When I spoke to him, Phil Bennion explained to me that, while Lib Dem MEPs are broadly supportive of the Commissioner's plans for reform (the key idea being to start spending 30% of 'pillar one' payments on environmental elements), they have serious concerns with the detail.

An example he gave was the proposal for farmers to have to turn 7% of their land into ecological focus areas. Phil warned that this would mean that a lot of farmers would have to return to set-aside to meet the 7% requirement.

Phil Bennion MEP

Phil also told me that, while set-aside has "fringe ecological benefits", it is also "far less efficient than delivering biodiversity-rich ecosystems directly on very small areas of land."

His main fear was that the result would be the EU would be "reducing a lot of production for a very small environmental output."

He warned that the, as the demand for food would not fall, the consequences would be that "that demand will have to be produced elsewhere and will have a counter-productive environmental impact elsewhere… it will actually have an overall negative effect on the global environment."

As a result Liberal Democrats are favouring a 2% figure as what the EU "could probably get away with… without having too much negative impact."

The Commissioner is also proposing three crops grown on every holding. But Phil explains that this would be "completely impractical". He gave me an example of a farmer on the outskirts of Birmingham who has a small area of arable land, hemmed in by three motorways, on one holding number.

"He'd have to grow three different crops on that in every year which means a convoy, with police escorts, to get his machinery there in any case, once a year for the harvest, but they'd have to do that three times… [the requirement] makes large chunks of land actually uneconomic to farm."

Instead, Phil and George are advocating that there should be what Phil describes as "a list of seven or eight or ten green measures that [farmers] pick three of - because it would give individual farmers in individual areas flexibility to choose greening measures which suited their particular situation."

Another proposal that George and Phil take issue with is for a €300,000 cap on the subsidies that any farm can receive.

Phil told me that a flat cap "creates another set of perverse incentives - you create an incentive for farms not to get any bigger."

And George Lyon's opinion was quite clear as well. "As liberals we believe that if we move the public subsidy to one where you reward the delivery of public goods then I'm not clear why you would want to cap the payments as long as the famer's delivering."

The alternative they advocate is to increase the tapered taxation of the subsidies instead. Phil Bennion says "that could be done very simply because we've already agreed that it can be taxed."

George Lyon MEP

When I asked George Lyon how confident he was that the changes they are pushing for would be made he said "I think we've got a reasonable chance."

"I'm working closely with the Socialists and our EPP colleagues and I'm quietly confident we can get them to sign up to some of the things that we want to see changed… we've got allies within the governments as well - quite a few of the governments who have liberal parties in the coalition are actually interested in the kind of things we're suggesting. So I think we've got a chance to build quite strong support among the countries and within the parliament itself."

* George Potter is a member of the Liberal Democrats and blogs at the Potter Blogger. He is a member of Liberal Youth and drafted the motion on ESA at autumn conference 2011

The Guardian reported on Tuesday that the Liberal Democrat Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone is to reform the Equality and Human Rights Commission, cutting its budget and removing some of its responsibilities, most notably its obligation to assess how Government policies would affect the poorest.

Now, if ever there was a quango in need of reform, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission is that body. Dysfunctional seems to be the best word to describe the EHRC. Wasteful would be another. For three years running, the National Audit Office qualified its accounts. Last year was the first year since its formation in 2007 when it managed to achieve an unqualified audit opinion. However the NAO expressed concern about what would happen once the interim staff, who had turned the lack of financial control around, left.

The EHRC exhibited an astonishing lack of financial control and wrote off £874,000 of losses without proper approval. They could not provide evidence that grants it had given were in order and simply did not have sufficient financial control measures in place. In 2007, it re-engaged staff it had made redundant again without proper authority and without making them repay their severance pay at a total cost of almost £1 million. Have a read of the full audit reports to see the extent of the incompetence.

It strikes me that reforming this organisation is the responsible thing to do. The Guardian might like to paint it as a Tory inspired ideological bashing, but Lynne Featherstone has a long record of championing equalities issues and extensive working knowledge of the EHRC's history. Her recommendations therefore have a huge amount of credibility and authority behind them. The Tories, in contrast, would have been most likely to have abolished it completely. They don't really get equalities or human rights as has been all too clear.

Lynne Featherstone, on the other hand, as a Liberal Democrat, instinctively understands the importance of having a watchdog to make sure that we adhere to equalities legislation. The phrase she often uses about what she wants that body to be is "valued and respected national institution." The leviathan of waste and pettiness bequeathed by Labour was clearly not fit for purpose and she's had to trim it down and ensure it focuses on what it was intended to do.

As regards the repeal of the socio economic duty, we've known about this since 2010. It seems very out of place in this day and age to consider social class as a part of every Government policy. It's the sort of typically tokenistic and bureaucratic measure that Labour loved but actually achieved very little. Lynne spoke about this in her speech to our Autumn conference in 2010:

What Labour did was turn equalities into a burden. It became a byword for bureaucracy and red-tape. Less about liberation and more about frustration. And if ticking boxes and filling out forms led to equality, then Britain would be a utopia of fairness and optimism. But it doesn't. And it isn't. What Britain needs is a seismic cultural shift in the way people view and relate to each other. Let's be honest - people are still not free from the barriers of their place of birth, their sexuality, the colour of their skin. But this will not be changed with lazy, short term thinking or shallow, headline-grabbing laws.

Knowing Lynne and her track record on equality issues, I am in no doubt that the changes she's making to the EHRC will make it a better organisation, better suited to helping the cause of equality. As Lynne said herself the other day:

"Since its creation the Equality and Human Rights Commission has struggled to deliver across its remit and has not demonstrated good value for money.

Our reforms will provide it with a stronger focus and make it more accountable, helping it become the valued and respected national institution it was always intended to be."

* Caron Lindsay is Wednesday editor at Lib Dem Voice.

"It might surprise you to know that under Section 5 of the Public Order Act, the police and the courts can decide if you or someone else might feel insulted" states the front page of the Reform Section 5 campaign's website.

But this is unlikely to surprise many Lib Dems, who just a couple of months ago, at our Spring Conference in Gateshead, passed a motion (pdf) which called for the right to free speech to be protected through:

The repeal of section 5 of the Public Order Act, which creates 'non-intentional' speech offences, and the removal of 'insulting' from Section 4A of the Public Order Act, both of which have been used to criminalise legitimate freedom of expression.

This motion actually goes further than the campaign is suggesting, calling for the complete repeal of section 5 of the Act rather than simply the removal of the word 'insulting'. The reason, presumably, for this is that section 5 as a whole is drafted in such wide terms that it's very easy to see a whole range of behaviour being criminalised for no good reason.

Nevertheless, many Lib Dems will welcome what seems a very well organised campaign (judging by the media coverage yesterday) with a broad range of supporters, including Peter Tatchell and David Davis (though curiously there is no mention of the Lib Dems).

You can follow the campaign's activities on Twitter here, or on their website here.

.

* Nick Thornsby is Thursday Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice.

Every week the Liberal Democrat Secretary of State for Scotland writes a column for local newspapers in his Borders constituency. Here is this week's edition.

.

Queen's Speech

Last week, we saw the State Opening of Parliament by the Queen. Her Majesty set out the legislation planned for the second session of Parliament following the formation of the Coalition. The legislation outlined in the speech supports our efforts to reduce the deficit, rebalance the economy and put the country on the path to sustainable growth. It also sets out our commitment to provide families, businesses and communities across the country with the support they need in these tough economic times.

Banking reform

Back in 2008 the UK was held to ransom by the irresponsible behaviour of some of our banks which led to a multi-billion pound taxpayer-funded bailout to secure people's bank deposits. Since forming the Coalition Government we have been absolutely committed to ensuring that the country is never put in this situation again and the Banking Reform Bill announced in the Queen's speech last week will do just this. The Bill will separate retail banking from the more risky investment banking to deliver greater stability for the retail side - which local business and households rely on - and to reduce the risk of taxpayers having to bailout the banks in the future.

A fairer State Pension

Since fulfilling the Lib Dem election pledge to restore the State Pension triple-lock and end the paltry rises we saw under the previous Government, we have seen the State Pension increased by a record £5.30 per week this April. However, the Coalition Government wants to go further than this and ensure that the State Pension is even more progressive and fairer for low-paid workers and women. This is why we have announced a Pensions Bill which will introduce single tier flat-rate State Pension currently worth around £140. This will particularly benefit women who often have lower pension contributions and it will also guarantee everyone a decent state pension on retirement.

A boost for businesses

Small and medium-sized businesses are the key to the UK's economic recovery and the Coalition Government has made clear its commitment to reduce the administrative and tax burden on these businesses to enable them to thrive. The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill announced in the Queen's speech will cut red tape for businesses, saving local companies time and money and enabling them to concentrate on creating the jobs and growth our communities need.

Green, clean, affordable energy

Rising energy prices here in the Borders are a major concern for local people especially as household budgets are already under pressure. Securing the country's long-term energy needs and reducing our dependence on the fluctuating supply and price of imported fossil fuels is therefore a top priority for the Government. This is why we announced plans to introduce an Energy Bill which will reform the energy market to secure a clean and affordable energy supply and give customers a better deal. The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill will also deliver on a long-standing Lib Dem commitment to set up the UK Green Investment Bank to promote private sector investment in renewable energy and other carbon-saving technologies.

Groceries Code Adjudicator

I have long campaigned for a supermarket ombudsman to end the unfair practices which have damaged many of our local farm businesses, so it was great to see the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill in the Queen's speech last week. The Bill will establish a new independent ombudsman to ensure supermarkets treat suppliers fairly. It will prevent large retailers from varying their supply agreements and ensure they pay their suppliers within a reasonable time. This is great news for Borders farmers and I look forward to the Bill becoming law in due course, to ensure our farmers get a fairer deal.

David Cameron's adviser Steve Hilton heads off for a sabbatical in California, where he will be learning more about governance.

However, he is reported in several newspapers to have left a wee parting present, a paper calling for a further £25 billion cut in welfare spending. He wants to see people, particularly single parents, encouraged into full time rather than part time work. No mention is made of how the resulting child care costs would be met, of course. Maybe he hadn't thought of that.

The Times reported that these plans had not been shared with the Liberal Democrats but, thankfully, when the paper asked our press people, they got what most people in the party will think is the right instinctive response.

Last night a senior source in Nick Clegg's party said that there was no question of them approving such a move.

While many of us within Liberal Democrats continue to find some elements of the recent welfare reforms, particularly those which affect sick and disabled people, unpalatable, Hilton's paper shows how much further the Tories would go, or would have gone if they'd had the chance.

Hilton's proposed cuts would limit Housing Benefit even further and restrict the Universal Credit so that it incentivises full time work.

The Telegraph is running a poll on whether people would favour further cuts. You would have thought that Telegraph readers weren't particular fans of welfare spending. However, a majority of respondents either want more information or think enough has been cut from benefits.