IT IS not very often that the evening television news opens with a feature about farming. Not very often, that is, unless a crisis such as Foot and Mouth or BSE is ravaging the industry.

The fact, therefore, that a technical alteration of the Common Agricultural Policy can be the lead item, as it was on Thursday, must mean something important is going on.

After the customary all-night negotiations, an agreement was cobbled together. The Secretary of State, Margaret Beckett, announced to Parliament that the proposed reforms were a major step forward towards a more acceptable level of support, which could sustain not only those already in the EU but also those coming in over the next few years. There was a fair degree of wishful thinking involved in her statement.

No doubt the CAP is in serious need of reform. The principle on which it rests is that of encouraging production by providing support prices for agricultural production of various sorts.

The emphasis needs changing, so that farmers produce what the market wants. We keep being told that the costs of running the CAP amount to half the EU budget. That should not be a surprise. It is because agriculture is the only industry which every EU country has, and in some existing member states it is the biggest industry. It is a substantial part of the economies of some of the new countries coming in as part of the new wave.

That fact is precisely why reform is not only necessary, but urgent. The costs of running the CAP are huge. They would become completely unsustainable after EU enlargement if all countries were paid the present rates of support.

That said, one suspects that this faltering first step towards reform is going to cause nearly as many problems as it is supposed to solve.

A greater proportion of the money involved in CAP is to be placed in the hands of the national governments. So if a government is favourably disposed towards the industry then they can, at their discretion, direct funds to agriculture. Nations also have some discretion as to when they introduce the new systems. So some of our competitors will still be supported for the growing of crops, when we in the UK are not. Not very 'Common', not much of a 'Policy'.

As a principle, industries should be supported by their market. It is possible to argue that, for example, a fine view is a product and that, because people want to look at it, or walk through it, someone should pay for it to be maintained.

Because it is impractical to collect from the individual walker, the argument runs that the state, in whatever way, should pay. If that means a grant for maintaining or planting hedges, so be it. Is that better than paying towards someone producing, say, wheat? It is certainly the way that this government is thinking. If the hedgerow can support some hedge sparrows, a declining species, then so much the better.

The EU is moving farmers away from being food producers towards being park keepers. It is also trying to move money from direct agricultural support to rural regeneration. As usual these are laudable aims.

Some governments lack the political will to move far away from direct support. What will be interesting is what will happen when it becomes common knowledge that some large farms and estates are going to get money for what does not seem like much effort. I can just imagine the tabloid headlines.

Updated: 10:59 Tuesday, July 01, 2003