The committee, which is made up of both peers and MPs, concluded that the Hunting Bill, as amended by Tony Banks MP, was in contravention of Human Rights legislation by failing to provide for compensation for "contracts entered into" which would be "cancelled" by the imposition of a ban on hunting. Its argument was clear: there has been no history of progressive Government legislation to ban hunting, in fact the original Hunting Bill accepted the case for at least some hunting, therefore individuals could have legitimately expected contracts to be fulfilled without the imposition of a Government ban.

Two events in the last week have added to the importance of the JCHR's report.

The first was the judgement of the court of Inner Session on the human rights challenge to the restrictions imposed on hunting in Scotland. The three judges rejected our case partly on the grounds that the elected legislatures have the right to make decisions provided that there is sufficient evidence.

But the judgement also made it clear that lawful hunting is still continuing north of the border, albeit in a slightly different form. This meant that the situation was very different from that which would have occurred had all hunting been banned (as per the 'Banks' Bill). So while our appeal was rejected the judgement was important in that it suggests that any attempts to restrict hunting in Scotland further, without compensation, would be difficult in human rights terms and in that it is consistent with the conclusions of the JCHR as far as the human rights implications of a total ban in England and Wales are concerned.

The second event which reinforced the importance of the JCHR report was the publication of the initial findings of a study into the potential cost of compensation, commissioned by the Alliance, in Tuesday's Times. A detailed analysis of the Warwickshire Hunt, and those businesses related to it that would be liable for compensation, suggests that the bill for 186 registered hunting countries alone would be at least £156 million. The full report will be available very soon and we will ensure that it gets the widest possible circulation. Its finding are a reminder that the costs of banning hunting would be far, far greater than any benefit to be gained from placating a few recalcitrant backbench MPs.

In the run up to the start of the parliamentary summer recess on 22nd July speculation about the return of a Hunting Bill will become even more feverish. Our opponents are becoming increasingly concerned as the parliamentary session ticks by with no sign of their Bill returning. By encouraging media speculation that the Bill will return they are attempting to force the Government's hand but neither the Prime Minister, Alun Michael or the Leader of the House, Peter Hain, have said anything to give them hope. So don't believe what you read in the papers (unless it has got our name on it!) - concentrate on what Ministers are saying 'on the record' in Parliament.

We are, though, fully aware that we could face banning legislation at any time and with just a few days notice. That is why we have prepared meticulously for every eventuality and continue to operate at a state of full alert. Only when this Parliamentary session is over will the immediate threat of the Parliament Act be removed. Then, and only then, will we be able to fully focus on the even more complex task of finding a lasting resolution for hunting and all other country sports.