Peers have inflicted a large, embarrassing defeat on the Government over its plans for English votes for English laws (Evel).

The House of Lords backed a call from former head of the civil service Lord Butler of Brockwell to establish a joint committee of peers and MPs to debate the proposals.

Although Lord Butler's move will have no practical effect unless the House of Commons agrees to set up the committee, the vote, which the Government lost by 320 to 139, majority 181, signifies peers' anger at the scheme.

Ministers have already been forced to abandon plans to push through the changes to give England's MPs a veto over English laws before the summer recess, postponing a vote on whether to go ahead with the amended standing orders until at least September.

Lord Butler, who was supported by peers from all sides of the House, said that though he backed a form of Evel there were better ways of doing it than the Government plan.

"Surely it is more important to get the proposals right than to rush them through," he said.

He was backed by Labour leader in the Lords Baroness Smith of Basildon who described the idea of a joint committee as a "wise and moderate" plan.

But Baroness Stowell of Beeston, the Lords leader, urged peers not to support Lord Butler and said the plan for Evel was in the Conservative manifesto at the general election.

"There does come a point where we need to stop talking and get on with taking some action," she said.

Lord Butler told peers: "We cannot compel the Commons to set up a joint committee, but what we can do today is say we believe this is a matter for Parliament as a whole not a matter just for the House of Commons and it is best approached by Parliament as a whole."

His successful motion called for a joint committee to consider the planned changes to the Commons standing orders and report next year.

Lady Smith said Labour did not see the motion as "a challenge to the principle of what the Government is seeking to achieve".

"It is our role as a revising and scrutinising chamber to consider the implications of proposed changes to how we as a Parliament, operate, and if changes being proposed have any implications for not just how we do business, but whether it impacts negatively on our work."

Lords Liberal Democrat leader Lord Wallace of Tankerness added: "If these internal workings have important con situational consequences then I think it is a matter for this House to have regard to."