Shadow Home Secretary Sir Norman Fowler accused the prime minister of planning to replace hereditary peers with appointees and placemen and transforming the Lords into a giant ermine-clad quango.

He made his attack as MPs resumed debate on last week's Queen's Speech.

Plans to scrap the sitting and voting rights of hereditary peers were the most controversial measure.

But Home Secretary Jack Straw branded the principle of hereditary peers absurd and offensive.

And when applied to any other walk of life, the idea was preposterous and risible, he said.

The Conservative Party has always exploited its in-built majority in the second chamber, Mr Straw said.

Sir Norman: warns against Labour appointees

Sir Norman said the government did not want to be checked by any kind of independent chamber.

"On House of Lords reform, the government intend to introduce an assembly of appointees and placemen in a giant ermine-clad quango," he said.

One thing was certain: the government would come under no pressure from its own appointees, said Sir Norman.

He said it was a scandal and nonsensical that the legislation was being introduced before a white paper and the Royal Commission had had chance to take evidence.

"It's a constitutional disaster and it should be rejected," he said.

Hereditary dentists?

The shadow minister also made a scathing attack on government plans for the closed list system for European elections, saying MEPs would be answerable not to the public, but the party.

The government has pledged to scrap the voting rights of hereditary peers, as a self-contained reform, and to retain substantial independent cross-benchers.

Straw: principle is absurd and offensive

To laughter, Mr Straw asked MPs to imagine they were being flown by a pilot - who had inherited his licence from his grandfather or treated by a dentist who said his skill was transmitted in the genes.

He reminded the House that when he was young, Conservative leader William Hague branded hereditary peers "silly".

The minister also attacked the in-built 3:1 Tory majority.

In 1948, the parties had agreed no one party should have a permanent majority in the upper chamber. It was down to Labour to implement that, he said.

Mr Straw said the government acknowledged Lords have an important function but it required neither hereditary peers nor an in-built Tory majority.

Recalling how Lords had driven through the poll tax bill, he said on average they inficted 13 defeats under Conservatives but 60 under Labour.

And to override the will of the democratically-elected Commons was wrong, he said.

'Elect some Lords'

He denied the government wanted to pack the Lords with its own appointees but instead planned a white paper, setting out a system for life peers.

"Her Majesty's opposition know they've manoevured themselves to the wrong side of the argument. They know the British constitution needs modernising and we know that we are the party ready and able to deliver it."

Former Tory chancellor Ken Clarke bitterly attacked Labour for not "addressing the big issues".

It was farcical to suggest he was defending hereditaries, but the second chamber would have no public legitimacy without an elected element.

By setting up a Royal Commission, the government had acknowledged that bigger issues, such as checks and balances, should be addressed.