The Data Retention and Investigatory Power Bill will become law after passing all its parliamentary stages in just three days.

The bill - which requires internet and phone and companies to retain customers' communications data - was drafted in response to a European Court of Justice ruling that an EU directive obliging firms to store data for up to two years infringed human right.

It comes in response to an April ruling by the European Court of Justice, which the Home Office insists throws doubt on existing regulations and could mean communications companies begin deleting vital data used to investigate and prosecute serious crimes.

The bill, which is broadly supported by all three main parties, cleared the Commons after an extended sitting and was given an unopposed second reading in the Lords.

But peers continued their criticism about the speed with which the Bill is being pushed through Parliament as they debated the bill's final stages in parliament.

Liberal Democrat Lord Phillips of Sudbury said a huge number of people were "extremely unhappy" about the bill and the manner in which it had been brought forward.

In committee stage debate, he said leading libertarian groups and the Law Society were unhappy about the proceedings and procedures adopted.

Lord Phillips warned that the Bill "blasts a huge hole in the normal protections" that citizens had over their communications.

But Home Office minister Lord Taylor of Holbeach said the legislation merely maintained the status quo while putting in additional safeguards.

The government was "approaching a cliff edge" on collecting data, he warned

"A failure to legislate could result in a damaging loss of capability," he told peers.

Peers had tried to insert a clause calling for the legislation to expire at the end of 2015 instead of at the end of 2016 as proposed in the Bill, but the amendment was later withdrawn.

Labour Spokesperson Baroness Smith of Basildon said that while there was anger over the use of "fast-track procedure" to get the Bill through, the current "sticking plaster" approach was unsatisfactory.

She said there was a strong case for bringing in entirely new legislation to deal with the issue and time was needed for this to be done properly.

However the cross-party amendment was withdrawn and the committee stage completed without a vote, before a brief third reading.