Close observers of politics will have noticed there is another attempt afoot to reform the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

Many months ago the Agriculture Commissioner announced he wanted to initiate a reform. This week all the appropriate members of the European great and good met in an attempt to agree a course of action. What followed made last week's Cabinet reshuffle look properly thought through.

The need for reform is serious and is eagerly sought by some members of the EU.

They think the advantages derived from the way that the CAP is administered are outweighed by the expense. It seems to depend upon the proportion of each country's population involved in agriculture.

The CAP has provided a framework within which each country's agriculture has functioned.

Any bureaucratic system is necessarily slower to change than a market, especially if a large number of partners have to agree such change. The main UK objection to the policy has been that the market has been interfered with and expense has been built in.

All parts of UK agriculture have wanted change for some time. In France, for example, there is widespread opposition to any reform. They feel they are doing very nicely, thank you, from the system as it is.

They have large numbers of farmers and much of the population is involved as landowners. The rent the landowners receive is calculated in terms of the prices of agricultural produce. So if the price of wheat makes bread expensive it does not especially matter - that just increases the rental income many enjoy.

The CAP could not go on as it was even with the existing members of the EU. It was far too expensive. It cannot support any new members, particularly if those new members have large agricultural sectors. The applicant countries from eastern Europe who want to join the EU largely fit that description.

From a UK perspective change is essential and cannot come soon enough. The present structure supports farmers for producing goods. So there is a support price, for example, for cereals. If the farmer produces the cereals he should not get less than a certain price for them. Down the years this has produced unacceptable grain mountains, stored, at great expense, in premises rented for the purpose.

The same applied to some other products but not to all. There has never been a regime for pigs, potatoes or poultry. The grain mountains and milk lakes have gone. The market has absorbed them.

Because the system was regarded as encouraging the production of too much grain there is a compulsory area which cannot be cropped, but for which an area payment is received. There is also support for sheep and cattle.

The proposal is that all this should be swept away. A single payment, based on the historical levels of support, would be paid, in return for the farmers looking after their farms in a certain way.

Every so often inspectors would check that things are as they should be. Over the longer term payments would be reduced, so the burden is not so great on the tax payer.

The French and others are not happy. Negotiations were broken off early last week, but will soon resume.

There is just a chance that a sensible reform may emerge which is a response to the market.

But don't hold your breath.

Updated: 10:54 Tuesday, June 17, 2003