THE Government last night stood accused of a feeble fudge as critics ridiculed another failure to take a final decision on hunting with hounds.

Ministers announced that a further six-month consultation period would be used to try to narrow the gulf between the pro and anti-hunting camps.

During that time a new Hunting Bill would be drafted.

The House of Commons would then be given the chance to use the Parliament Act to force through a ban before the next election, giving MPs the final say.

Rural Affairs Minister Alun Michael told MPs yesterday that the will of the Commons, which has repeatedly voted for a ban, would prevail over the House of Lords.

But many MPs and supporters of a ban on hunting attacked the further delay.

Redcar Labour MP Vera Baird declared: "Hunting should go now. My post bag is full of letters urging the end of this outdated and unnecessary activity which has already taken up too much Parliamentary time.

"The democratically elected House of Commons has repeatedly voted overwhelmingly in favour of a total ban and we are not interested in the views of the House Of Lords.

"There are urgent issues to tackle in the countryside in the wake of foot-and-mouth, but hunting is not one of them. It should go now."

Leading hunting opponent Tony Banks, Labour MP for West Ham and a former sports minister, told Mr Michael: "I don't know why you want to spend six months chasing shadows.

"The fact is, the clash is obviously coming now between this House and the House of Lords."

Niel Hansen, chairman of the National Anti-Hunt Campaign, said: "The will of the people is clear and the will of their elected representatives is clear.

"The Government's previous pledges to ban hunting seemed clear. Why on earth do we need more procrastination and delay?"

Mr Michael said the Government wanted to respect all views. It also had to start with "respect for the strength with which the Commons made its views clear on Monday".

MPs backed a ban by 386 votes to 175 on Monday. Peers voted on Tuesday for the "middle way" of licensed hunting by 366 votes to 59.

The Government is said to recognise "legitimate concerns in the countryside about pest control, land management and other practicalities". Is it thought this could mean strictly regulated hunting in some parts of England and Wales, such as hill farming areas, where it could be justified as the only way to control the fox population.

Mr Michael acknowledged that such a compromise might satisfy neither the Lords nor the Commons. The Commons could amend the legislation to produce an outright ban and then, if the Lords subsequently tried to undo their changes, use the Parliament Act - which allows the Commons to override the Lords - to force a ban on to the statute book.

In those circumstances, Mr Michael made it clear that the will of the democratically elected House must prevail. He said: "Should there be no way through and should the new Bill be frustrated in its passage rather than scrutinised and improved, the Government could not properly stand in the way of the application of the Parliament Act."

Shadow agriculture spokeswoman Ann Winterton said: "The Government is caught between a rock and a hard place.

"It is caught by its own backbenchers who are deeply unhappy about the failure of Government policy - and by fear of a countryside march."

David Robinson, joint master of the Zetland Hunt, in North Yorkshire and County Durham, said further lengthy consultation would "frustrate" both pro and anti-hunt campaigners.

"The thrust is to try and achieve some agreement between the different camps, but there is nothing worse than more uncertainty," he said.