Leading article: Cynical and slippery behaviour

Tomorrow there will be a vote in the House of Commons, the outcome of which will establish whether the cockpit of our democracy is a chamber of honourable public servants or self-interested time-servers. The vote in question will be on a proposed amendment to the Freedom of Information Act that would exempt all MPs' communications from public scrutiny.

Related articles

• Mark Fisher: The credibility of Parliament is at stake

This began life as a Private Member's Bill, proposed by the Tory MP David Maclean. But the Government has been quietly facilitating its progress, despite the fact that it would water down one of its flagship pieces of legislation. Labour's parliamentary committee has urged its MPs to support the Bill. And the Commons leader, Jack Straw, has signalled his support for it too.

What grounds are there for this exemption? The only justification that has been put forward for the exclusion of Parliament from the Act is that it is necessary to protect the privacy of constituents. Of course, no one would want a sensitive letter to a local MP to become public. But the Act already contains exemptions to prevent this happening. Disclosures that would contravene the Data Protection Act, or that would constitute a breach of confidence, are prohibited.

We can only conclude that the real reason so many MPs seem willing to back this amendment is that they dislike the idea of having their activities scrutinised in the same manner as other public servants.

Another consequence of the amendment would be to stop further details of MPs' expenses being released. MPs fought a long battle to prevent their travel expenses being brought to light under the terms of the Act. They were unsuccessful, and the information was made public earlier this year after a final ruling by the Information Tribunal. Other judgments by the tribunal on MPs' expenses are pending. MPs seem to be using legislation to head off further embarrassment. In short, this is an amendment designed to protect MPs, not their constituents.

And then there is the symbolism of this vote. It is quite incredible that MPs should be so brazen about their attempts to exempt themselves from an article of legislation they voted for and which has been in operation for only two years. Do they not realise how cynical this looks? This kind of slippery behaviour is one of the reasons the public level of distrust in politicians is so high.

Last week Gordon Brown pledged to make government "more open and accountable". Let us be clear: the passing of this amendment would have precisely the opposite effect. More than that, it would become a lasting stain on the integrity of the House of Commons.