Taxpayers must foot £200 million bill to have their emails snooped on Should GCHQ be given increased powers to monitor email traffic? Chief among the Conservative rebels was Jacob Rees-Mogg MP, who suggested the proposals were hypocritical given the Prime Minister's previous stance against the "control state." In a 2009 speech Mr Cameron said: "Faced with any problem, any crisis, given any excuse, Labour grasp for more information, pulling more and more people into the clutches of state data capture." Mr Rees-Mogg said: "The Government ought to remember why it favoured liberty in opposition. The powers it creates may in future be used by less benevolent administrations. David Davis, the former Shadow Home Secretary, said the plan was "an unnecessary extension of the ability of the State to snoop on people." What this is talking about doing is not focusing on terrorists or criminals. It's absolutely everybody's emails, phone calls, web access," he said. Senior Liberal Democrats are also planning to rebel. They want the Government to clarify whether the legislation will allow GCHQ to access information "on demand" and without a warrant. The party passed a motion at its spring conference banning communication interception without "named, specific and time-limited warrants." Tim Farron, the President of the Liberal Democrats, wrote on Twitter: "We didn't scrap ID cards to back creeping surveillance by other means. State mustn't be able to trace citizens at will. Julian Huppert, a Liberal Democrat MP, called for the Home Secretary and the Head of the Office of Security and Counter-Terrorism, Charles Farr, to appear before the Home Affairs Select Committee. He wrote yesterday: "The security services insist they have good reason for keeping lots of things, but frankly, I've never found the argument "we know but we can't tell you" very persuasive. Especially when it is overused by the same people to argue for every power they want, from 90-day detention to control orders to the existence of WMDs in Iraq. Liberals everywhere must watch this space with caution. Under the moves, expected to be unveiled in the Queen's Speech next month, communication and internet service providers will be required to retain details of every phone call, email and website visit for at least a year. When similar plans were unveiled under the last Government, it was estimated the cost of financing that would be £200 million - dwarfing the then £11 million spend annually on existing surveillance techniques. Restricted ICO documents released for the first time yesterday revealed deep concerns within the office of Christopher Graham, the Information Commissioner, over the plans. The briefing note said: "The case for the retention of this data still needs to be made, The document echoes previous concerns by the ICO that the move is a "step change in the relationship between the citizen and the state." It also warned that people could be at risk of being wrongly identified as a suspect because identifying people in communications is "not an exact science." It could lead to someone being wrongly put on a no-fly list and have their assets frozen because they are suspect terrorists or criminals, it warned. The note also raised the prospect of communications providers using all the data they would have to collate to profile users for "behavioural advertising." It said the information would be a "honeypot" because it would reveal browsing habits. The ICO is now calling on the Home Office to ensure all relevant safeguards are in place to ensure such exploitation of the programme is prevented. Dominic Raab, the Tory MP who obtained the document, said: "This is a stark warning from both the Information Commissioner and the phone and internet companies. Far from improving our security, these flawed plans to privatise Big Brother surveillance will subject every citizen to intrusive monitoring, and expose us to the risk of massive fraud on an unprecedented scale.  The plans are facing opposition from across the political parties. Downing Street insisted the power was need to keep ahead of modern technology used by terrorists and criminals and stressed content would not be access/ " All we are doing is updating the rules which currently apply to mobile telephone calls to allow the police and security services to go after terrorists and serious criminals and updating that to apply to technology like Skype which is increasingly being used by people who want to make those calls and send those emails," he said.