MPs took a big step towards shielding themselves from freedom of information requests yesterday as a move to exempt Parliament from disclosure laws cleared the Commons at the second attempt.

Legislation to remove MPs and peers from the legal duty to release information on request now passes to the House of Lords, where it will be the subject of a presummer battle.

With signs of tacit support from the Government and Conservative front bench, it will need an alliance of Liberal Democrats, crossbenchers and backbench Labour and Tory peers to stop it.

Right-to-know campaigners reacted with dismay after the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Act, which was presumed doomed after a handful of MPs talked it out in the Commons last month, was forced through by MPs after a classic parliamentary duel.

Maurice Frankel, of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, afterwards accused MPs of giving themselves protection they denied to those they represented and accused Ministers of secretly colluding with its Tory sponsor to let it pass.

“I cannot believe that a Government that is serious about freedom of information would have allowed that to happen,” Mr Frankel told The Times.

It follows moves by ministers to restrict the use of freedom of information powers by limiting the requests campaign groups and journalists may submit in order to curb administrative costs, although there have since been signs of a rethink.

During an ill-tempered debate of four and a half hours, with opponents and supporters using arcane procedural tricks to delay its progress or hasten its passage, its backers faced accusations of using a pretext to put themselves above the law.

David Maclean, the former Conservative Chief Whip who introduced the measure as a Private Member’s Bill, argued that it would prevent MPs’ letters raising confidential concerns of constituents being released by councils, health trusts or other public bodies. Mr Maclean, a member of the Commission that runs the House of Commons, said there were cases of this happening, even though officials should not release such information without consent.

Critics said that data protection legislation should already prevent such incidents, urging better enforcement, and that there was a hidden agenda to exempt Parliament from releasing other information such as MPs’ expenses. MPs have been forced into disclosing details of how much they claim on taxis, trains, flights and other transport after the previous practice of publishing a single figure for each MP’s travel expenses was challenged using freedom of information powers.

Mr Maclean pointed out that the Speaker, Michael Martin, had pledged to continue publishing details of MPs’ expenses. But opponents, led by the Labour MP Mark Fisher, said that such a voluntary offer did not carry the force of law. “People will be aghast and horrified and totally contemptuous of Parliament that we could place ourselves above the law in this country,” Mr Fisher said. “We are going to bring this House into derision, contempt and discredit with this Bill.”

Unusually for a Friday, when typically a small number of MPs debate backbench Bills, 144 took part in the first of a series of votes, many of them government supporters. A group of Lib Dems tried to delay the debate by presenting armfuls of petitions, followed by speeches, but were soon stopped. The motion was carried by 113 votes to 27. During the debate Bridget Prentice, the Justice Minister, said the Government was neutral and did not vote herself.

Staying hidden

— Incidents of internal security lapses with contractors or protesters in Parliament

— Cases of unauthorised access to MPs or ministers’ offices in Commons

— Discoveries or reports of safety shortcomings in the parliamentary estate

— Wasteful spending on construction projects in the Commons or Lords

— Extragavant use of public funds for hospitality, lavish wallpaper or similar

Source: Campaign for Freedom of Information

Times Recommends

• 6 reasons not to give gifts this Christmas
• Remembrance Day: All the lonely heroes