The government's plans to disconnect file sharers from the internet have come in for heavy criticism in parliament, amid claims that ministers are attempting to rush legislation through without proper oversight.

In a marathon House of Lords debate over the Digital Economy bill, several members launched into strong criticisms of the proposals and said there had been an "extraordinary degree of lobbying" from copyright holders to try and push them into law quickly.

One of the most pressing issues is the so-called "three strikes rule" - which would allow anyone accused three times of copyright infringement to have their internet connection "suspended" for an unspecified period.

As well as concerns that the process does not give those accused of illegal activity proper legal recourse, some also fear that such a rule could hurt organisations such as libraries, internet cafes and universities which offer free internet access.

Responding to such claims, Lord Young, who is sponsoring the bill alongside Lord Mandelson, said that nobody could be excluded from the law - and that business and organisations should take "proportionate and reasonable measures" to prevent illegal activity.

"No one wants to see libraries or universities the subject of court action or technical measures if—I stress this—they are ever introduced," he said.

"No one wants to see legitimate businesses suffer as a consequence of the actions of their customers but, equally, it cannot be right that they are totally excluded from the provisions of the bill."

He suggested that all those potentially affected by the law should issue terms of service which placed the liability for file sharing on the user, rather than the wireless hotspot owner. He added that technical solutions could be used to block high bandwidth activity - such as downloading movies - or to screen out file sharing applications.

A number of other concerns were also raised during the debate, including the news that the government does not intend to pass the bill to the Office of the Information Commissioner, Britain's privacy watchdog, for oversight.

Lord Young said this was an unnecessary step - despite serious concerns about privacy implications of some - because it would simply cause more delays to prevent further delays in passing it into law.

"Formally requiring the information commissioner to approve the code is not necessary and could add significantly to the time for the approval process," he said.

This angered a number of those present, including Lord Puttnam - who accused the government of attempting to rush through legislation without giving it time for proper discussion. Such a move, he said, could result in the production of laws which would later require a hasty rewrite.

"What will end up leaving this chamber... and going to the Commons is a bill that none of us is particularly proud of," he said. "It will be a spatchcock that does part of the work it was intended to do but not all of it."

He also mentioned the "extraordinary degree of lobbying" that those involved in drafting had come up against, amid rising tension and conflicts between creative industries, internet service providers and consumer rights groups.

"I am absolutely convinced that, within the next two or three years, there will be another bill before this house which will be created to deal with the deficiencies of the present bill," he said.

Critics of the bill have regularly attacked it since the first first put forward last November, but they remain concerned that the reading the Lords could fail to erase all the problems.

The Open Rights Group, which campaigns for consumer rights online, said that some of the most controversial elements of the bill looked set to be removed, but the situation around disconnection and open wireless access remained unsatisfactory.

"We have won some significant concessions," said Jim Killock, ORG's executive director.

Meanwhile, internet service provider TalkTalk, which has been vociferous in its opposition to the plans, has said it remains wholly opposed to the scheme. Last week it said that the government was playing a game of "semantics".

"The Digital Economy bill will give rights holders the power to act as a judge and jury, allowing them to demand that ISPs disconnect their customers without having to prove their case in a court of law," it said.

The reading of the bill will continue this week.

