A SIMPLE SOLUTION / Proposed compromise if a simple solution cannot be reached.

  RESOLVE THE  HUNTING ISSUE SIMPLY,  HERE'S HOW.

 Within the  purview of existing authorities  ( The  Wild Mammals  (Protection) Act 1996), DEFRA could  regulate that a licence from the department was essential  before a wild mammal could be deemed to  have been killed  "in a reasonably  swift and humane  manner". Please see Exceptions from offence under the Act  para 2(b). Such licences would ensure that  any "hunter"  abided by the relevant Code  of Conduct, enforced by  the sanction  of withdrawing  a Licence to  Hunt. Each code (specific to a species of Wild Mammal) would preclude unnecessary  suffering by  rules which  ensure that killing must be carried out in a reasonably  swift and humane manner. Use  of any deliberate means (e.g.  a dog, a gun,  a ferret) to  kill a Wild Mammal while hunting without  a licence would be an offence under The  Wild Mammals  (Protection)  Act 1996.

 FOXMAN'S  PROPOSED WAY  AHEAD

Foxman agrees  that there  should be a ban on inflicting  unnecessary  suffering upon animals,  such as Lord Donoghue's proposal or the simple solution proposed above or, if both these were to fail, a compromise as long proposed by Foxman. It should  be noted that  Hunting does  not inevitably  involve inflicting  unnecessary  suffering.  What did the  Commons really  vote for (1)  To ban all hunting because  a majority  of MPs assume that it always inflicts unnecessary suffering  (i.e. is Cruel) or (2) Banning an activity  because of  dislike of  its practitioners?

Even the fanatics know  from The Burns  Report that Inevitable Cruelty has  not been proved.  Therefore,  their fanatical opposition must be based  on an ASSUMPTION  of inevitable cruelty and/or dislike of "hunters". It is cowardly of the Government  to be unwilling  to halt the efforts of the fanatics to destroy a significant  part of the  culture of  the UK without  proper proof  of inevitable cruelty in hunting.

 Nevertheless  due to the  moral weakness  of this Government, the "fanatical antis" in the Commons have rejected  any Bill or amendment  to an existing  Bill other  than a TOTAL  BAN.

THE  "BANKS  BILL" IS UNJUST  LAW because no logical reasons to ban Hunting  have been found by the govenment's  own work.  THEREFORE,  IT MUST BE  REPEALED EVENTUALLY.  In which case  there would be risks of  further attempts  at a Ban. Foxman believes, therefore, that in conjunction  with the repeal,  the following  solution should be put forward;

 "All  reasonable  members of  both houses of parliament  to agree with the government a Bill (such as Lord Donoughue's  Bill or  one based  on Foxman's ideas)  which bans  all unnecessry  suffering  (i.e. Cruelty)  in connection with hunting.  The government would then put the Bill to The Commons and impose "a three line whip" ( a threat to censure those MPs  who did not vote with  the government).  The grounds for such action  could include  preventing  the Hunting Issue creating further delay  to business clearly regarded by the public  as more important than hunting. "

 It is worth noting that, considering  both Lords  and Commons,  a majority of Parliament  voted against The "Banks Bill".

A THOUGHT  FOR THE LONG  TERM

Hunting's  longer term survival depends on the success with which  the population  can be convinced  of the facts  and of the  errors in  the propaganda  of the Anti-Foxhunting  Pressure Groups.