Our first item is consideration of the evidence that we have received so far on our inquiry into structural funds post-2006. Our intention was to start a debate in Scotland and to prepare a report over the next few months. We have received a number of written submissions—today the clerks have circulated submissions from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Department of Trade and Industry and Clackmannanshire Council. Further submissions are coming in from Highland Council and one or two others. I noticed that we have not received any submissions from the partnerships. Do they intend to submit anything? Did we write to them?
We contacted the partnerships but have yet to receive anything from them. I will chase that up and find out what they want to do.
I am happy to take comments from members about the content of the submissions. Perhaps we should try to agree a way forward. I suggest that we take some oral evidence—the partnerships are key players and would be a good starting point. I have some comments on the submission from Scottish Natural Heritage, but do members have any comments to make first?
Perhaps we should take evidence from the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions of Europe, which is another Europe-wide player: I used to be on its bureau and have a high regard for its office bearers. Given that the conference's main emphasis is on peripherality, its input could be valuable. For those who do not know, I should explain that the conference has been in existence for about 30 years. If we were to call witnesses from the conference, we would add a lot of credibility both to the work that we are trying to do and to the conference's work. I would warmly welcome the committee developing a relationship with the conference.
That is a good point.
It is difficult to comment on the COSLA paper, given that we received it only today. However, I go along with the convener's suggestion of inviting the partnerships to give oral evidence. It might be appropriate to invite COSLA to take part in the same meeting.
That is a sensible suggestion.
It is clear that a debate is going on. Although I would not say that everyone is hedging their bets, I acknowledge that regional policy could go down a number of different routes. It would be quite useful for the committee to discuss that subject. The best way of doing so would be to invite those organisations that have sent submissions—some of which are lengthy and useful—to talk to us about the issues, which go to the heart of the discussions that we had in Brussels. In Brussels, we heard how the debate on regional policy is being directed at European level.
I was interested in the submission by Scottish Natural Heritage. In relation to cohesion policy, SNH made a number of points about natural handicaps. After 2006, the European Commission will move towards targeting funding. It will be no surprise if money is targeted on mountainous, island and remote regions. SNH suggests that the southern uplands may qualify for such assistance. The submission contains a number of ideas. We do not want to raise expectations too much, but as SNH has gone to considerable trouble to make the case for funding for areas with natural handicaps, it might be helpful to balance the partnership approach and the COSLA approach with the approach taken by SNH.