MPs threaten hunting revolt

Labour's plan to ban hunting ran into serious trouble today as MPs threatened to throw out a two-year delay.

Commons leader Peter Hain raced back to Westminster from the TUC in Brighton amid fears of a humiliating defeat in a vote tomorrow night.

Dozens of Labour backbenchers were threatening to veto the surprise plan, revealed by the Evening Standard last week, to postpone a ban on hunting with hounds until November 2006.

A senior government figure admitted: "It is on a knife edge. We're confident there will be a delay - but we don't know how long it will be for."

Mr Hain was thought to be in talks with anti-hunting MPs in an effort to reach a compromise or persuade them to go along with the two-year delay. Some backbenchers favour a delay of just one year, which would see the ban implemented in November next year.

However, that carries a huge risk for Labour because it could fall in the run-up to a general election, creating a political crisis that would throw off course the party's plans for schools and hospitals.

The nightmare scenario for Labour strategists is the general election being delayed by unforeseen events beyond the expected date of 5 May next year until the autumn or 2006.

At worst, it could coincide with the slaughter of thousands of hounds when hunts across the country wind up their affairs.

Officially the Government's motive for wanting a delay is to give hunts time to find new jobs for redundant staff. Privately, government figures admit they are mostly concerned with the risk to an election and the threat of a court challenge to any ban under human rights legislation.

The Government got entangled in difficulties because the Bill going through Parliament states that a ban shall be implemented in just three months, coming into force early next year.

However, the Bill cannot be changed by the Commons, under parliamentary rules, if ministers want to keep the power to use the Parliament Act to overrule objectors in the House of Lords. Instead the aim is to persuade the Lords to pass the Bill with a longer delay incorporated by peers rather than by MPs.