Crofting Support (Highlands and Islands)
The final item is a members' business debate on motion S1M-3352, in the name of Tavish Scott, on support for crofting in the Highlands and Islands.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the importance of crofting to the Highlands and Islands; welcomes the publication of the White Paper on crofting reform and encourages crofters to participate in the consultation now underway; further notes the level of agricultural returns to crofting businesses and supports the agri-environmental focus that the Environmentally Sensitive Area scheme has brought to many crofting counties, and encourages continuing support to crofting through such measures as the Crofting Counties Agricultural Grants scheme.
It is obvious that the debate is not of great importance to all members of the Parliament. Nevertheless, it is an important issue for those of us who represent constituencies in the Highlands and Islands. Crofting is a way of life. It is a state of mind. Perhaps the best definition of crofting is that it is a piece of land surrounded by legislation.
Crofting is the cornerstone of a vast area of Scotland. The Parliament should take the opportunity today to reaffirm its belief in the importance of crofting. We should reaffirm our commitment to retaining and enhancing the opportunities that it brings. Agriculture underpins crofting activity and should be the essential focus for Government, in respect both of legislative change and of grant and investment policy.
I will concentrate on three areas, the first of which is the white paper on crofting reform. I welcome the consultation exercise that ministers have begun to put in place. Recently, I attended a meeting with the crofting assessors in my constituency—I am sure that other members have attended similar meetings. Also, last Monday, I attended a public meeting that was addressed by the Shetland branch of the National Farmers Union of Scotland, the Crofters Commission and a representative of the Scottish Executive environment and rural affairs department.
A number of common themes emerged from those discussions. I will take the opportunity of writing to the Minister for Environment and Rural Affairs during the consultation exercise, but I want to raise a couple of issues in the brief time that is available today. The first issue is the need to be clear about the purpose of the bill, which will be the first on crofting in the young life of the Scottish Parliament. For that reason, the bill should incorporate the belief that crofting is an important agriculture-based activity. The legislation should be limited to the essential areas of reform that the consultation shows to be important.
Concern has been expressed about issues such as the principle of crofting regulation being devolved to crofters in townships. In my view, the Crofters Commission has a genuine role to play. That is especially the case in the light of the beefed-up proposals that ministers are making on the appeal process. Cases in which it is difficult to come to a judgment may be few, but intense local difficulty would result if cases were determined locally. It is important that ministers reflect on the consultation exercise in that respect.
I hope that the minister will also reflect on the importance of retaining the crofting counties agricultural grants scheme, which is an important vehicle in the provision of infrastructure improvements across the crofting counties. The grants scheme may be small in Scottish budgetary terms, but it is important to the areas that it serves.
My second point relates to the importance of agri-environmental policy to the crofting counties. The environmentally sensitive area system of support, which is in place in many areas of Scotland, has been a considerable success. In my constituency, 849 crofts and farms are signed up under the 10-year ESA programme, which is worth some £2 million to the Shetland economy.
The ESA measures enhance the environment and have notably reduced stocking densities. That has had the result of improving habitats for wildlife—indeed, the corncrake is making a welcome recovery. I cannot believe that it would be good public policy for the ESA tap to be turned off in two years' time, when the first crofts in Shetland that signed up to those measures come to the end of their 10-year period.
I am not persuaded by the minister's arguments that areas such as Shetland will benefit from the rural stewardship scheme. I understand that success in the RSS relates in large part to the employment of consultants. In that respect, I can do no better than to quote from a letter that I received from the Shetland Crofting, Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group. The SCFWAG team wrote:
"No one in Shetland has been accepted into the scheme this year. SCFWAG drew up one RSS plan for a holding with as wide a range of habitats and archaeological sites as we are realistically likely to get in Shetland. The total of 35 points for the plan fell well short of the required 43.5 points. … we feel that the RSS in its present form still does not meet the requirements for a workable agri-environmental scheme in Shetland."
Therefore, I ask the minister to reconsider his position on that area of policy, which is extremely important for the future of the islands and the other areas that are covered by the ESA programme.
I noticed in an article in The Scottish Farmer of 14 September—I am sure that the minister regularly reads that journal—that a representative of his department said that the change from the ESA scheme to RSS would not be entirely seamless. I am sure that we could all accept that in terms of the current position. I hope that the minister will be able to reflect on that important area of policy.
I also have a suggestion about agri-environmental policy in relation to the organic aid scheme that is used by many crofters. I believe that that measure could be better described as a value-adding one. That makes it consistent with the Executive's "A Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture". In that context, would it not be better to bracket the organic aid scheme within the same budget as LEADER II, rather than to decrease the RSS and ESA budgets to pay for the scheme? Organic aid is in many ways a matter of a management decision about adding value to a crofter's output. If it were viewed in those terms, advantages would flow to other areas.
My third point relates to crofting as a business.
Does Tavish Scott agree that there are huge opportunities for the niche marketing of organic products, particularly from crofting? What is needed from the Executive is an organic action plan, preferably backed up by targets, and the development of local trading networks. What is also needed urgently for many crofts and small farms is the restitution of small rural abattoirs or the provision of mobile abattoirs.
I accept much of Robin Harper's analysis, but I believe that the essential point about organic status is that most crofters have been farming organically for many years and arguably since time immemorial. In that regard, crofting is consistent with the niche marketing that Mr Harper described, including local slaughtering and production of meat for local marketplaces and the pursuit of wider policy objectives.
I will finish with two brief points. The first relates to animal welfare and transportation. At next week's agriculture council meeting in Brussels, the Danish presidency will seek to implement tighter regulations on animal welfare. Sheep and cattle are being transported from Shetland and Orkney to the Scottish mainland. It is essential for crofting businesses that there should be no further impediment to that trade. Animal welfare requirements during shipping are precise and demanding. I ask the minister to ensure that there will be no threat to the existing arrangements.
Crofting is an agriculture-based activity. The sustainability of crofting, particularly in areas such as Shetland, depends on fewer imported inputs, more home-grown produce and local marketing. The debate gives Parliament the opportunity to consider crofting in that context. I look forward to hearing the minister and I hope that he can clarify the Government perspective on those issues.
I congratulate Tavish Scott on securing the debate. I thank the Presiding Officer for calling me early in the debate. I apologise to members because I will not remain for the full debate, but I will certainly read with interest their comments and speeches in the Official Report.
There is little doubt of the importance of crofting to the Highlands and Islands. Crofting benefits rural communities by helping them to retain their population. Schools, shops and medical practices remain viable because of crofting and that enables rural communities to survive. That has been proved by past comparisons between communities in the crofting counties and communities outwith those counties. The benefits of crofting should be extended throughout Scotland to safeguard other rural communities.
Crofting also benefits the environment. Many areas covered by crofting are seen as environmentally sensitive. Those areas have been protected by crofting and it is right that that should be recognised and supported. That can be done by ensuring that crofters are given access to the rural stewardship scheme, as Tavish Scott outlined.
The intention of the proposed crofting bill will be to de-couple crofting support from agriculture in order to promote diversification. That will be welcome, but there should also be a recognition of the importance of agriculture in crofting areas and of the fact that crofting practices protect the environment.
Discouraging agriculture in crofting areas would cause environmental damage because the land needs to be managed and protected. The less favoured areas support scheme has the potential to protect this form of agriculture. The scheme should have been targeted at the remote crofting areas. Although I appreciate the work that has been carried out and acknowledge that the scheme has been improved, there are still anomalies, such as the fact that prescribed stocking levels bear no relationship to the croft souming. If a crofter is obliged to stock at a certain density because the land will not sustain a higher density, it is surely wrong that they be penalised for that. Capping could have been used to ensure that there was no over-compensation. More work has to be carried out on the marketing of produce from crofts, as we have not met the full potential that is offered.
Crofting provides housing in areas where it would not be viable to do so in any other way. However, the crofting counties building grants and loans scheme needs to keep pace with the cost of building a house in rural areas. We are all aware of the cost of connecting services such as electricity, water and sewerage, but crofters face other costs if they want to build houses near trunk roads as they are often required to build a road that links to an existing access.
To retain the social and environmental benefits, we need to support crofting. Although I welcome the moves in the white paper to make crofting more accessible, I believe that it must help to ensure that crofting continues and grows or we will all be poorer.
I congratulate Tavish Scott on securing the debate. I understand that Tavish Scott is not a crofter, but he always brings an air of cultivation to these debates and I am pleased to participate in this one.
The meat of the debate is in the white paper and we await with interest the responses that it will bring. It proposes a number of radical reforms that would change crofting substantially. For example, it suggests that the Crofters Commission should become a non-departmental public body. I have received representations from the staff of the Crofters Commission in Inverness, who are concerned about the possible deterioration of their employment rights and the loss of their civil service pension. Many of the workers have earned their pension rights over a long period of working for the Crofters Commission. I hope that the minister will expand on paragraph 2.6 in the white paper, as it is characteristically opaque and unintelligible—at least to me, as a mere lawyer and politician. Will those workers have the benefits of the pension rights that they have built up over the years?
There is a wider argument to do with whether the private sector should meet the whole burden of public sector pensions. A lead should be given to Scotland and the UK about public pension rights as there is so little rhyme or reason in what goes on that it is no wonder that the issue arouses such concern.
New crofts will be created only on the application of a landowner. I know that the National Trust for Scotland created some new crofts recently, for which it is to be congratulated, but the likelihood of private landowning estates creating crofts in Scotland, where the crofters would immediately have the benefits of the right to buy, is about the same as the likelihood of Lord Watson applying to join a hunt—it ain't going to happen. It is therefore difficult to see why such a proposal should be made. Perhaps, however, the Executive might be willing to take a wider approach after the consultation is over.
I welcome the opportunities that crofters would have to benefit from forestry schemes, but I invite the minister to seek information as to how existing forestry schemes are operating. I am told that the bureaucracy, rules and conditions are extremely tight. I know of several cases where that has caused problems and I would be happy to pass details of one of them to the minister.
Fergus Ewing mentioned forestry, but does he accept that many crofts are completely unsuitable for forestry schemes, particularly crofts in the more marginal western areas?
Yes, I accept that. That is why I have voted for and supported the extension of the community right to buy to include fishings. However, that might not be exercised on a major scale and is a topic of some controversy. In principle, why should crofters be denied the right to benefit from the opportunities that private landowners have enjoyed for centuries? I hope that we all agree that there is no reason for that to be the case.
The proposal that family assignation should be restricted to a reduced circle of relatives is likely to lead to some extremely voluble and controversial responses. There is nothing more vituperative, longstanding and heated as crofting disputes—as I am sure that those of us who represent crofting counties will know. We must await with interest what response that proposal receives.
I commend the solid work that has gone into the white paper. I note that the individuals on the panel are a mixture of the distinguished, the famous and the infamous. They have come up with several novel and innovative proposals. I look forward to reading the responses to the consultation exercise.
I declare that I am a poor, innocent Highland crofter, downtrodden with legislation and red tape—I fill out forms constantly and get no practical benefit. However, the proposed crofting reforms offer a welcome opportunity for the creation of new crofts. The principle of croft use will extend beyond agriculture. The implication of that is that the crofter will be allowed to diversify into activities other than agriculture. I do not know how many will take advantage of that opportunity. In some parts of the Highlands, particularly on the west coast, there is little opportunity for anything other than hard agriculture.
The proposals will also give crofters the right to plant and harvest trees. That is a new and welcome addition to crofting. The white paper also sets out to reduce the red tape that I mentioned. When one deals with the Crofters Commission or the Scottish Executive environment and rural affairs department, one is handed a heap of forms—most people take them home and put them behind the clock—and very little happens.
The creation of new crofts is to be strongly welcomed. However, the planned new crofts are not to be created as equals with existing crofts. Legislative restrictions on the new croft tenants will limit what they can do and acquire. For example, the new tenants will not be allowed to buy their crofts. In effect, that will create a second class of crofter—no one welcomes that. I suggest that, in order to show good will for the new enterprise, the Scottish Executive should—through some of its agencies, such as the Forestry Commission, the local enterprise companies or SEERAD—give over some of its land currently not under crofting tenure for the creation of new croft land.
The white paper aims to modernise the administration procedures in order to remove unnecessary red tape. Greater flexibility is welcome—I am sure that everyone will agree with that. Will the proposals mean that the Crofters Commission has the right to reclaim crofts that have been left fallow or derelict for some time? Clearly, reclaiming unused crofts must be handled sensitively but, if that is done, it could free up many crofts, allowing them to be resettled, which would perhaps build new communities.
At Lochalsh in Wester Ross, which is in my area, the National Trust for Scotland has taken the lead and piloted a scheme to create eight new crofts on what was part of the home farm. That has introduced eight new tenants who are developing the facility and have started to build new houses in the area. That is a welcome step forward, which other agencies could follow.
I ask the minister to ensure that tenants for crofts are of genuine crofting status. The Crofting Commission must ensure that the criteria for croft tenancy are rigidly adhered to. We hear of cases where that does not always happen—in some instances, that has become an embarrassment. We must continue to have a healthy environment and crofting community in the years ahead.
This afternoon, I participated in a debate on the role of culture in Scotland. Crofting is a culture. Indeed, it has been a main contributor to culture in the Highlands and Islands for a very long time. Traditional crofting has linked urban and rural life in many areas of the Highlands and Islands, especially in places such as Lewis, Harris and Shetland. It provides a rich culture and the expert knowledge that has been enormously helpful to the social network of the Highlands and to preserving the tough rare breeds that are the foundation of Scottish livestock.
No one aspires to make a fortune from crofting. However, the model of people having a job as well as a small module of agriculture is popular in modern Europe. It is the epitome of biodiversity—making the most of what is around one while taking care of the environment for future generations.
Crofting is good for people and good for the Highlands, but it is under threat from two fronts. It is under threat of being swept away by so-called modernisers who see it as anachronistic and as a barrier to social engineering and experiments. I believe that the crofting communities are of primary importance in many rural areas and that their wishes should be listened to with respect when changes are in the air.
Crofting is also under threat from the Executive's position on the less favoured area proposals. I point out that the crofters and farmers in the most disadvantaged areas are the people whom those measures were originally meant to support. However, they have been left in a situation where most will be losers under the Executive's recommendations to Europe on LFA payments.
The big idea was to separate subsidy from agricultural production and to help people such as crofters, who are the stewards and managers of some of Scotland's most beautiful landscapes, which also contain some of its rarest flora and fauna. However, the Executive has followed too far the devices and desires of those who believe that there should be no change in payments to the areas.
In many cases, crofters will be worse off, getting the minimum payment. I urge the Executive to reconsider the levels of payment and to increase the number of stocking and grazing categories from the present four to at least six. There should also be more flexibility in the cattle coefficient bands. Under the forthcoming arrangements, people farming in richer areas, with more cattle, will be more richly rewarded than will the crofters in the areas that truly need help. I am glad that an extra payment of £2 per hectare is being made to islanders, but frankly that is not enough. The fact that there is a difference in subsidies of £8 per hectare between different areas of what is 85 per cent of Scottish farming land is inequitable to those in the areas with the poorest land. I ask the minister to reconsider that picture and to discuss payment levels with the Scottish Crofting Foundation before anything is set in cement.
I have two points to make, both of which are connected to what Rhoda Grant—who is no longer with us—said.
First, I echo what Jamie McGrigor said about the LFA regime. Some weeks ago, I had a meeting in the croft of Iain and Netta Mackenzie in Elphin in west Sutherland. We had practical evidence in front of us that showed that in some of the more marginal and difficult areas, such as Elphin, Stoer and Lochinver, many crofters are losing up to £1,000 per household. That may not seem like much in the scheme of things, but crofting is a marginal occupation. For someone who is trying to run a croft in those areas, it could be the straw that breaks the camel's back and leads them to say, "I'm coming out of crofting. I'm not going to carry on with it."
We do not have many alternatives in places such as Elphin. If members know Elphin, they will know that it is incredibly steep. Trees are not an option and, although many worthy people have suggested raising cattle, cattle simply could not survive in that area, not least because of the simple question of winter feed. How on earth could cattle be reared there? We can only rear sheep. That is the only workable way of life.
In fairness to ministers, I should add that, during the summer, Jim Wallace met crofters' representatives in Dornoch and, on the same day, Ross Finnie met representatives in Golspie. The message has been put over loud and clear to ministers, but we need to return to the issue and not only because—if we are not careful—we will discourage the present crofters. When children grow up, they may consider the situation and decide that they do not want to go into crofting. In the longer term, that could lead to further depopulation.
Jamie McGrigor referred to crofting as a culture, and he is right. Scotland is a kaleidoscope and each facet is important.
Will the member give way?
I will come back to Jamie McGrigor in a minute.
To hurt or damage the crofting face of the diamond in any way would be deeply unfortunate. I echo the points that were made by Jamie McGrigor and Rhoda Grant.
In the scheme of things, it would not cost an enormous amount of money to tweak the system and put the situation right. There are not that many crofters, so that would not require a huge amount of money, but for the west of Sutherland and John Farquhar Munro's constituency it would mean an enormous amount.
Rhoda Grant talked about marketing. I bought a leg of lamb in the west of Ireland this summer. I was staggered to find that it was one of the most disgusting bits of lamb that I have ever eaten. However, we all know what a delicious, quality product lamb is when one gets a good piece of lamb that has come off the heather. We could do much more to market the meat that our crofters produce.
Since the Parliament was elected in 1999, I have suggested, with others, that we ought to consider legislation whereby, when a local authority grants a new supermarket planning permission, it will have the power to state that X per cent of the shelf space in the supermarket must be devoted to local produce. Civil servants have kittens when they hear that suggestion and instantly come back with the riposte, "How would you police it?" The fact that a problem is difficult is no reason to run away from it. It could be policed through councils' environmental health departments or planners. If such a scheme could be implemented—which would involve defining "local"—it could make an enormous difference to local producers of meat, vegetables and other products. We are running out of time in this session, but I hope that it will not be long before the Parliament addresses that matter, because such a measure would underpin our crofters and farmers.
First, I congratulate Tavish Scott on bringing the issue of crofting before the Parliament. It gives me an opportunity to talk about the plight of the crofters on the island of Tiree, which is in my constituency. Tiree has 272 crofts, 80 of which are active, and four agricultural holdings. It is no overstatement to say that crofting is the economic and social lifeblood of the island. There are precious few other employment opportunities there. The Ministry of Defence has cut staffing levels in recent years and the Met Office has switched to an unmanned operation, which has resulted in five job losses.
Crofting and the production of sheep and cattle are fundamental to the survival of the Tiree community, yet that lifeblood is in danger of being cut off. The island is already facing population decline. The statistics in Argyll and Bute Council's structural plan project that the current population of around 700 will drop by 100 in the coming 10 years. Highlands and Islands Enterprise acknowledges that Tiree is one of the most fragile islands in Scotland. A real fear exists that the population of Tiree could collapse and that the infrastructure of the island could implode. It would not be overstating the case to say that we could witness a Highland clearance over the next two to three years.
The principal threat to crofting on Tiree is the proposed closure of the market there, because of its poor state of repair. There are two reasons why the market is crucial to the well-being of crofting on Tiree. First, the fact that the market allows crofters to market their stock on the island means that it offers the crofters a much better return. The ability to sell on the island means that the stock looks better and weighs more. Therefore, crofters' returns are higher and they do not incur all the costs of having to leave the island to sell their animals.
The second reason—the transport cost—is fundamental. The collection centre aspect of the market is more important than the marketing element. To get animals off the island individually or in small numbers can cost between £30 and £40 per beast. The market on Tiree means that five or six times a year all the animals can be gathered together into big groups. After being bought, the animals go on to articulated lorries in big numbers and a special Caledonian MacBrayne sailing is commissioned to take them off the island.
Given the huge cost of the transportation of animals from the islands to the mainland, does the member agree that it is disappointing that the Executive has ruled out even a pilot of a road-equivalent tariff scheme, a measure that is popular and is supported by many island communities?
That issue would need to be examined. This debate is too important for me to indulge in political point scoring. I must deal with a serious issue on behalf of my constituents.
Transport costs are the key issue. The ability to gather all the animals together and to get them on to a big wagon is vital. Let us face it—no 40ft wagon on an articulated unit could get access to the crofts. The existence of the market means that the cost of transporting animals off the island drops dramatically to between £12 and £14 per head. That represents a huge saving to the crofters.
The market is in danger of closing. Six years ago, the crofters recognised the threat and began to work up proposals for a new market or collection centre. It is important to remember that the collection centre aspect of the market is the key aspect. The crofters raised about £50,000 to £60,000 of their own money, they employed a consultant to produce a proposal for a new market and they looked to Europe for help in matching the funding that they had raised. They turned to the processing and marketing grant and the European regional development fund in a bid to obtain funding for the replacement market.
I have convened many meetings on the matter on the island. We brought over officials from SEERAD to see at first hand how important the market is to the survival of crofting on Tiree. Although HIE, Argyll and Bute Council, Argyll and the Islands Enterprise and the Crofters Commission have all backed the bid for funding, the proposals have been rejected three times. The latest rejection came only yesterday.
Having spoken to the local community, I can report to the Parliament that its members are devastated. They are beginning to lose faith in the ability of the public agencies to help them out of their situation. They are questioning the commitment of the public agencies to turning round their prospects. More has been spent on consultants' fees than on any other item. If one added all the consultants' fees together, the sum might pay for a quarter of the ruddy market.
The matter is serious. I ask the minister to step in and to demand answers from his officials about why they refuse to help. The islanders do not want more excuses or platitudes. They want help, action and a collection centre-cum-market. Such a facility is fundamental to their survival and to the survival of crofting on the island.
There is a real threat to the future of Tiree. I do not say that lightly. I ask the minister to give the Tiree islanders a commitment that he will act on the issue and ensure that the public sector delivers for the people of Tiree. If that does not happen, the island could implode and we could end up with another Highland clearance on Tiree.
I shall try to address all the points as quickly as I can, given the limited time that is at my disposal.
Let me start by emphasising that the Scottish Executive is committed to crofting. That is illustrated by the high priority that we have given to crofting reform. We have introduced measures to allow crofting communities to buy their land in the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, which is currently going through stage 2. More recently, we published a white paper devoted to reforming crofting tenure. That demonstrates the extent to which the Executive values crofting.
Under the white paper, security of tenure, fair rents and the right to transfer the croft will continue. However, we propose to bring crofting law up to date and to enable crofters to advance in prosperity and control their own future. Included in our key proposals—or radical reforms, as Fergus Ewing described them—is our intention to revise the constitution of the Crofters Commission. I can inform Fergus Ewing that, whether the proposals are opaque or otherwise, no decisions have been made on pensions for Crofters Commission staff, but when decisions are made, they will be unlikely to be disadvantageous to those staff.
We also want to provide for the creation of new crofts and to enable owner-occupiers to let their croft land without creating a crofting tenancy. However, to answer John Farquhar Munro's question, the provisions on absenteeism will remain. Those provisions allow crofts to be freed for new tenants if the current tenant lives more than 16km away or if the owner of an individual croft does not reside on it.
We also want to modernise conditions of tenure to enable wider use of croft land and greater use of common grazings. We aim to clarify the right of crofters to plant and exploit trees. An important point—which Jamie McGrigor should note—is that we also want to remove the requirement that grants to crofters must be linked to agricultural production.
As Tavish Scott mentioned, we want to allow responsibility for crofting regulation to be devolved to local bodies. We are keen to see crofting communities undertake self-regulation where they are ready for that task, but as Tavish Scott highlighted, such a move cannot be forced on people. We cannot expect them to take that on overnight. We want to allow for different approaches to regulation in different areas and to simplify and reduce the bureaucracy of crofting regulation. We want to enable changes in designation of croft land to be reversible and to minimise the impact of absent and unco-operative landlords.
In addition, we want to make information about crofts better and more accessible. We want to extend new rights to unmarried partners of crofters and to redefine the crofter's family for purposes of succession and assignation. We want to modernise the appeals arrangements to ensure that they comply fully with the European convention on human rights, with an enhanced role for the Scottish Land Court. Last but by no means least, we hope to extend entitlement to appeal against regulatory decisions to cover all the parties affected.
We are nearing the end of the consultation on the white paper, so if members or those whom they represent have not made an input to that, they should do so as quickly as possible.
A total of £7 million is available for the main crofting grant schemes: the crofting counties agricultural grant scheme, the crofters building grants and loans scheme and the livestock improvement scheme. We have a commitment to crofting and we want to ensure effective use of those resources.
Concentrating those resources solely on projects that enhance agricultural production is no longer the big idea—as Jamie McGrigor called it—or the most effective means of promoting economic rural development in crofting communities. The resources that are provided to promote crofting should be available to support the range of land-based activities undertaken on crofts and common grazings.
If I may respond to the collective wish of the two Jamies—if I may put it that way—the LFA scheme is not all a one-way street. Claimants in Caithness and Sutherland covered by our offices in Lairg and Thurso—it is a pity that Jamie Stone has left the chamber—have improved their overall take.
For the record, I should say that Jamie Stone has a committee meeting immediately after members' business. He gave his apologies to the chair.
That is perfectly understandable. We cannot be in two places at once.
Interestingly enough, claimants in those areas have increased their overall take to 6.6 per cent, compared with the previous figure of 6.3 per cent.
I do not know what those figures represent, but I have my doubts about whether many crofters will have seen any increase from LFA payments. This debate is about crofting.
The figures represent £4.2 million out of a total of £63 million for all of Scotland. That is what they represent.
Environmentally sensitive area schemes have operated in the Highlands and Islands since 1987. There are separate schemes for the Shetland Islands, the machair of the Uists, Benbecula, Barra and Vatersay, the Argyll islands and the Cairngorm straths. A total of more than 1,800 crofts and farms are now participating in the ESA schemes in the Highlands and Islands. That is almost 75 per cent of eligible units.
We have record annual expenditure on ESAs of more than £4 million in the Highlands and Islands—and just under £2 million last year in the Shetland Islands alone.
The first ESA 10-year plans will come to an end in mid-2003. I appreciate that there are concerns about what will happen thereafter and whether participants will continue to get support for environmentally friendly agriculture. I can assure Tavish Scott and others that the Executive is aware of the wider socio-economic benefits that the ESA schemes have delivered over the past 10 years. The Executive is currently giving detailed consideration to the options for ESA participants when their current 10-year agreement expires.
Having mentioned socio-economic benefits, I think that it would be appropriate to respond to George Lyon's point about the Tiree market. I thank him for giving me prior notice of the question. I understand that the market project has not been rejected. That is fortunate, I would assume. It was considered yesterday by the project assessment committee, which decided that it required further information. A decision was therefore deferred. May I therefore assure Mr Lyon, and through him the good people of Tiree, that I am aware, through personal and other constituency experience, of the importance of such decisions to fragile, rural, remote island communities. I will take a personal interest in the outcome of those discussions.
Later this year, we intend to consult on options for the future. We want to have arrangements in place next year for when the first agreements expire. I hope that that will reassure Tavish Scott and others who have expressed concerns.
We have substantially increased the funding that is available for agri-environment schemes. In addition to the £12 million that was allocated in the comprehensive spending review, there will be about £85 million more for the budget for agri-environment schemes from the proceeds from modulation. Taken together, those schemes are now worth around £10 million to the Highlands and Islands area. That represents a substantial financial commitment to crofting and to the environment.
The Executive will continue to encourage maximum participation in agri-environment schemes within the finite resources available. As I have already promised, we will consult—
Will the minister take a quick intervention?
Yes.
Does the minister realise how difficult it is for crofters who want to be organic to buy their feed from organic sources?
I was just about to come to the point about the organic aid scheme that was raised by Tavish Scott. We will consult on measures to replace ESAs when the existing agreements come to an end in the middle of next year. As with our work on the organic aid scheme, that will be part of a wider consultation to improve the operation of agri-environment schemes. I will announce the outcome of that consultation shortly, but I am not looking to reduce funding.
Meeting closed at 17:54.