

The Snoopers’ Charter: Shameful Opportunism - MarcScott
https://paulbernal.wordpress.com/2015/01/23/the-snoopers-charter-shameful-opportunism/

======
jsnathan
Wonderful summary of the arguments that can be used to defeat this amendment
on the floor. I hope we can collectively make many of the British MPs aware of
the situation and help to stop this legislation from going forward.

The actionable part of the EFF's article is at [1]. It's a list of Twitter
accounts of British politicians that you can contact directly to make them
aware of this.

[1]: [https://act.eff.org/action/tell-britain-s-lords-don-t-let-
th...](https://act.eff.org/action/tell-britain-s-lords-don-t-let-the-snooper-
s-charter-sneak-past-you)

------
dazbradbury
Not my post, but a comment that potentially explains what's happening here and
provides an interesting viewpoint:

"I am a former parliamentary assistant with experience working on complex and
controversial legislation. I do not think this is a bona fide attempt to pass
the amendments.

1\. Generally, the government lays amendments it actually wants to pass in the
name of the minister leading on the bill. In this instance that's Lord Bates.
He's put lots of other amendments on the list[1] but not this one.

2\. In bill committees, MPs and peers often table amendments that they are not
trying to pass. They do this to secure debating time, argue about the
principles, and occasionally extract commitments from the government. They get
the chance to make speeches and then withdraw the amendments without them ever
going to a vote. I suspect the four peers who tabled this are trying to kick
start a cross-bench movement in favour of stronger security laws. They'll use
their chance to make speeches and then withdraw their amendment. (EDIT: They
have since made clear that this is an earnest attempt to legalise the powers
but as noted above, they are raising this without any co-operation with the
government. Source[2].)

3\. Even if this is a genuine attempt to insert this language, it is a highly
irregular way to go about it and I would bet against it surviving a vote.
Peers are very aware of the role they play in making legislation and they know
they aren't supposed to ram in controversial language like this. It's for the
elected members in the Commons, who have the democratic mandate, to make the
crucial decisions and for the Lords to focus on technical elements. This would
not go down well. In the Lords, the whole House votes at Committee stage. This
means hundreds of peers, who are independently minded and relatively difficult
to whip, would get to express their view. I would not expect them to let this
by.

4\. Even if it survived the committee, the Bill needs to go back to the
Commons, in a process known as "ping pong". The new clauses would almost
certainly be defeated by MPs because the Lib Dems would be whipped against
it[3], depriving the government of its majority, and Labour has already said
it won't support it either[4]. The numbers just aren't there. I am not close
to this issue and could not tell you what they are trying to do. This is all
guess work. But it really does not look like a genuine attempt by the
government, and I wouldn't say it stands much of a chance."

Sources:

Post:
[http://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/2te41m/lords_...](http://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/2te41m/lords_sneak_uk_internet_snooping_law_into_bill/cnyixgp)

[1] -
[http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2014-20...](http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2014-2015/0075/amend/ml075-II.htm)

[2] - [http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/22/snoopers-
char...](http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/22/snoopers-charter-
changed-version-pass-before-election)

[3] - [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-
politics-30870442](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30870442)

[4] - [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/11/ed-miliband-
sno...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/11/ed-miliband-snoopers-
charter-paris-attacks)

