text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill - MPs' expenses
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  <p>Shortly after the MPs lost their fight[1] to prevent disclosure of their expenses under the Freedom of Information Act,[2] they debated a change in the law that would have taken away the public's right to know anything about the internal workings of Parliament or see any correspondence between MPs and any other parts of Government.[3]</p>
  
  <p>Owing to the political difficulty in taking away the public's right to see the MPs' travel expenses, assurances had were given that they would continue to be published, even if all other information was to become private.[4]   However, a majority of MPs voted against stating this assurance as obligation under the law.[5]</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li> [1] <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2007-04-20b.554.4">Norman Baker MP</a> (20 April 2007)</li>
  <li> [2] <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2007-04-20b.551.3#g565.2">David Winnick MP</a> (20 April 2007)</li>
  <li> [3] <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/039/07039.i-i.html#NewClause">Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill</a> to the <a href="http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00036--p.htm#sch1">Freedom of Information Act 2000</a></li>
  <li> [4] <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2007-04-20b.554.2">Andrew Dismore MP</a> (20 April 2007)</li>
  <li> [5] <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2007-04-20b.551.3#g551.4">Clause 1 â Exemption of House of Commons and House of Lords</a>, Simon Hughes MP (20 April 2007).</li>
  </ul>
  
  
  
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  