WEST Devon's former and current MPs this week slammed plans to reform the House of Lords which they say are 'fragmented' and 'a recipe for gridlock and constitutional chaos'.

Liberal Democrat peer John Burnett labelled proposals as 'superficial and nonsensical' and Conservative MP Geoffrey Cox voted against the plans on Tuesday night.

The government still won the vote on the principle of its proposed reforms to Parliament with a majority of 338. But it was forced to drop the vote on a 'programme motion' — which would have set out a timetable for the Lords Reform Bill to get through the Commons.

Despite Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg driving the change, Lord Burnett was scathing about the content of the reform bill, which 91 Conservatives voted against on Tuesday night.

He said: 'It is a dramatic illustration of trying to do something in a half thought-out, cock-eyed way.

'It's a little bit like jumping into the Euro which I was always opposed to. I hope this is thrown out because it is constitutional tinkering without any thought for the constituencies.'

The Government is proposing to create a smaller and mostly elected House of Lords with 360 of a total of 450 new members voted for by the public, each serving a single 15-year term.

Supporters say the current system of appointed and hereditary peers, along with senior clergy, is tainted by patronage, cronyism and a lack of democracy.

Lord Burnett, the former MP for West Devon and Torridge until his retirement in 2005, said new members would be backed by political parties, which under a system of proportional representation would give considerable power to the central party.

He said his key concern was that the primacy of MPs in Parliament would be threatened.

'An elected House of Lords will be pitched against an elected House of Commons. Under the present system appointed peers can hold up legislation and get the Government to think again but we do not have a say on finance bills, budgets and so on. That is by convention and we do not challenge convention and never did.

'If members are elected this goes out the window and the House of Lords will challenge the Commons. There will be gridlock, legislation that will be in limbo and eventually will have to go to courts to resolve. We will be governed by what judges say.'

Lord Burnett said he was not against an elected House of Lords — it had worked well in other countries like the US and France — but they had a written constitution and a system of dealing with disputes was of utmost importance.

'We need to decide and agree what the House of Lords is for and what means of election can be agreed and then put it to the country in a referendum.

'This is a piecemeal, superficial and nonsensical piece of legislation. It's a recipe for constitutional chaos and I hope and believe it will be consigned to the dustbin of history.'

Geoffrey Cox said the proposals were fragmented and not well thought out: 'Before we change what is working reasonably well we have to be sure that what we are changing it to will be better. I do not think we can be sure of that with these plans.

'I am not against reform but we need to get it right and allow adequate consultation and discussion. A lot of people feel that these plans are not well advised.'

A vote on the timetabling of the bill — regarded as crucial if it is to be passed without being talked out by opponents — is now likely to take place in the autumn.