Blunkett defeated four times by peers over asylum laws

David Blunkett suffered a string of defeats last night over the Government's troubled asylum legislation, as peers rejected attempts to grant him sweeping "Henry VIII" powers to revise the law.

Peers on all sides of the house condemned the Government's last-minute amendment granting ministers powers to amend any part of the Nationality, Asylum and Immigration Bill without a full debate in Parliament. They voted by 171 to 116 to throw out the amendment, which would allow any part of the controversial Bill to be changed through secondary legislation.

Ministers were also defeated on a cross-party amendment to limit to four months the period during which asylum-seekers could be detained in accommodation centres.

The Government suffered a third defeat when peers backed – by 147 to 103 – a move by Liberal Democrats and Conservatives to ensure asylum-seekers in accommodation centres have access to legal advice from suitably qualified advisors.

Peers defeated the Government a fourth time when they voted by 96 to 93 to clarify rules on deportation of convicted criminal asylum-seekers.

Ministers are expected to overturn the defeats next week in the Commons. But the votes put peers on a collision course with MPs as the Government approaches the end of the parliamentary session when outstanding legislation faces "sudden death".

Lord Kingsland, the Conservative frontbench spokesman, led attacks on the Government's handling of the Bill. He condemned ministers for attempting to include a clause in the Bill allowing the Home Secretary to amend any part of the Bill without a full debate in Parliament.

He said: "The Government could not have sent a clearer signal to your lordships' house about what they really think about the parliamentary process ... Accepting this at this late stage would create a precedent which would be relied upon by future governments to treat your lordships' house in exactly the same way."

Lord Dholakia, for the Liberal Democrats, said: "These clauses are objectionable in any act. They increase the plethora of delegated legislation and decrease parliament's ability to look at other pieces of legislation. This is a step too far."

The Labour peer Lord Clinton-Davis said he was "deeply troubled" by the attempt to insert sweeping new powers into the Bill. But Lord Filkin, for the Government, said the powers were not unusual and were only "incidental" to the measures in the Bill.