WHEN a backbench MP proposed a ban on hunting, he probably realised he was opening a can of worms. He probably didn't know they would still be wriggling as furiously as ever four years later.

Ever since Worcester Labour MP Michael Foster introduced his Bill to ban hunting with dogs, the controversy has raged in a debate that has seemed to epitomise the division between town and country.

Tonight, the House of Commons votes in one of the most crucial divisions since the issue was first aired, with a large majority expected to be in favour of an outright ban.

However, this will not be the end of the matter, with the further obstacles of the House of Lords and a looming General Election, not to mention the threat of hunt supporters bringing in the European Court of Human Rights.

But a large majority tonight could prove the decisive factor in ensuring a ban does go through, even if it takes some time to become law.

MPs will be asked to choose one of three options when the Hunting Bill is debated: a system of self-regulation; statutory regulation through a new Hunting Authority; or an outright ban.

Self-regulation is broadly a continuation of the existing system and, not surprisingly, the favoured option of the Countryside Alliance.

"There is already an independent supervisory body for hunting," says the Alliance's John Haigh. "It has the powers to look into complaints against hunts and allegations of cruelty. There are already very strict rules governing hunting and I find it difficult to see how they could be tightened up still further."

The supervisory body was established following the Phelps report in 1996, commissioned by the Alliance to try to make hunting more acceptable. Hunt supporters point out that only one of the supervisory body's seven members goes hunting.

But self-regulation has failed to quell the disquiet among some of those who, while not passionately anti-hunting, still have strong reservations.

This has led to a proposal for a compromise solution - setting up a new regulatory body to licence and monitor hunts. The new Hunting Authority would set out a code of conduct for hunting different animals, with the power to suspend the licence if hunts overstep the mark.

A team of inspectors would be established to ensure hunts keep to the code of conduct which would cover issues including responsibility for public safety and ensuring a hunted animal is killed in the shortest time possible.

The compromise plan was put forward by the Middle Way group, with members from the three major political parties, and its supporters claim it is a response to the practical difficulties of banning hunting altogether.

"The policing of a law banning hunting with dogs would be almost impossible, given the already stretched resources of police forces and the terrain over which they have to operate," says the Middle Way group.

"In legal terms, there is no greater criticism of a law than to argue that it is unenforceable. Even worse, a sizeable number of people have stated their determination to carry on as before, challenging the authorities to arrest them."

The group also claims that it would be extremely difficult to come up with wording for a new law which bans hunting but did not turn dog owners into criminals if their pet chases a rabbit when they are out for a walk.

"As all dogs have a propensity to hunt, the definition of hunting and the actions of the humans involved is a major hurdle. Previous Bills have been so loosely worded that even a person out walking their dog could be seen as being guilty of an offence."

The Middle Way option is seen as unnecessary by the pro-hunting groups, although still preferable to an outright ban.

"It would increase levels of bureaucracy and, with hunts being licensed, presumably it would involve government inspectors," says John Haigh. "Our preference is for self-regulation, but obviously it is better than a total ban and it is something we could live with."

But hard-line anti-hunt groups have already rejected the attempt at a third way, on the grounds that it would still allow hunting.

"We feel it is a charter for animal cruelty," says a League Against Cruel Sports spokesman. "We see very little difference to the hunting we have got now and our feeling is that, by sanctioning certain hunting, you are giving free rein for people to do what they like.

"There are also all sorts of issues about who is going to monitor these things. There are about 300 hunts in the country and there is the practical job of keeping them under control."

If the vote does go as expected, and MPs support a ban, the House of Lords is still likely to postpone the issue until after the General Election. And even then the Government may have to invoke the Parliament Act to force the legislation through against the Lords' opposition.

Then there is the prospect of an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, giving hunt supporters hope that a ban could still be averted.

"It will go through in the Commons, there is not much doubt about that," says Peter Dennis, master of the Hurworth Hunt, in North Yorkshire. "But how much further it will go is another matter.

"If we have to take it to Europe we will and we believe we will stop it there. If the vote goes against us it doesn't mean hunting will be stopped. I have a feeling it will never be stopped."

While the outcome of tonight's vote may seem a foregone conclusion, it is just one step in what has already become a tortuous saga. But with both sides confident that they will prevail in the end, it remains to be seen which way the worm will turn.

l Have your say in the foxhunting debate. Take part in our online vote at www.thisisthenortheast.co.uk