The Snoopers Charter returned last night

Why not do it before the election or at least make as big an issue as possible out of it

The bill is going to return to the commons before the election so they will be.

The Lib Dems were against overly intrusive surveillance powers even when Labour home secretaries proposed them in the last government.

As far as I'm aware, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

The bill will only return to the commons if the Lords block it today or Wednesday, this is the only time they get to vote, if they don't block it, it goes for a report stage, a third reading, royal assent and becomes law as it stands with all clauses including the snoopers charter ones intact.

Consideration of amendments seems to be an optional stage as it's not scheduled on the Lords calendar.

Bill stages — Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill 2014-15

As far as I'm aware, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

The bill will only return to the commons if the Lords block it today or Wednesday, this is the only time they get to vote, if they don't block it, it goes for a report stage, a third reading, royal assent and becomes law as it stands with all clauses including the snoopers charter ones intact.

 

Consideration of amendments seems to be an optional stage as it's not scheduled on the Lords calendar.

 

Bill stages — Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill 2014-15

This page describes where the consideration of amendments fits into the process. As the Lords have made amendments they should go back to the commons for consideration. I guess if there were no amendments, there would be no need for that stage. The page does say:

If the Lords disagrees with any Commons amendments, or makes alternative proposals, then the Bill is sent back to the Commons.

 

A Bill may go back and forth between each House (‘Ping Pong’) until both Houses reach agreement.

In exceptional cases, when the two Houses do not reach agreement, the Bill falls. If certain conditions are met, the Commons can use the Parliament Acts to pass the Bill, without the consent of the Lords, in the following session.

In the later case, it won't be sorted out until after the election.

Of course we can all trust implicitly the government with our data....They have never been known to screw up yet!...Have they?

Just one instance....http://arstechnica.com/security/2007/11/uk-government-embroiled-in-massive-data-loss-fiasco/

Phew.

Thanks for that.

Theresa May is going to be brassed off.

1. Because this is going to delay the Counter Terror bill
   
2. She would actually like the Communications Data bill passed and it's going to be thrown out again
   

I think I can live with the Home Secretary being disappointed

Of course we can all trust implicitly the government with our data....They have never been known to screw up yet!...Have they?

 

Just one instance....http://arstechnica.com/security/2007/11/uk-government-embroiled-in-massive-data-loss-fiasco/

David Cameron says hoax call did not breach security

David Cameron has said a hoax call he received from someone claiming to be taking part in a high level conference call, did not "breach security".

 

The prime minister revealed he received the call on his Blackberry while out for a walk with his family.

 

Mr Cameron said he quickly hung up when he realised the caller was not genuine.

 

He told journalists "these things happened" and "no harm had been done" but that steps would be taken to "weed out" such calls in future.

 

Downing Street says it is to review security procedures after the hoax caller was put through to Mr Cameron.

Phew.

 

Thanks for that.

 

Theresa May is going to be brassed off.

1. Because this is going to delay the Counter Terror bill
   
2. She would actually like the Communications Data bill passed and it's going to be thrown out again
   

I think I can live with the Home Secretary being disappointed

That does of course assume Labour won't get cold feet in the run up to the election. The evidence of the last few Labour Home Secretaries demonstrates they normally favour giving the security services whatever they want. Fortunately, they are in embarrass Conservatives mode at the moment.

That does of course assume Labour won't get cold feet in the run up to the election. The evidence of the last few Labour Home Secretaries demonstrates they normally favour giving the security services whatever they want. Fortunately, they are in embarrass Conservatives mode at the moment.

I think the problem is that the Home Secretary of whichever party has office is rarely technically literate.

So they arrive in their office on day 1 and find the security chiefs sitting across the desk waiting, who then proceed to grind them down with horror story after horror story for day after day, none of which the new Home Sec can verify or disprove because that requires technical knowledge.

And if the new HS doesn't jump to their side immediately they can always drop hints about not being able to do their job properly and there may be another atrocity on UK soil and this would be the HS's fault for not listening and a guaranteed vote loser come the next election.

Not to mention being a department of 'dirty tricks' the security services know exactly which cupboards have skeletons in them and civil servants have been known to leave documents on trains, but I'm sure they wouldn't be so underhanded.

Incoming Home Secretaries don't really stand much chance tbh

 

Theresa May is going to be brassed off.

Is that the same lady that has still failed to appoint someone to look in to Westminster paedophile scandal?

Is that the same lady that has still failed to appoint someone to look in to Westminster paedophile scandal?

The very same....Oh and the one who mistimed getting shut of a certain cleric to America on various charges.....

Well after a few hours of wasted Lords time, Lord King who was part of the team who felt this legislation was urgent and necessary before the election simply withdrew it before a vote was taken.

Probably because of the number of objections based on the hundred or so major flaws that the original joint committee found on the original Communications Data bill.

He gave in a bit too easily for me, given how he went about adding these clauses in the first place.

My current feeling is that he's trying to get a leaked copy of the current home office version of the bill, which he hopes will address these issues, and he'll tack that on to the Counter Terror bill on Thursday while no one is looking thus forcing the government to debate it before the election.

They are having another desperate last ditched attempt:

As expected, peers are once again trying to sneak in amendments to the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill to swiftly pass a law in the UK that would gift spooks and police with sweeping powers to snoop on Brits' internet activity.

 

Amendments to the proposed law were added overnight ahead of the bill reaching the report stage in the House of Lords on Monday.

Given they backed down in the face of opposition in the Lords last week, the chances of the amendments being approved is minimal and they'd still have to be approved in the Commons.

They do seem a touch desperate to get this passed before the election, mustn't like their chances afterwards.