Plan to require telecoms firms and ISPs retain data is result of 'secret deal between party leaders' and has 'no legal basis'

Emergency legislation to allow surveillance of phone calls, text messages and internet usage is a "stitch-up" that is going ahead without proper scrutiny, civil liberties campaigners have said.

The government claims the laws are needed to catch terrorists but the Open Rights Group condemned the plans that would require internet service providers and telecoms companies to retain communications records.

Jim Killock, its executive director, said there was "no legal basis for making internet service providers retain our data so it is using the threat of terrorism as an excuse for getting this law passed".

Ministers say the legislation is necessary because the European court of justice struck down the data retention directive for breaching the rights to privacy and protection of personal data.

"The government has had since April to address the European court of justice ruling but it is only now that organisations such as Open Rights Group threatening legal action that this has become an 'emergency'," Killock said.

"The ruling still stands and these new plans may actually increase the amount of our personal data that is retained by ISPs, further infringing on our right to privacy.

"Blanket surveillance needs to end. That is what the court has said."

Tom Watson, a prominent Labour MP who helped uncover the phone-hacking scandal, said he had "not seen the legislation and that's my concern".

He told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: "This is a secret deal between party leaders. There hasn't been a bill published and yet we find out this morning, when parliament is on one-line whip and MPs are in their constituencies, that next week they will railroad emergency legislation to put right a decision made by the European court of justice that the current legislation was beyond human rights law. Now that doesn't seem right to me.

"There are hundreds of thousands of people out there very concerned about this particular policy issue. They've not seen this bill either, but it doesn't really matter this year because there's been a deal done between the three parties and it'll be railroaded through. If you're an MP you probably shouldn't bother turning up to work next week because what you are thinking doesn't really matter."

However, the bill won support from Julian Huppert, a Lib Dem MP who campaigned against the so-called snooper's charter legislation that would have extended data retention from phone calls and text messages to internet usage. He insisted that the new laws, which will expire in 2016, do not amount to a return of the bill that was previously vetoed by Nick Clegg.

"As a Liberal, I care passionately about privacy and civil liberties, and that's why we fought so hard against the 'snooper's charter', which really went far, far too far – I was really pleased we managed to kill that off," Huppert said.

"This is not doing that. This is restoring previously existing powers with some extra safeguards so they are even more constrained, but much more importantly, because this legislation will automatically delete itself in 2016, it forces something that we in the Liberal Democrats have been arguing for for a very long time which is a complete rethink of how the entire system works – how Ripa [the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act], the legislation that underpins this, works."