The government has welcomed an announcement from the law lords that the Parliament Acts can be used for constitutional change.

The decision from the country's highest court of appeal on Tuesday came in a ruling on the Hunting Act, which was said to have been lawfully forced through the House of Lords.

The top judges dismissed an appeal from the Countryside Alliance which had argued that the bill to ban hunting with hounds had been applied illegally and should therefore be reversed.

But attorney general Lord Goldsmith had also asked the law lords to decide whether the 1911 and 1949 Parliament Acts could be used for wider constitutional change, including reform or abolition of the House of Lords.

The Countryside Alliance had claimed that the 1949 Act, which reduced the delay the Lords could apply to legislation from two years to one, was itself illegal as only MPs had voted for it.

While the Court of Appeal had also rejected the Countryside Alliance's case, it had judged that the Parliament Act, which asserts the supremacy of the Commons over the Lords, could not be used to abolish or radically change the nature of the upper house.

It did not follow that "the 1911 Act can be used or amended, so as to produce results that will constitute a different constitutional settlement" the appeal court said.

However the law lords ruled, with reservations, that the government was right to say that it could force through major changes, possibly paving the way for the Commons to insist upon Lords reform despite resistance from the second chamber.

Welcome

A spokesman for the attorney general said: "The government has consistently said that the Hunting Act is valid and that it is within the power of the democratically elected House of Commons to insist upon the legislation.

"The attorney general welcomes the fact that the law lords have unanimously upheld the government's position.

"The attorney general has successfully defended this challenge at every stage. This case is constitutionally significant because it clarifies the scope of the Parliament Acts and reaffirms the supremacy of the House of Commons.

"The Court of Appeal has previously said that the Parliament Acts could not be used to pass constitutionally significant legislation.

"That approach would have led to uncertainty in the legislative and constitutional process. The law lords have rejected it."

The 1911 Parliament Act had included a clause indicating that it could not be used for radical Lords reform.

But ministers argued that the Commons did have the right to reverse this position.

Judgement

Lord Steyn, one of nine law lords who sat on the case, said this was probably true, but expressed concern at its implications for the balance of constitutional power.

"Strict legalism suggests that the attorney general may be right," he said.

"But I am deeply troubled about assenting to the validity of such an exorbitant assertion of government power in our bi-cameral system.

"It may be that such an issue would test the relative merits of strict legalism and constitutional legal principle in the courts at the most fundamental level."

He added that the hunting issue had also been troubling for him, despite conceding the ban was legal.

"The New Labour government decided that it would abolish the ancient liberty of the British people, regularly exercised by a great many individuals up and down the land, to take part in fox hunting," he said.

Reaction

Countryside Alliance chairman John Jackson said only "technical legal reasons" had prevented the judges from siding with them.

"It means that unless the courts find it possible to intervene, we live in a country in which, without the consent of the House of Lords, and the Sovereign powerless to intervene, the House of Commons can change the structure and working of our constitution in any way it pleases," he said.

"There must now be concern that our parliamentary system provides no adequate check on the House of Commons, which itself has doubtful democratic legitimacy."

However League Against Cruel Sports chairman of the John Cooper said the decision was "a triumph for democracy, for all those who abhor cruelty and most of all for English and Welsh wildlife".

"Those who have been counting on the hunting ban being overturned must now realise that they have lost the argument in parliament, they have lost the argument in court and long ago they lost the argument in the country," he added.

"Our message to the hunters is this - if you break the law, you will be prosecuted."