The government's plans to massively ramp up surveillance of Brits' Internet activity could severely hinder the UK's tech sector due to a lack of clarity on costs, MPs and peers have warned.

Objections to the collection and storing of so-called Internet connection records (ICRs) have also been raised by members sitting on the cross-party science and technology committee. Among other things, politicos on the panel are concerned about the vague definitions used by the Home Office in its draft Investigatory Powers Bill (aka the Snooper's Charter). “There remain questions about the feasibility of collecting and storing ICRs, including concerns about ensuring security for the records from hackers," said the committee's chair, Tory MP Nicola Balckwood.

She added: "The bill was intended to provide clarity to the industry, but the current draft contains very broad and ambiguous definitions of ICRs, which are confusing communications providers. This must be put right for the bill to achieve its stated security goals.”

MPs and peers held a one-off evidence session in November last year, where they examined potential technology issues relating to the government's proposed Investigatory Powers Bill. They heard from a range of witnesses, including academics, telecoms experts, and ex-GCHQ chief David Omand—who not only defended Whitehall's latest bid for more online surveillance powers, but said he would have gone further and demanded a full "weblog" of Brits' Internet activity. By "weblog" he means a full log of someone's activity online.

However, the committee said on Monday morning that the bill, in its current form, was peppered with "poorly defined" terms, which needed to be refined to give communications providers in the UK clarity about how such legislation would work in real-world scenarios.

“The government must work with industry to improve estimates of all of the compliance costs associated with the measures in the draft bill," the panel added.

The Home Office has repeatedly argued that its proposed law needed to remain "technology neutral" in order that it can stand the test of time, but such claims have been blasted by network operators who say that the lack of clarity on the face of the bill could lead to surveillance powers being easily extended.

Theresa May's department also submitted written evidence to the committee in an apparent move to clear up confusion about some of the more contentious definitions in the draft bill.

However, the Home Office has failed to convince parliamentarians on the science and technology committee. Blackwood said: "there are still many unanswered questions about how this legislation will work in the fast evolving world of communications technology."

In particular, the panel not only highlighted concerns about definitions in the proposed law, but it also flagged up a lack of clarity on spooks' hacking into equipment, codes of practice, and end-to-end encryption. "It is essential that the integrity and security of legitimate online transactions is maintained if we are to trust in, and benefit from, the opportunities of an increasingly digital economy. The government needs to do more to allay unfounded concerns that encryption will no longer be possible," Blackwood said.

Ars sought comment from the Home Office on this story. Security minister John Hayes said:

We are mindful of the need for legislation to provide law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies with the powers they need to deal with the serious threats to our country in the modern age, subject to strict safeguards and world-leading oversight arrangements. The government will introduce its final proposals to Parliament in the Spring with a view to the bill becoming law before the end of the year. I welcome the full, open and frank consideration of the powers at the heart of this legislation so vital to our national interest.

The Home Office also reiterated that the bill would not weaken encryption, or lead to back doors being inserted into tech products. "We are not asking or requiring companies to weaken encryption but to retain the ability to remove electronic protection," May's department said.

A separate committee of MPs and peers have been examining the draft Investigatory Powers Bill, to determine whether they think the government's demands for greater surveillance powers can be deemed proportionate to the threats British citizens face from terrorism and serious crime. It will report its findings no later than February 11.