Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. I declare my interest as a serial diversifier. I have just learnt to my regret but not to my surprise that growing corn now is really a loss leader. The report that I read said that it was not worth doing it. Growing corn has become an expensive pastime rather like skiing or shooting. The point I want to get across is that my diversification—the noble Lord touched on this point—pays for improvements to the landscape. I have a number of small developments in my farm buildings. I have about 12 units ranging from metal polishers to a micro brewery. They are very successful. Like many farmers, I am proud of what I have done on my farm to improve the landscape. We have dug a lake and ponds; we have planted woods and hedges and improved orchards. I pay tribute to the countryside stewardship scheme which has helped that process, both financially and with advice. However, all that is just a contribution; the main money that goes into improving the landscape comes from farm profits. At the moment the only way that farmers generally make profits is through diversification schemes. It is important, therefore, that the amendment reflects a better balance in subsection (2)(e). As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, pointed out, the wording as it stands implies that the management of the natural environment brings social and economic well-being. That, of course, is not necessarily the case; it is rather the opposite, as he pointed out—that economic well-being will contribute to management and improvement of the natural environment. I hope that the Minister will take due account of the points made. The amendment, which I support, would greatly improve the balance of the clause.