British Home Secretary Mr David Blunkett came under fire from all sides of the House of Commons as he denied charges of rushing ahead too quickly with anti-terrorism laws.
Mr Blunkett said the legislation was is a rational, reasonable and proportionate response to the events of September 11th.
But many Labour backbenchers lined up with Opposition MPs to criticise the speed with which the Government is acting.
"I don't believe 10 weeks is a hurried period, given the necessity for putting in place substantial safeguards that may be required at any day and any time," Mr Blunkett said.
Reminding MPs of the thousands who died in the US terrorist attacks, he said even more Draconian measures could have been put forward by ministers.
"It would have been wrong to do so," he said, opening second reading debate on the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. "It was appropriate for us to be more circumspect and bring forward proportionate and reasonable measures."
But Labour former minister Mr Mark Fisher (Stoke-on-Trent Central) warned: "When this House acts quickly, it seldom acts wisely."
And the party's former Northern Ireland spokesman Mr Kevin McNamara (Hull N) asked if just three days in the Commons was enough to debate such important issues, when earlier anti-terrorist laws had been afforded more time.
The huge 124-clause Bill includes measures to detain suspected terrorists, tighten airport security, freeze suspected terrorists' funds and create a new offence of incitement to religious hatred.
The Home Affairs select committee complain in a report that the legislation is being rushed through Parliament too quickly for adequate scrutiny to take place.
PA