FACED with the plethora of problems facing Britain and the world at large, Parliament's valuable time could have been better spent than having interminable wrangling over the issue of hunting.

Perhaps we should be grateful for the procedural opportunity provided by the Parliament Act. That found a means to come to some sort of conclusion, when MPs and peers could not.

No-one is fooled into thinking that the hunting debate is over. Zealots on both sides will ensure that the argument will now transfer through the workings of the judicial system.

But at least the legislative system can rid itself of a topic that has engrossed it for far too long.

We now face the prospect of a hunting ban being in force in February. As a consequence, the Labour Party faces the prospect of a substantial backlash from the countryside lobby while bidding for re-election.

It is difficult to summon sorrow for the Government's self-inflicted plight.

At two General Elections it has secured endorsements of manifestos which promised the Commons a free vote on hunting.

Time and time again over the past seven years, the House of Commons has unequivocally declared its support of a ban.

This Government's reluctance to fulfill a manifesto commitment and its obsession to find a compromise - on an issue where it is clear there can be no compromise - have resulted in such a protracted debate.

The length of time taken to come to a parliamentary conclusion has hardened opinions, ensuring a more intense opposition.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of hunting, the issue has demonstrated a fundamental weakness of this Government to fudge and dodge issues rather than have the courage of its convictions.