The House of Lords has inflicted a series of defeats on the government's asylum and immigration proposals.

Peers rejected an attempt by Home Secretary David Blunkett to give himself so-called "Henry VIII"-style powers to alter his flagship Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill after it has become law.

This government sees Parliament as a nuisance to be evaded

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

They went on to insist that asylum seekers should only stay in accommodation centres for a maximum of four months.

They voted in favour of ensuring that asylum seekers inside accommodation centres were given legal advice from qualified advisers.

And in a fourth government defeat, the Lords voted by a majority of three to clarify rules on the deportation of convicted asylum seekers.

The bill sets up new accommodation centres for asylum seekers and introduces a tough new regime on deportation.

'Henry VIII powers'

The Home Office said on Thursday that ministers would seek to reverse all defeats in the House of Commons next Tuesday.

After the votes, Baroness Anelay of St Johns, for the Conservatives, said: "Mr Blunkett tabled whole new sections of the bill at a later stage in the Lords to avoid Commons debate.

"Now he wants Henry VIII powers to rewrite this and other connected legislation without coming back with a new Act of Parliament."

She stressed: "This government sees Parliament as a nuisance to be evaded.

"It would have been unhealthy for any minister to be given such sweeping powers on matters that directly affect personal liberties."

'Minor tweaks'

But a Home Office spokeswoman insisted they were "minor, tidying-up powers".

"The amendment allows the home secretary to make very minor tweaks to other bits of legislation to make the implementation of the bill work."

But during the debate Lord Kingsland, for Conservatives, claimed the government was trying to introduce a catch-all clause.

"It is an admission out of the home secretary's mouth that they are legislating without any clear grasp of the consequences of doing so. Why is this power required?

"It would even allow the home secretary to make any amendment he deemed necessary to the bill after it is enacted."

'Blank cheque'

Labour peer Lord Clinton-Davis said he was "deeply troubled" by Mr Blunkett's move.

Tory Baroness Carnegy of Lour said it was "wrong" for the government to ask the House to sign a blank cheque.

Lord Filkin, for the government, said the powers were neither "unprecedented or unusual".

It only applied to consequential and incidental provisions in the bill, he said.

"Events in the wider world are moving fast. It is not a static world... we believe it is vital we have this power to ensure that the bill functions effectively when it comes into force," he said.