Anti-hunt MPs have forced the Government to promise that next year's fox hunting season will be the last, as last-minute wranglings continued over plans to impose a ban. Ministers have pledged that the anti-hunting Bill, to be forced through the Commons in one marathon sitting today, will come into force in 2006. The deal hammered out between rural affairs minister Alun Michael and Labour opponents of hunting should ensure that the Bill enjoys a smooth ride. The concession is designed to reassure backbenchers who feared that the Government's original proposals would have allowed the 2006 hunting season to go ahead. The original proposal had been to impose the ban "two years" after the Bill became law, a form of words which Labour opponents of hunting believed was too ambiguous. Some backbenchers, led by former Minister Gerald Kaufman, were threatening to impose their own amendment reducing the delay to just one year. But Ministers want to ensure the ban does not actually come into force until well after the next General Election. They are expected to announce today that a firm date of July 2006 is to be set. Hunting begins in August, although the hunting season formally starts in late October. Today's debate has been eagerly awaited by those Labour MPs who overturned the Government's own plans for a compromise and insisted on a total ban, when a vote was held in July last year. They included David Winnick (Lab Walsall North), who said last night: "There is little doubt now that the measure will be passed. "There is a huge majority in the House of Commons for hunting with dogs to be banned." Mr Winnick said he doubted many hunt supporters would break the law and continue hunting even once it was illegal, as some have threatened. But he added: "I would point out that those of us who loathed the poll tax still paid it at the time, rather than break the law." Tonight's proceedings will be a disappointment, however, for those MPs who hoped to secure a compromise, in which hunting would be allowed to continue under strictly controlled circumstances. They included Peter Luff (Con Mid Worcestershire), who yesterday was supporting proposals to increase the delay before the Bill was implemented to seven years. This would mean thousands of hounds would be allowed the chance to live rather than be put down. Mr Luff said: "This is a test of whether the House of Commons is genuinely interested in animal welfare or not. "Because if it is, and it is intent on banning hunting, this is the right way to do it." And fellow Conservative Michael Fabricant (Con Lichfield) added: "I will reluctantly vote against the Bill. "I had hoped there would be some sort of compromise, such as much stricter controls on hunting. "The Government has offered no alternative as to how foxes are going to be controlled. "In practice, they are likely to be shot. But this can be far more painful for the fox than any other method." Hunt supporters are expected to be out in force in London today, protesting against the Ban. The Countryside Alliance, which is organising a demonstration in Parliament Square, accused Mr Blair of exploiting the hunting issue to placate some of his backbenchers. Spokesman Darren Hughes said: "A lot of people now think it is no longer about hunting. Tony Blair is using hunting to manage his backbenchers. Rural people are fed up with being used as a political football." Peter Hain, the Leader of the Commons, told MPs last week that he expects the Hunting Bill to go through all of its Commons stages in a single day, and then have its first reading in the House of Lords the following day. If the Lords reject it, the Government has threatened to use the Parliament Act to over-rule them. | 
