Updated @ 19:14 GMT, March 15: MPs voted in favour of the second reading of the Investigatory Powers Bill on Tuesday evening by 281 votes to 15—a majority of 266 votes, after Labour and the SNP confirmed they were abstaining from the vote earlier today.

Original story

Labour and the SNP have declined to vote in the second parliamentary reading of Home Secretary Theresa May's controversial Investigatory Powers Bill.

However, while such a move might be interpreted by the parties as an attempt to derail the government's efforts to fast-track the proposed legislation, many observers will argue that such a woolly tactic doesn't go far enough.

A debate on the latest bid for a so-called Snoopers' Charter has been taking place in the House of Commons this afternoon.

May took to the despatch box at lunchtime on Tuesday to lay out the government's case for seeking to legislate a massive ramping up of surveillance of Brits' online activity, by claiming—in response to earlier concerns about "generalised access to electronic communications contents"—that "we are not talking about looking at people's web browsing history, we are simply looking at the point of contact." The home secretary told MPs:

It is absolutely possible—and we have been talking at length with the companies—to be able to separate in Internet connection records, for example, the device or website that a particular device has accessed, and not then go into the content of whatever it is that is being looked at in relation to that.

May was keen to underscore what she said were clear gaps in current surveillance powers. "It doesn’t make sense that where communication takes place using social media or communications apps, those communications are currently out of reach." She added that the lack of such a capability for police and spooks made it impossible to identify sex abusers, for example.

"Such an approach defers logic and it ignores the realities of today’s digital age," she argued. "The only new power in the bill is for communication service providers to retain ICRs [Internet connection records] when served with a notice issued by the secretary of state, and after consultation with the provider in question."

She added that the home office had spent a long time consulting with tech companies over the powers demanded within the Bill, which led to Tory MP Nicola Blackwood, who is the chair of the science and technology committee interjecting to raise outstanding concerns:

Despite the commitments that have been made from the despatch box, we need to have long-term certainty for the tech sector regarding reimbursement of costs. These are questions which will be central to delivering a coherent piece of tech legislation which is fit for a fast-moving area of our economy.

May claimed that "100 percent of the compliance costs will be met by the government," before noting that "it’s not possible for one government to bind the hands of any future government in these areas, but we're very clear in terms of the legislation and what I’m saying on the floor of the house."

In other words, as the Bill is currently written, there is scope for this to be changed at a later date. Which of course means this could even happen under May's current tenure, regardless of promises made in parliament today.

Another concern raised by Blackwood was the "uncertainty regarding encryption." However, May failed to immediately comment on this topic.

She later told the house that copies of communications in an intelligible form were an essential tool for cops and spies. May added—citing part 9, clause 217 of IPB—"this provision only maintains the status quo. It allows law enforcement, and the security and intelligence agencies to ask companies to remove encryption that they have applied, or that has been applied on their behalf. It would not, and under the bill, could not be used to ask companies to do anything that it is not reasonably practical for them to do."

Opposition not willing to sink Investigatory Powers Bill

Labour's shadow home secretary told MPs that his party had no plans to "drag [the Bill] down." Instead it demanded six "significant" changes to May's draft law to get it on the statute book by December.

He challenged May's claim that privacy had been "hard-wired" into her revised Bill, and said privacy "should be at the heart" of the proposed legislation. Burnham added that Labour was concerned about proportionality, and said there was a lack of clarity on ICRs—which need "a much stricter definition on the face of the Bill"—alongside a reduced list of agencies that can access those records.

Burnham agreed that bulk powers were necessary, but questioned the operational case put forward by the home office. He said that judicial oversight needed to be even stronger in the bill. And, finally, the shadow home secretary called for "overarching" criminal offences to be created where powers are misused by those officials who are granted access to the surveillance data.

Burnham told the house:

This Bill isn’t yet good enough. Simply to block this legislation would in my view be irresponsible […] We will not be voting for this Bill because it is some way from being good enough, and if the government fails to respond adequately to the concerns I have raised, then I give notice to them tonight that we will withdraw our support for the timetabling of this Bill. It as simple as that. I think the public interest lies in getting this right and in not sacrificing quality to meet the deadline.

The Scottish National Party's justice and home affairs spokesperson Joanna Cherry agreed with Labour's decision to abstain from the vote. She said May's proposed law was "a Bill of dubious legality," and added that the SNP would seek to amend the planned legislation "significantly" during the committee reading.

LibDem MP, and former deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg—who refused to support May's previous incarnation of a Snoopers' Charter during his time in the coalition government—told politicos that "parliamentary consent should be withheld."