Rural affairs minister Alun Michael has been given a rough ride by Labour MPs critical of plans for a partial ban on hunting with hounds.

Opening the Commons debate on Monday evening, Michael asked MPs not to damage the prospects of a ban by insisting that the restriction be total.

As the debate became bogged down in technical discussions over the Parliament Act, the rural affairs minister said the government was simply trying to pass the legislation as "expeditiously as possible".

He warned back benchers that the bill "needs to be in good order" if the Commons is to have its way on the issue before the legislation goes back to the Lords.

But tabling an amendment to the government bill, Labour's Tony Banks urged his colleagues to reject the ministers' motion altogether.

Banks accused Michael of acting in "bad faith" by in effect threatening to scupper the chances of a total ban.

Meanwhile, the prime minister was expected to be among those voting for the government's partial ban on fox-hunting.

The government's policy is to allow hunting to continue in a regulated way in a small number of upland areas.

But many MPs were expected to support the latest push for a total ban on hunting with hounds in England and Wales.

The government's business managers warned that any victory for the anti-hunt MPs, led by Banks, could jeopardise the legislation

A delay could result in the legislation becoming embroiled in a potentially fatal game of parliamentary ping-pong as the session draws to a close later this year.

Ministers believe the tightly regulated option may be enough to ensure the legislation is passed by the House of Lords.

Amended to include a total ban, the bill would face fierce resistance in the upper house.

The government could then be forced to used the Parliament Act to force the legislation to Royal Assent.

The shadow leader of the Commons, Eric Forth, slammed the government's decision to use a programme motion restrict the time allowed for MPs to debate the bill.

"In the good old days we would have spent enough time - into the night if necessary - to do justice the important issues in this bill," he said.

But his colleague David Lidington, the shadow secretary of state for rural affairs, said voters would be "amazed that the government see this issue as a priority".

"This is an absurd sense of priorities to put hunting ahead of health and shows the government's priorities are not those of the British people," he said.

Ahead of the debate, rural affairs secretary Margaret Beckett said that the government bill was the only "workable" way to proceed.

"The bill as it stands is acknowledged by animal welfare organisations to be the strongest ever put forward," she said.

"No bill on a simple ban has ever been thought to be workable. MPs on a completely free vote, can choose between what is simple to explain and what is simple to enforce.

"If cruelty is the main concern, I plead with colleagues neither to wreck the Bill, nor delay its timing."

But the National Anti-Hunt Campaign said that attempts to find a third way through the fog should not "compromise on cruelty".

"This event will remind MPs just what hunting is really about - evil bloodlust that must be outlawed completely," spokesman Niel Hansen said.

"It makes precious little difference to the fox, which has been torn to pieces following an agonising chase that its tormentors had to get a licence first."

Pro-hunt campaigners demonstrated loudly in Westminster on Monday morning as MPs arrived in parliament for the debate.

The Countryside Alliance said even the compromise bill would discriminate against "a responsible and law-abiding minority".