MARIANN Fischer Boel's speech, as reported on these pages in last week's issue, does contain many positives for the industry.

Mrs Fischer Boel is not only an EU Commissioner but she is also the wife of a Danish farmer. Possibly, on her return home, she experiences the frustrations and extra workload that other European farmers' wives witness and share as their spouses battle with the increasing burden of red tape and needless paperwork. Her desire to reduce red tape is therefore welcome.

By far the most dramatic proposal to emerge from the ivory towers of Brussels is the call from the commissioner to remove set-aside.

At certain times of year, land under green cover or fallow could have a huge environmental impact on the countryside but now, with 400 million hectares under environmental schemes and two-metre margins around every arable field, the balance is tipped in the favour of production.

The decision by the Government to have an inclusion rate of five per cent biofuels by 2010 is indeed ambitious, given the current measly inclusion rate of 0.24pc.

To meet this target, 20pc of all arable land will need to be producing seeds, beet, grain or coppice destined for the power stations, biodiesel and bioethanol plants.

Every hectare of the 559,000 declared as set-aside in 2005 will be needed.

The issue of milk quotas described by Mrs Fischer Boel as a possible example of political simplification if they were to go, is a difficult one.

Not so many years ago, they were a valuable asset but are now virtually worthless.

Brought in to put a brake on production, many producers will now risk going over quota rather than leasing in extra.

I notice nine member states, notably among them Germany, Italy and Poland, have exceeded their quota and some face paying a levy on this excess.

Would the demise of quotas open the floodgates for more imports and put yet more pressure on an already weak milk price?

The mention of a health check for the CAP comes as no surprise, but is this a genuine fine-tuning or is she letting us down gently for a full-blown mid-term review?

Since year 2000, I have managed to get to Brussels at least once each year and on one of my visits spoke with a farmer union representative from another European country.

This old stager of the EU is a personal friend of former Commissioner Franz Fischler. He remembered being lobbied by Fischler in the late nineties as he tried to push through agenda 2000.

"Agree to this," he said, "and the CAP will be set in stone for many years to come." Just three years later, the mid-term review was first mooted.

Readers will be alerted to the fact that the commission will report by the end of 2007 on how well cross-compliance is working - no doubt amending the list of statutory management requirements. The NFU has already been asked for an input into this debate.

On the way payments are calculated, the number of different payment options can appear confusing.

I notice that eight of the ten new member states are adopting a simplified payment scheme, but under EU rules they are required to move to the Single Payment Scheme by 2008.

This would seem sensible in terms of uniformity and simplicity, but there are questions that still need to be answered, mainly concerning the type of land to be claimed on.

At the moment, this EU 8 includes all land used in agriculture and forestry. But should payments be made on land producing only agricultural crops? Would moving to a single payment per hectare be the best option, or should land be classified according to quality - the system adopted under much controversy in England.

I end with a warning that it is all very well Brussels directing its member states to cut down on red tape, but our Government must first of all take heed of any health check and have systems in place to enable change to happen.

In England, systems continue to let us down.

The industry has proved it can manage change but change that may lead to a simplified area scheme (if regulations are changed) must move as planned transition not an abrupt leap.