breach the Data Protection Act is exempt (Section 40 (2)), as is anything that would be a breach of confidence (Section 41), while Sections 30-31 prevent disclosure of any information, for instance about potential drug dealers, that would prevent the detection of a crime, or identify an informant.

Richard Thomas, the excellent Information Commissioner, has been unable to identify a single example of such letters being obtained under the Freedom of Information Act nor has his office received any complaints or queries about this from Members of Parliament. David Maclean is knocking down an Aunt Sally of his own making. Why?

The answer may lie in the way in which the Freedom of Information Act has led to the publication of MPs' expenses, for travel, research and office costs, and the publicity that local media have given to these. MPs, particularly those in marginal seats, are very sensitive to any press articles that, however unfairly, give the impression that they are claiming excessive expenses.

David Maclean's Bill removes both Houses of Parliament from the Act, but he has attempted to give an assurance on expenses. Even if technically or legally we will not have to publish information, the view of Mr Speaker is that we should continue to do so. In short, Parliament will exempt itself in law but, graciously, will publish its expenses of its own volition. But such assurances carry no legal weight. With legislation it is what is on the face of the Bill that is important.

The Government and the official Opposition support Maclean's Bill because neither has ever been an enthusiast for the right to know. Tony Blair honoured the commitments to introduce freedom of information legislation given by Neil Kinnock and John Smith, but he was never convinced that it was a good idea.

This Bill is being quietly smuggled through Parliament. Because of a procedural sleight of hand, it was not debated at second reading; it received one hour's scrutiny in standing committee, during which, so carefully selected was the membership of the committee, that not a single MP spoke against it; and when it returned to the floor of the House on report on 20 April, neither Mr Maclean nor any of his supporters chose to defend or justify the Bill.

Much is at stake. This small Bill, only one page, two clauses and 27 lines in length, will severely damage the credibility and effectiveness of the freedom of information regime. Why should doctors, civil servants, the police and head teachers, abide by the Freedom of Information Act if MPs exempt themselves? What respect can the public have for MPs who set themselves above the laws that they pass: who say, in effect, you must abide by freedom of information legislation, but we will not.

The Maclean Bill sets a test for Gordon Brown and David Cameron. Neither of them has yet commented on it in public. They should bear in mind the words of John Smith when he was the Leader of the Opposition in 1995: "Democracy should be revitalised to protect the fundamental rights of every citizen ... Government made open, accountable, and close to the people it serves. That is why the next Labour government must legislate for Freedom of Information."

Here is their opportunity to put into practice their fine words on creating a more open, transparent society. If this Bill is pushed through the Commons on Friday, the credibility of Parliament, as much as the future of freedom of information, is at risk.

The writer is MP for Stoke-on-Trent and chair of Parliament First