2.00pm BST

David Cameron (left) and Nick Clegg at their press conference. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/AP

• David Cameron has said that failing to pass emergency surveillance legislation published today would increase the chances of Britain being hit by a terrorist attack. At a news conference where he and Nick Clegg defended the data retention and investigation powers bill, which will be rushed through parliament next week with cross-party support (because Labour back it too), Cameron said:

We face real and credible threats to our security from serious and organised crime, from the activity of paedophiles, from the collapse of Syria, the growth of Isis in Iraq and al Shabab in East Africa. I am simply not prepared to be a prime minister who has to address the people after a terrorist incident and explain that I could have done more to prevent it.

In a statement about the bill in the Commons, Theresa May, the home secretary, also explicitly said, twice, that lives could be lost if MPs failed to pass the legislation.

• Cameron indicated that he wanted to revive the so-called "snoopers' charter" after the general election. At his press conference, and in his news release, he stressed the limited scope of today's bill. But, at the news conference, he also said that in the future more wide-ranging legislation was needed.

The time to debate what more we might need to do, we've agreed, is for the future. My own very strong view is that we need to ask ourselves this simple question: Do we want as a country to leave a means of communications for paedophiles, terrorists and other serious criminals to communicate with each other than in extremis we cannot intercept. My own view is that, No, we don't. Governments up to now have always taken the view, whether it's to do with the mail, whether it's to do with fixed telephony, whether it's to do with mobile phones, that in extremis, to keep the country safe, there are occasions when you need to be able to intercept those communications. I believe that, as technology develops, we will have, over time, to do more to make sure that we don't give paedophiles, terrorists and criminals another way of communicating that we can't, in extremis, intercept. But that debate is for the future. That debate is not for today. Today is simply about maintaining the existing capabilities that we have.

• David Anderson, the government's independent reviewer of terror legislation, is to chair a wide-ranging review of surveillance legislation. Alongside the data retention bill, the government has also announced a series of new measures "to increase transparency and oversight", including a review covering the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. May told MPs Anderson would led this, that he would produce a report before the election (to help the next government legislate) and that he would get the resources he needed to enable him to do the job properly. The Lib Dems and Labour have also welcomed this review, but it is clear that different parties have different expectations. The Tories want the review to pave the way for a revival of the "snoopers' charter" (see above). The Lib Dems, by contrast, hope it will safeguard liberties.

• Cameron has said that he hopes that future changes to internet surveillance laws will be agreed by consensus.

I think this Ripa review that David Anderson and the cross-party can look at may help to build some more consensus. I think it is important to try and proceed on the basis of consensus. I don't want this very difficult and sensitive area to be subject to a whole lot of party-political ding-dong. I don't think that would be good for our country. I don't think that would be good for our security.

(Fat chance, some might say.)

• Clegg has insisted that today's bill does not amount to a revival of the "snoopers' charter". This is what he told the press conference.

Crucially, this bill has nothing to do with the so-called ‘snoopers' charter’. That was a Home Office proposal to store every website you’ve ever visited for a whole year. I blocked that last year, and I’ve blocked every further attempt to bring it back

• Ministers have announced MPs will get just one day to debate all stages of the data retention bill. It will go through the Commons on Tuesday. The Lords will debate it on Wednesday and Thursday, and any Lords amendments will be considered by MPs on Thursday evening. The government says the bill must be on the statute book before the summer recess, which starts the following week.

• Some MPs have strongly criticised the government for rushing the bill through parliament. In the Commons Labour's Tom Watson said the rushed timetable was a mistake. Addressing May, he said:

I have no doubt the home secretary will get her Bill through, but the price will be a perception that it is as a result of a last-minute deal between elites with little scrutiny by parliament or civic society and that the rushed legislation might unravel ... British people aren't stupid and they aren't ideological when it comes to this kind of thing. Why can they not have time to discuss it with their elected representatives?

But the Conservative MP Philip Hollobone said the Lib Dems were to blame for the fact that the bill was only being published now. And, in the Lords, Lord West, security minister in the last Labour government, said the Lib Dems should be "ashamed" that they did not support May's original communications data bill (aka, the "snoopers' charter). If they had, there would be no need for this bill, he said.

• Cameron has said the bill is needed to avert two "cliff edge" crises that could damage national security within the next few weeks. First, without a new law on data retention, phone companies might start destroying records currently used by the police in 95% of serious crime investigations.

Unless we act now companies will no longer retain the data about who contacted who, where and when, and we will no longer be able to use this information to bring criminals to justice and keep our country safe.

And, second, he said without legislation on investigation powers, phone and internet companies might start very soon refusing to respond to demands for intercept data.

Some companies are already saying they can no longer work with us unless UK law is clarified immediately. Sometimes in the dangerous world in which we live we need our security services to listen to someone's phone and read their emails to identify and disrupt a terrorist plot. As prime minister I know of examples where doing this has stopped a terrorist attack.

• Cameron has said that the transparency safeguards being introduced alongside the bill will reduce the number of organisations that can access communications information using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. "Organisations like the Royal Mail, the Charity Commission, the pensions regulator among more than a dozen bodies that will lose access to this data," he said. Clegg said that in future councils wanting to access data via Ripa would no longer be able to aproach phone companies directly. Instead, they would have to go through a central body, he said.

• Civil liberty campaigners have accused the government of trying to circumvent a European court of justice ruling that declared current data retention practices illegal. (See 9.41am and 12.39pm.)

• Clegg has said that he favours having an opposition politician always chair the intelligence and security committee. This is Labour's position too. Clegg and Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, say this would bolster public confidence in the ISC. Cameron rejected this proposal, although he said recent changes meant the ISC's chair was now elected by its members, which meant an opposition MP could become chair.