THE majority of MPs who voted to exempt themselves from the Freedom of Information Act undoubtedly had genuine motives.

They weren't interested in concealing their expenses, allowances or foreign trips. They were interested in protecting their constituents - often innocent, vulnerable people - from having their names and problems made public.

This is understandable and laudable. But exempting all MPs from the FoI is completely the wrong way to go about it.

MPs say that the problem arises when they write to their local authorities about a sensitive issue, say the way a domestic violence case is being handled. The local authority subsequently receives a request under the FoI from a third party (for example, a newspaper) asking for details about its domestic violence policy. The authority opens its files - and the name in the MP's letter becomes public.

But this protection could have been afforded in other ways. It is in the public interest for the identity of a victim of domestic violence to be protected, so the implementation of the FoI could have been amended to address this.

Or the Data Protection Act, which is designed to prevent personal information being made public, could have been utilised.

Instead, we will have a blanket ban which hides away all MPs' activities. Local authorities will not now release MPs' correspondence; they are not even obliged to let it be known that an MP has even been in correspondence. So, say on a contentious planning issue, the public no longer even has the right to know if their MP has intervened.

This reintroduction of secrecy will only increase scepticism about MPs and their activities. Parliament, of all places, cannot have dark corners where the light cannot be shone.

This will be truly a backward step. A point of principle will be diminished.

The public will also be disappointed to see how few MPs were in the chamber to discuss such a point of principle - just 145 out of 646, although this is three times as many as are usually present for Private Members' Bills on a Friday.

The Bill now goes to the House of Lords. How ironic it will be if the old-fashioned fuddy-duddies in that place prevent the MPs from shutting down such a modern and open piece of legislation.