Controversial legislation to exempt MPs and peers from freedom of information laws cleared a major parliamentary hurdle yesterday.

Opponents failed to block further progress on the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill, which secured its third reading by 96 votes to 25.

The bill, which will exempt MPs from being forced to reveal information about themselves under the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act, will not apply to Scotland's Parliament, thus creating a division in the openness of the two jurisdictions.

MSPs, who have been forced to reveal taxi receipts and expenses bills since the legislation was introduced in Scotland in January 2005, will still be subject to scrutiny under the act.

However, the bill introduced by David Maclean, the Tory former chief whip, now passes to the Lords. It will need the support of the Lords if it is to become law, but peers do not generally vote against backbench legislation.

Its supporters say it will protect the confidentiality of correspondence between MPs and constituents. But opponents warn the real aim is to block embarrassing disclosures about expenses and allowances.

Kevin Dunion, Scottish Information Commissioner, said he was pleased to see MSPs still adhering to the act, unlike elected members south of the border. He said MSPs should be proud that they have not exempted themselves.

"If these changes were to take place there would be a significantly different regime north and south of the border," he said. "Scottish MPs and MPs from England writing to their local authorities would be subject to quite different outcomes.

"None of the cases we have dealt with has anything to do with MPs' correspondence, and why they need to take the whole of Parliament outside of the act seems draconian."

Mr Maclean insisted his bill was not intended to strike a general blow against transparency laws. But he had been alerted to the "growing problem" of correspondence being released.

Amid increasingly heated - and often personal - exchanges, Bridget Prentice, the constitutional affairs minister, said it was for MPs to decide whether the act was robust enough. She said she would not be voting on amendments or the bill's third reading.

However, senior Labour MP David Winnick condemned it as a "squalid" measure. He said: "I believe it is wrong. I believe it is against the interest of Parliament. I believe we are in danger of bringing ourselves into disrepute."

Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, said: "This has been a shameful day for the House of Commons - MPs should set an example of open government, not apply it to everybody but ourselves."

He appealed to the House of Lords to "deliver" MPs from "this terrible mistake".

A cross-party group of MPs battled for five hours to kill the bill, using every procedural tactic in the book to eat up the parliamentary time available.

These included presenting a series of petitions, debating amendments at length, raising points of order and taking multiple interventions.

Both the government and the Conservative front bench insist their position is "neutral" but both have given tacit support in previous votes.

In the Lords, Lord Baker condemned as "scandalous" Mr Maclean's bid to exempt both houses from the act.