Two Sussex MPs have come under fire for voting to exempt Parliament from anti-secrecy laws.

They say they are protecting the privacy of their constituents' correspondence. Others say they are simply protecting their backs.

When Lewes MP Norman Baker asked for a detailed breakdown of MPs' travel expenses back in 2005, his request was rejected by the Commons authorities.

Mr Baker wanted the public to know which MPs preferred environmentally friendlier forms of transport like trains and bicycles and which had put in claims for a succession of long-haul flights.

The Lib Dem believed disclosing the information would make Parliament more accountable.

Parliament, or at least the officials who run it, disagreed. They spent two years and more than £17,000 fighting a legal battle to keep the information secret.

But Mr Baker persisted and, using the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act, forced the authorities to release the information, which was finally published this February.

The fact the authorities fought tooth and nail to maintain the secrecy surrounding MPs' travel expenses is one reason Mr Baker is suspicious of claims that exempting Parliament from the FoI Act would do no harm to the cause of open government.

But that is exactly what MPs voted for on Friday, when 96 of them - including two from Sussex - helped the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill clear its final Commons hurdle.

It is not yet known whether the backbench Bill, which now moves to the House of Lords for further consideration, will make it on to the statute books.

What is clear is that, had it been in place when Mr Baker submitted his initial request, the House authorities would not have been compelled to publish a detailed account of MPs' travel expenses.

Instead, they could have - and surely would have - sent Mr Baker packing. The Bill's supporters, who include Brighton Kemptown MP Des Turner and Crawley MP Laura Moffatt, said it was needed to protect the confidentiality of their correspondence with constituents.

They insisted their expenses would still be published fully on an annual basis.

Ms Moffatt has even written to the Speaker of the House of Commons "for assurances that I can release a breakdown of all my expenses and make them public".

But, as Mr Baker has pointed out, promises to release information in the future are "no substitute for a legislative requirement".

Such promises could also be reversed by a future Commons Speaker.

Critics of the Bill say MPs' correspondence is already safeguarded by data protection law and claim the real aim is to block embarrassing disclosures about their spending habits.

Dr Turner spoke from W a s h i n g t o n y e s t e r d a y where he is delivering a dossier prepared by The Argus o n Brighton G u a n - tanamo detainee Omar Deghayes to the American government.

He said: "I did not vote for this Bill out of concern for the publication of MPs' parliamentary expenses - these are a matter of public record in any case.

"What I am concerned about is the privacy of my constituents when corresponding with outside agencies. Many of my constituents are extremely vulnerable and I do not want there to be any risk of their correspondence with my office being prejudiced."

Ms Moffatt, breaking her silence over her decision to back the controversial Bill, told The Argus: "My reason for voting for the Bill was to protect my constituents, not to prevent the release of any information regarding Parliamentary expenses.

"I'm completely and utterly comfortable with this and I'm really angry that Norman Baker is making the accusation that all I'm interested in is protecting my back on expenses." Ms Moffatt cited the case of a noisy neighbour of one of her Crawley constituents, who was able to identify the complainant from information released by the council. Crawley Borough Council said yesterday the law prevented it from releasing personal details of individuals.

"One case in which it had "inadvertently"

released information in error had been resolved with an apology.

A spokesman said: "The council has to comply fully with provisions of FoI and Data Protection Act.

"We have never had any complaints go to the Information Commissioner about the release of personal details."

In fact, the Information Commissioner, who handles grievances about the FoI, has not received a single complaint from an MP's constituent about the inappropriate release of correspondence, according to Mr Baker.

The Campaign for Freedom of Information has said excluding Parliament from the FoI Act would have no effect on the treatment of constituency correspondence because such correspondence is held by individual MPs and the authorities with whom they correspond, rather than Parliament.

Mr Baker, who described Friday's vote as "a terrible day for parliamentary democracy", has accused the Labour and Conservative parties of collaborating to push the Bill through the Commons while claiming to be officially neutral over its fate.

His last hope - shared by many supporters of open government - is that peers will be able to wreck the "odious" piece of legislation when it comes before the Lords in June or July.

  • What do you think? Leave your views below.