The Premier will have to ask for MPs' approval in order to exclude any public authority from freedom of information, under the Government's revamped bill.

The Cabinet Office was swamped with more than 500 submissions on the draft Public Access to Information (PATI) Act at the end of last year and many of the suggestions from the public have been incorporated into the rewritten legislation.

The consultation draft included a clause allowing the Premier — the Minister responsible for PATI — to make regulations, including removing a public authority from the list of those subject to freedom of information (FOI).

The bill would have allowed the Premier to do this using the negative resolution process, meaning there would be no need to get Parliament's approval.

The Royal Gazette, in its submission on the bill, asked that the affirmative resolution be applied instead and the new bill includes this provision.

This newspaper has been calling for freedom of information with our A Right To Know: Giving People Power campaign since January 2008.

The long-awaited PATI bill — which is expected to be debated and approved by MPs before Parliament breaks for the summer — will give citizens the right to ask for information held by publicly funded bodies.

Some other changes to the proposed legislation include:

• That only those resident in Bermuda will have a right to make a freedom of information request. The original draft gave "every person" that right, regardless of where they lived.

• That it is fully retrospective, as requested by hundreds of people who wrote to the Cabinet Office. A clause which said PATI would not apply to records created before the Act became law has been struck out.

• A clause which gives anyone aggrieved by a decision of the information commissioner — who will be appointed to deal with appeals from those who get their requests turned down — the right to apply for a judicial review.

• Protection against liability for public authorities and civil servants who release information under the Act. Section 63 states: "No proceedings, civil or criminal, shall be brought against any public authority, its employees or agents in respect of the disclosure or non-disclosure by any of them of any record under this Act, or any action taken or omitted to be taken under this Act, unless it is shown that the authority, employee or agent acted in bad faith."

• A rewritten section on the "deliberations of public bodies". Previously, a record would have been exempt from PATI if it consisted of information "relating to the deliberative process of a public authority", including advice, recommendations and the results of consultations. The new bill states: "A record is exempt from disclosure if it consists of information, the disclosure of which would undermine or could reasonably be expected to undermine, the deliberative process of a public authority, including free and frank discussion and provision of advice."

• Different wording in relation to records which are exempt from PATI. The legislation has been changed to say that the majority of such records "shall" be released if disclosure is in the public interest, rather than "may".

Opposition MP John Barritt, said though his party wasn't 100 percent satisfied with the bill, he was certain UBP MPs would vote for it.

"Given how long it's taken to get here, I think it's going to have to be [a case of] 'don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good'. We should support it. This is at least a foundation."

The Opposition spokesman for legislative and public administration reform said his party would probably seek some amendments on the floor of the House of Assembly.

"I still think it can be and should be improved," he said, adding that it didn't give full whistle-blower protection.

"The sort of whistle-blower protection that we wanted was protecting a civil servant who blows the whistle on wrongdoing. It's appropriate to see that in legislation like this."

Other disappointments, he added, were that the Human Rights Commission had been added to the list of judicial or quasi-judicial bodies exempt from PATI and that a clause was left in making a record exempt if "its disclosure is prohibited by any statutory provision, other than this Act".

Canadian lawyer Toby Mendel, who analysed the draft bill last year on behalf of freedom of expression campaign group Article 19, said he was pleased that so many of his suggestions had been incorporated into the new version.