Blair's plan to delay hunting ban

Tony Blair is preparing secret plans to ensure that a hunting ban does not come into force before the general election.

A constitutional crisis loomed today after the House of Lords opposed an outright ban and backed a scheme to tightly regulate the sport instead. Peers remained on collision course with the Commons after they voted last night by 322 to 72 in favour of an amendment to the Hunting Bill introducing a licensing scheme.

MPs will overturn the vote next month and the Parliament Act will now almost certainly be invoked by the Speaker if the Lords sticks to its guns. The impasse is likely to ensure hunting will be banned within three months instead of the 18 months envisaged by Downing Street.

But senior Government sources have revealed the Prime Minister is so determined to get a Parliamentary compromise that he may introduce a new, one-line Hunting Bill in the Queen's Speech making clear that a ban would only come into force in 2006. The idea is that the Lords, having been comprehensively defeated, would have no choice but to back the new Bill and ensure its swift passage because a delay would at least allow one more hunting season.

The Prime Minister's official spokesman stressed yesterday he was determined to seek a " compromise" between the Lords and the Commons on the issue.

Critics believe Mr Blair knows an outright ban is going to happen but wants to minimise the damage to himself by insisting that MPs had a free vote.

Government minister Lord Whitty warned that the Lords' vote for the "constructive compromise" of a licensing scheme may have come too late to save a total ban on hunting. Lord Whitty said that "coherent" proposals to allow hunting with hounds to continue under licence could not be enough to prevent the lower house using the Parliament Act to enforce its will.

He said the Commons had already rejected the registration approach while overwhelmingly supporting the principle of a total ban in a series of free votes.

Lord Donoughue, the Labour peer who tabled the amendment, said that it was intended to avert a constitutional clash with the Commons, where MPs favour a total ban.

In the Lords, however, peers became increasingly frustrated as Lord Whitty refused to spell out what the Government would regard as the basis of an acceptable compromise.