The House of Commons has a right to get its way on the issue of fox-hunting, the former chief whip in the Lords has said.

As the government considers utilising the Parliament Act to force through a ban, Lord Carter warned peers that they must recognise their status.

Defending the procedure, the former Cabinet minister said: "It is there to ensure that the elected chamber eventually gets its way. That's central to the constitution.

"It has been used on war crimes, that was an issue of conscience, on the age of consent, again an issue of conscience, the Hunting Bill is on a free vote so that is in the same category.

"It isn't really the nature of the issue, it's the central constitutional point. Should a bill which has been passed by a very substantial majority by the House of Commons be rejected by the Lords?"

Peers should recognise that MPs have a mandate which is absent in the upper house, Carter added.

"If the Commons, and it is the Commons rather than the government, decide that they wish to have that bill made law then they have every right to use the Parliament Act and their lordships, after all we aren't elected, finally have to give way," he told ePolitix.com.

And he suggests that ministers should not be deflected by suggestions that the legislation will be defied by pro-hunt groups.

"I don't think that any government could decide that it will not bring in a bill because there is a threat of people disobeying the law," he said.

"That would just give carte blanche to people to filibuster as they did on the Hunting Bill, or to get on the streets."

Carter also warned that peers should think carefully before throwing out the Criminal Justice Bill in order to block reform of jury trials.

"We have a government a very substantial majority in the Commons, which has been confirmed in two elections," he said.

"At the end of the day when it finally goes eyeball to eyeball, the Lords have to decide whether they are to hold up a whole bill, for example the Criminal Justice Bill, a lot of which with which they agree, on one single issue.

"If they won't back down they leave the choice to the government whether to hold up the whole bill for a year or to drop that particular issue."

The former chief whip also signalled that any radical reform to the upper house is unlikely in this parliament.

"We have to see the bill first which removes the hereditary peers. The consultation continues up to December 12. The government then has to draft the bill and bring it forward," he said.

"Following that, to be realistic, there is little chance of another bill on Lords reform in this parliament if it lasts the normal four sessions. It is not impossible but it is unlikely."

"What happens in the next parliament depends perhaps on the outcome of the next election."

The comments came as the Liberal Democrats revealed that they would not support the removal of hereditary peers unless the move was allied to wider reforms.

"We will continue to support the principle that hereditary membership should be abolished,'' said Lord Goodhart.

"But the government cannot rely on us to help bring that abolition into effect except as part of a programme of full and democratic reform of the Lords."

Lord Falconer, the lord chancellor, expressed his frustration at the Lib Dems' tactics.

"I am intensely disappointed that Lord Goodhart says we can't count on the Liberal Democrats to support the removal of hereditaries," he told the House on Friday.

"I am intensely disappointed that is his view... even though that might mean the hereditaries don't go for a very, very long time."