A constitutional standoff on legislation to control fox hunting has been resolved, with a ban taking effect from next February.

Commons Speaker Michael Martin invoked the Parliament Act on Thursday evening, ensuring the Hunting Bill will now make it onto the statute book.

"I am satisfied all the provisions of the Parliament Act have been met," he told MPs.

Earlier, the Bill had "ping ponged" between MPs and peers on the final day of the parliamentary session.

Tactical voting saw the Lords reject a bid to delay the ban until July 2006.

Their decision raises the prospect of legal objections and further protests in the run up to the general election, which is expected next May.

The prime minister had earlier warned that the legislation now faces a series of court challenges.

Ping pong

In a Commons vote on Thursday afternoon, MPs rejected a bid to delay the ban to the end of July 2007 by 345 votes to 46.

But another vote saw them agree by 283 votes to 132 to delay the ban until the end of July 2006.

However, the Lords later rejected that change -  voting by 153 to 114 to allow licensed hunting.

Peers also rejected the call from MPs to delay the ban until July 2006.

That final decision left the door open for the Speaker to approve the passage of the anti-hunting bill under the terms of the Parliament Act - for only the fourth time since 1949.

In addition to fox hunting, deer hunting and hare coursing with dogs will also be outlawed in England and Wales.

Blair's regret

Speaking during a press conference on Thursday afternoon, the prime minister signalled his regret that no compromise deal on licensed hunting had been possible.

And Tony Blair added that countryside campaigners were now likely to mount a series of court challenges to the legality of the Bill.

"There will now obviously be a whole series of court actions around it," he warned.

"I have tried for the best part of two years to find a compromise and a way forward, since there are people who feel passionately on either side of this debate.

"For many people in the country, they would like to have seen a situation in which we dealt with the arguments as to cruelty whilst at the same time understanding the feelings of those who regard this as integral to their way of life.

"It was not possible to find a compromise in parliament. The action will no doubt now transfer to the courts.

"But I think probably, despite the very passionate views on either side of this debate, the majority of people would have preferred to have seen a compromise accepted."

Confrontation

Earlier, during the Commons debates, rural affairs minister Alun Michael had insisted that it was peers who had "chosen confrontation" by backing a "feeble" version of the registration scheme.

"It is the will of this House of Commons to have this Bill," he said.

"It will be the House of Lords, if it doesn't accept what we are saying today, which will have provoked the application of the Parliament Act."

There was heated debate from both sides of the argument ahead of the crunch votes.

Conservative MP Gregory Barker told the minister that the legislation "has nothing to do with reasonableness but shabby political horse trading behind the scenes on the Labour benches".

"The whole thing is a disgrace," he added.

But Labour backbencher David Winnick argued that further delays would "give the feeling that we are terrified of the threats of violence and thuggery from those who intend to break the law".

"Surely if the House of Commons has agreed six times in the last four years on a total ban, what we are proposing, 2006, is compromise enough," he added.