Sir Keir Starmer has been compared to Chinese dictator Xi Jinping over a .

Tory critics have branded the move "partisan" and "political gerrymandering" aimed at reducing scrutiny of the Government.

Conservative Lord Mancroft claimed the UK Parliament will become "like the toothless farce that is the Chinese People's Congress".

He said: "Anyone with even the most basic knowledge cannot compare a chamber set up 42 years ago in a communist dictatorship with one political party and a population of 1.4billion to an of a highly developed legislature in a multi-party democracy of 68million - or can they?

"Because while there are now many countries around the world with bicameral legislatures, many of which are based on the Westminster model, there is only one where the head of the executive has complete control.

"Not even the most powerful executive in Europe, the President of France, or President-elect Trump with his party's control of the Senate, will have the power that Sir Keir Starmer is giving himself under this Bill.

"Because what the Government is proposing is to give the Prime Minister the same powers of appointment that President Xi has.

"The silly joke is about to become reality. With the Bill the Government is now proposing, this House and this Parliament will be on the way to becoming like the toothless farce that is the Chinese People's Congress."

The criticism was levelled during an impassioned debate in the unelected chamber as legislation continued its passage through the Commons, which will abolish the 92 seats reserved for peers who are there by right of birth.

The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, which delivers on a promise in Labour's election manifesto, has been promoted as the first step in a process of reform.

However, another commitment - a - was not included in the Government's legislative plans.

There have been ongoing concerns about the size of the House and calls to reduce its membership - which stands at around 800, compared with the number of MPs being capped at 650.

Referring to the current legislation, Conservative shadow leader of the upper chamber Lord True said: "The aim of the Bill is partisan.

"It is to remove 88 peers who do not align themselves with Labour and four who do. We should at least be honest about that.

"Aside from the partisan, there is another aspect that is notable.

"It will be unpleasant. Some may not like to hear it, but there is no evading it.

"The execution will have to be done at close quarters, brushing shoulders in the lobbies as we go to vote for the removal of much-respected colleagues."

He conjured the image of peers seeking to "avoid sitting next to a colleague we have just voted to expel".

Lord True added: "There can be no doubt that the Bill being discussed in another place will cause some great hurt. And it will almost inevitably issue in conflict. Conflict which may well spill out in quite unpredictable directions.

"All that is avoidable. There must be a better way."

He was backed by Tory former cabinet minister Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, who warned: "If the party opposite continues with this act of constitutional vandalism they ain't seen nothing yet."

In a scathing broadside, he said: "A disgraceful piece of political gerrymandering aimed at weakening scrutiny of his Government by the House of Lords."

House Of Cards author and Conservative peer Lord Dobbs argued for wider reform, rather than a "rushed standalone Bill".

He said: "At the very least, we should allow hereditary peers to continue sitting and contributing to this House until the end of this Parliament, rather than the end of a session.

"That would make little practical difficulty to the work of the Government but it would be a mark of respect.

"Our hereditary colleagues should be allowed to leave with their heads held high, not stuck on the end of a pike.

"When Brutus discussed doing away with Julius Caesar he knew it had to be done with a sense of justice: 'Let's carve him as a dish fit for the gods, not hew him as a carcass fit for hounds.'

"Our hereditary colleagues have done nothing but their duty, and the rest of us have a duty, may I suggest, to remember that."

Labour peer Lord Grocott, a former MP who had long campaigned to scrap hereditary peer by-elections, argued the way to reform was not "one grandiose scheme".

He said: "The overwhelming evidence of the last 100 years is that attempt at wholesale reform all in one go will slowly and inexorably grind into the sand.

"The reforms which will succeed are those which are short, simple and focused."

Noting more than 70 peers were due to speak during the debate, Lord Grocott added: "We are entertained and fascinated by these issues and happy to spend hours discussing them ... It's an enthusiasm which is not shared by the British public.

"Whilst reform is important, and I don't doubt that, other issues to most people are far more important and far more deserving of debate and parliamentary time."

Opening the debate earlier, leader of the Lords Baroness Smith of Basildon said: "We are more than aware that when it comes to meaningful reform of this place there is a track record of stagnation and stalled attempts.

"There are those who argue we shouldn't do anything until we do everything, but with no consensus or agreement on what everything means we have ended up doing nothing.

"That's why a more incremental approach is an appropriate way forward."