Furious peers lose last chance to veto hunt ban

The government painfully edged its way towards a total ban on hunting yesterday after Alun Michael, the rural affairs minister, said it would, if necessary, force through such a ban against the wishes of the Lords. The announcement received a stormy response from peers who accused the government of betrayal and double dealing.

But Mr Michael also infuriated Labour backbenchers and animal rights groups by saying he would only introduce the new anti-hunting bill after a further six months of consultation in search of common ground.

He also told MPs he would propose a legal framework so hunting would be banned if the courts deemed a hunt was cruel or an ineffective form of pest control. This would probably ban most lowland hunting, but might allow hunting with dogs in upland areas.

But in a crucial concession to the senior backbencher Gerald Kaufman, he said the government would still allow the use of the Parliament Act to override opposition in the Lords if MPs amended the bill to impose a total ban, the option favoured by most backbenchers.

Mr Kaufman asked: "If the government introduces, after its period of consultation, a bill which contains some exceptions and this House of Commons, on a free vote, votes to remove all those exceptions and have a complete ban on all forms of hunting with dogs, will you give me the clear assurance that that is the bill under which the Parliament Act will be used?"

Mr Michael said he was "absolutely clear" that would be the case.

Mr Kaufman will now be at the helm of Labour MPs seeking a total ban. The new bill will probably be introduced in November and if the Lords were to reject it outright it would reach the statute book by Christmas 2003, 12 months after receiving its second reading in the Commons.

MPs on Monday backed an outright ban by 386 to 175, but the Lords voted heavily in favour of allowing hunting to continue under licence. Mr Michael said the government wanted to construct its bill around the principles of "cruelty and utility", insisting it might yet be possible to avoid a clash between the houses.

He refused to speculate on how the courts might interpret such principles, but pointed out it was a well established principle of English law that cruelty was defined as causing unnecessary pain. The government's Burns report into fox hunting two years ago found that shooting was the best way to keep pests down, but in some open upland areas it might be easier to keep the fox population under control through horseback hunting with dogs.

The bulk of hunts are conducted in lowland areas. The Burns report is not entirely clear whether hunting itself is cruel, although it famously found that that hunting "seriously compromised the welfare of the fox".

The Labour backbencher Gordon Prentice accused the government of endless prevarication, hesitation, and vacillation. Tony Banks, the former Labour sports minister, also criticised the government, saying: "There is no common ground. Quite frankly, I don't know why he wants to spend six months chasing shadows. The fact is the clash is obviously coming between this house and the House of Lords and he should face up to that."

But the pro-hunting Countryside Alliance and the Middle Way group both said they were encouraged by the new bill. The alliance stressed it was ready to mobilise a mass countryside march if the threat of a ban persisted.