Visiting Delegation
On behalf of the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament, I welcome our German guests. This is the committee's first opportunity to meet formally delegates from other European organisations. Outside the Parliament, we have met informally a number of representatives from Holland, Germany, Sweden and Spain. However, today is the first chance that we have had to share our experiences formally and we hope that this will be the first of many visits from the regions of Europe. We believe that we have much to learn from the way in which you, our guests, have operated over recent years. We hope that, because we are a new Parliament, we may be able to bring some fresh thinking to the way in which the regions of Europe operate. We are delighted to hear from you today.
We are aware that today is a significant date for you, as it is the 10th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall, which brought many significant changes to your part of Germany. German integration, which followed that, had many problems and doubtless you have had to wrestle with many of the economic and social difficulties that integration brought. However, integration also brought many major political changes to Europe. We hope that, as a new Parliament, we can learn from you and from your region, which has recently become part of the European Union through integration. We will take it from there.
I invite each of our guests to make a short contribution, following which there will be comments and questions from committee members. Given that my knowledge of German is non-existent and that my accent is bad, perhaps you could introduce yourselves, so that I do not offend anyone by mispronouncing their name. Welcome.
Ms Katrin Budde (Business and European Affairs Committee):
Thank you. I can give an introduction in English, but it will be better if I speak German and use the translator for the detail of our presentation.
Thank you for inviting this delegation of members of the Saxony-Anhalt Parliament, who are also members of the economics, technology and European affairs committee—the three issues are put together. My colleagues are Herr Süß, who is the PDS's economics spokesman, Herr Gürth, who is the economics spokesman for the CDU—the equivalent of the Conservative party—and Herr Tögel, who is the SPD's European affairs spokesman. He is also a member of the European Union's Committee of the Regions. I am Katrin Budde. I am the SPD's economics spokeswoman and the committee's chairwoman.
The convener is right—today, 9 November, is an important day for us, as 10 years have passed since the fall of the Berlin wall.
Perhaps we can tell you something about our new Parliament, which is a little different from those of the other, old German provinces. Our Parliament is exactly nine years old. For 40 years before that, there was no Parliament in Saxony-Anhalt. I know that is not the same as the 200 years that Scotland waited.
The speaker continued in German. Following is the simultaneous interpretation:
Perhaps you will allow me to continue in German. All of us have been members of Parliament since 1990. When we started our parliamentary work, we had to reorganise. We notice that you deal with European matters on a fortnightly pattern—perhaps that is due to the newness of the Scottish Parliament. After 10 years in Germany, we do not have a European committee, but that does not mean that we do not accord European matters the same importance and of course we have to see where we can learn from each other. We emphasise that we are happy to exchange views with you on European matters, because we feel that our countries have many similarities.
Scotland has areas that receive objective 2 and objective 1 funding from the European Union. Sachsen-Anhalt is still an objective 1 area. However, for Scotland and the new regions, this might be the last period in which we will benefit from the structural funds. We may see a few differences when we compare the period 2000 to 2006 with the first period.
You asked us what you could learn as a Parliament. We will be able to talk about that in our question and answer session. As a committee and as a Parliament, we have been looking into European co-operation and the content of the structural funds. We will have an opportunity to discuss those topics.
The European Union and the European Parliament are also important for us. Increasingly, we are seeing the legislators of the European Union countries included in the process of European unification and co-operation. We would like to play our part in that. We are interested in the co-operation of committees that deal with European matters.
Our Parliaments are elected in similar manners. We have directly elected members and members who come from a regional list. I think that our legislatures have similar structures.
I think that that is enough for my introduction. Later on, we can have a more detailed discussion, and the opportunity to talk about working together on a more permanent basis.
(simultaneous interpretation) I would like to mention one particular aspect of the work of our Parliament. The Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties led to regional area administrations such as our regional Parliament. We got the opportunity to take part in European Union decisions.
The Committee of the Regions has been a fixed institution since 1994. A lot of work has still to be done—and perhaps it will require a similar length of time for it to get the same powers as other institutions—but I think that the Committee of the Regions is already able to look after the interests of the region. It is also able to work on behalf of European regions to gain influence for them.
I have asked my colleagues in other committees such as this one to make these meetings possible so that we can learn from each other. I have noticed that our Parliament has much more opportunity to get information direct from Brussels because I am a member of the Committee of the Regions.
I want to ensure that we participate in the work of the Committee of the Regions in the future. That may also be important for the Scottish Parliament, as I know that Scotland is part of the Committee of the Regions, although I am sure that I do not need to take coals to Newcastle. I believe that it is important to give the legislature the opportunity to participate. Within Germany's federal structure, our Parliament can discuss European matters in the Bundesrat, but only in a fringe capacity. Nevertheless, it is important for our Parliaments to use those opportunities.
Other regions profit from contact with the Committee of the Regions through cross-regional partnerships, networking and so on. That also brings opportunities for economic development, which is an important issue for us. Our region has immense structural and economic problems. After the fall of the wall, change occurred at an unprecedented pace in all industrial sectors—mining, the petrochemical industry and so on. Those changes led to large-scale unemployment. That is why we are interested in making regional contacts.
Parliaments must take an interest in the work of the European Parliament, as it may be a stepping stone to supporting and maintaining economic contacts. I hope that the Scottish Parliament will support us in that. I know that a number of the Scottish Parliament's members are members of the Committee of the Regions. After 2002, things will be different. However, I hope that we will still be able to co-operate.
Thank you.
(simultaneous interpretation) I want to outline my opinion on a particular problem. Yesterday, we examined the problem of European structural funds for the period to 2006. In our country, the operational programmes that we have have come to an end. We have fixed the areas for funding, which must now be confirmed by Brussels.
I was particularly interested in the talk on European partnerships in Glasgow yesterday. We heard how the distribution of European funds in Scotland has undergone a grass-roots development over the past 10 years.
According to what we were told yesterday, a number of local bodies can decide on the distribution of those funds. We hear from Scotland that you have four such agencies. As parliamentarians and members of the Government, you may want to find ways of developing that further. It may prove a good basis for obtaining a broad acceptance of the system and may allow many people to participate. We are trying a similar approach and are interested in how you have been dealing with this so far. Perhaps we will get a number of approaches that are suitable for us. It would also be interesting to hear how this can be improved, to ensure a just and efficient distribution of funds.
Thank you.
(simultaneous interpretation) When I arrived this morning, I was reminded of when our Parliament first met, nine years ago. Our first session was held in a barracks and was very improvised. I thought back to those days and remembered that the first years, before all the administration was in place, were the most exciting and beautiful period. We could do as much as we wanted and put into practice everything that we wanted. Those days may never return. I hope that you will have a similar experience.
When a new parliament is created, it is important that people realise what it is doing for them. In villages, towns and cities, people must be able to appreciate that the Parliament is doing something for them. The same applies to the European Union. In Saxony-Anhalt and Scotland, it is our task to tell people what the European Union gives us, what the funds are used for in our countries and what can be achieved.
A number of useful programmes are in place. I would like to discuss the possibility of setting up joint programmes between Scotland and Saxony-Anhalt to inform people, as that is much more difficult to achieve alone. It will also be important to compare experiences of European programmes and of the Parliaments and to exchange information. I am sure that we can both learn from our experiences, to our mutual benefit.
Thank you. You make some very interesting points. Your point about how structural and other European funds have been used in Scotland is well made, as Scotland has a reputation for using structural funds efficiently. I hope that that experience will be of benefit to other regions in Europe.
I now invite members of the committee to ask questions. I ask members to identify themselves and to say whom they represent, for the benefit our guests.
I am the president of one of the parties that sits in this Parliament—the Scottish National party, which is the official Opposition. Because I am the oldest member, I have the title of the mother. That is quite nice, because it means that I get invited to all sorts of events. I was also the mother of the European Parliament, of which I was a member for 24 years.
I have a few short questions. You say in your paper that the Länder can establish their own representations in Brussels. Are those representations limited to the Commission, or do they have access in any form to the council?
You also say that a Land could take a different line from the rest if it had a special interest in doing do so and you give the example of North Rhine-Westphalia. One of you mentioned that you sit on the Committee of the Regions. Is that correct? In your part of the world, are those members appointed or elected? How many members are you entitled to?
(simultaneous interpretation) I will answer the first question on our liaison office in Brussels. It is an information office. Unlike the federal Government, we do not have any executive rights. As far as I know, there are informal channels, but we do not have the opportunity to sit on the council.
We carry out important work. Scotland has similar structures and, in my experience, it is very important to be able to deal rapidly with proposals in Brussels. The powers of the Scottish Parliament and its members might be similar to those of our liaison office. The difference may be that we are a small regional Parliament. We do not have the funds to employ as many people as, for example, North Rhine-Westphalia or Bavaria. The regional Parliaments have different powers. However, we hope that our employees' qualifications make up for that shortfall.
Germany, like the UK, has 24 places on the Committee of the Regions. There is an agreement between the federal Government, the region and local government about the distribution of seats. Each region gets one seat—that is 16 seats. The local agencies get one seat—perhaps you have similar agencies, such as districts. That leaves five seats, which are rotated between the largest regions, providing them with a second seat. For example, Sachsen-Anhalt currently has two seats and will have one in the next session, whereas North Rhine-Westphalia has only one seat. The member or deputy member is part of the regional government. However, unusually, the government of Sachsen-Anhalt has decided that that member should be elected by the Parliament. Currently, I am that member.
The delegation knows who I am, because they visited my constituency yesterday and we had dinner. I want to thank them for coming before the committee. Their presentation has been helpful and useful; it contained a lot of information.
I had the good fortune to be able to visit the region of Sachsen-Anhalt exactly two years ago—it was the eighth anniversary of the wall coming down. It is auspicious that this is the first regional delegation to visit the committee and that it is doing so today, on the 10th anniversary of the fall of the wall. Today, in the committee, we are marking history.
I was impressed by the emphasis placed on the restructuring of the economy in Sachsen-Anhalt, particularly the importance placed on infrastructure and information-communications technology. I hope that we can learn something from that difficult task. There are similarities between the Sachsen-Anhalt region and Scotland in terms of unemployment and the difficulties that we face in modernising and regenerating our economies. I hope that we can learn from each other.
To follow up on some points raised in the presentation, I am interested in the delegates' views on opportunities for possible further co-operation on economic development initiatives. The west of Scotland participated in the successful ECOS-Ouverture programme. Sachsen-Anhalt was one of the partner regions involved. I know that our visitors are particularly interested in INTERREG: do they see opportunities for further co-operation and development on that?
I was also interested to hear my colleague, Mr Tögel, speak about the Committee of the Regions. I wondered what the structural mechanisms were for incorporating the work of the Committee of the Regions in Sachsen-Anhalt. Do opinions involving delegates come before the committees, or are delegates autonomous and independent of the structures?
I was wondering about engagement with the people, which has already been mentioned, and about how you communicate positive messages to the people. I wonder whether we can learn anything from Sachsen-Anhalt's 10 years' experience in that.
(simultaneous interpretation) I will start with the use of structural funds, linked to what we were talking about before: how to communicate to people on a local level about the distribution of funds.
Between 1994 and 1999, we had strict guidelines on the three funds, particularly on regional development, social development and the creation of jobs. In contrast to what we heard from Strathclyde European Partnership yesterday, our regional Parliament linked the structural funds to national funds. We have tried to use them strictly on investment in infrastructure, and the European social fund was used primarily on getting people qualified, helping them to become self-employed or to get a job, and giving women employment opportunities. We concentrated the funds in particular areas.
That was changed for the second period. The funds were then used for research and development. In the new funding period, it will change again. People can see how the funds are being used at local level: first, on an improved transport infrastructure; secondly, on programmes to assist unemployed people seeking further qualifications; and thirdly, on helping businesses and their staff as technological advances are made.
Making those measures visible is a challenge and, like you, we have a duty to publicise them. Two years ago, we started making a conscious effort to ensure that projects do not run anonymously. The background is simple: the European Commission regulates and funds certain investments in our regional economy. In Sachsen-Anhalt, we had problems with larger enterprises that had been privatised, gone bankrupt and been privatised again.
On every occasion, subsidies had to be approved by Brussels, which was difficult for everyone involved in those businesses. It was ultimately up to committees in Brussels to decide whether subsidies were justified. For that reason, two years ago we tried to explain that there are not just problems with Brussels, but that there are many positive aspects to our relationship with Europe such as new infrastructure and new jobs.
Committee members might be interested to know that we want structural funds to be reorganised. We asked our Parliament to think about the content of the structural funds between 2000 and 2006; it recommended improvements to the structural funds. We tried to ensure that research and development and new communications technology were emphasised for use in business and other areas of life. We want that to be done in parallel with other important measures relating to business funding, employment and the agriculture sector. If you wish to know more, we can address the matter when we discuss INTERREG and areas of co-operation.
There must be objectives when people talk. It is always easier for both sides to suggest ways of working, rather than just having a general discussion. Mr Tögel will speak briefly on that.
(simultaneous interpretation) Your situation is not different from ours. We try to show what European policies achieve, but it is not always easy because of the media. There is sometimes a lot of bad feeling in our population, which arises from misinformation or ignorance. Much work has yet to be done. I do not know what your situation is, but when I look at your history, I am sure that it is not different from our situation.
The issue with regard to structural funds is always co-funding. Success has many fathers, so many people say, "We organised this and we did that and we provided the funds, and then along came Europe," but common initiatives are different. Under INTERREG and similar schemes, people who have nothing to do with us otherwise can see and experience what they can achieve with partners in other European regions. In my region, we had one or two projects that were run with the help of LEADER II, and people became enthusiastic Europeans because they had practical experience that Brussels was not far away. When projects are introduced, people suddenly have a completely different relationship with Brussels and Europe. That is why I try to get my colleagues to ensure that we have funds for our region and that we get the means to co-finance initiatives.
We want to ensure also that the region can help private businesses to be active under those programmes. That is tangible and provides concrete examples that are different from building a bridge or a new ring road, or similar projects. People view that as normal; they do not see it as being financed by Brussels.
As part of the common initiatives, we need to form transnational partnerships with the other European regions, the eastern European regions and the accession countries. That is a function that our region, which was integrated for 40 years in the communist system, finds difficult. We have a partnership with Bulgaria and an office there—the only office that a German region has in Bulgaria. We have contact with Iceland, Hungary and other eastern European states, which provide expert knowledge that might be of use to other western European regions. That could be a groundbreaking project for any other regions that might be interested. The issue was raised in our talks with Irene Oldfather and others, and we would like to know whether you might be interested in that.
I return to structural questions. We have only half the regional population of Scotland and only half the budget. However, we have a similarly heterogeneous structure. In Sachsen-Anhalt, the petrochemical industry is very active, but the region has only a small population. We experienced several structural problems after the fall of the Berlin wall. It is our duty to achieve a parity of living standard, but the north of our region does not have the same input as the south. I imagine that there are similar problems in Scotland: there are differences between the north and the south, and between the western isles and Edinburgh and Glasgow. Those problems could form a basis for working under INTERREG or other joint initiatives, to determine European policies, to make procedures more transparent, and to create a basis for future development.
Thank you very much. Such interchange makes the European Committee worth while. One of my reasons for wanting to sit on the committee was that I wanted to be involved in such discussions. It is a special day for us, as this is the first time that we have had such interchange.
I was interested to hear what Herr Gürth said about the founding of your Parliament. Obviously, it was set up in completely different circumstances, and with a completely different background from ours. You had the advantage of having no ground rules written for you when the Parliament was established. Many of our ground rules were set down for us, which is creating some frustrations in the Scottish Parliament. We inherited a legislative framework.
I am the chief whip of the Scottish National party in the Scottish Parliament. I have a couple of questions for you. I understand that the upper house of the German federal Parliament—the Bundesrat—is where the Länder are most directly involved in European policy. I would like to know how you, in Sachsen-Anhalt, can influence European policy at that level and what processes exist.
I would also like to ask about the process of your federal Land financial transfers—a process that you call the Finanzausgleich. What has been Sachsen-Anhalt's experience of that? I understand that a couple of the Länder are taking the Bundesrat to court on the issue of the way in which European funds are arriving in the various Länder. How does the money arrive in the Länder from the federal Government, and how is it accounted for? It would be useful for us to understand that.
(simultaneous interpretation) I will give you some information about the Finanzausgleich. It is our duty to ensure that the quality of life is on a similar level across Germany. Our constitution stipulates that certain moneys have to be paid into a fund that is used to achieve a common level. Tax income goes directly to local authorities according to a complex system. The distribution is decided in the Bundesrat—the upper house.
It is currently being discussed whether the current system is just and good. The more affluent, economically stronger regions say that the system is not good for the future because there is no incentive for poorer regions to use the money sparingly while achieving the same level of affluence. The more affluent regions have to give away much of their excess money, so they have no incentive to become economically stronger. Debate on that issue is raging in Germany. We do not know what the result will be, but if you know Germany, you will know that Germans take a long time to argue and find solutions to such problems.
For the past four years, we have been part of the Finanzausgleich. There was a different transfer system for the old regions of the former East Germany. The solidarity pact will run until 2004. How the transfer of funds will work for the new regions of the former East Germany will be renegotiated.
(simultaneous interpretation) I will say a few words on the European work of the Bundesrat and the regional Parliament. Work on a European level is done by the federal Government, but the upper house recently started to do some European work. In the past, there was no opportunity for the upper house to be part of the debate. There was no opportunity to get the papers, to influence and lobby, to discuss European matters in committees or to tell regional Governments how to behave in their sessions. Whatever the upper house decided was not binding for the regional Government and Parliament. It was frustrating as that meant that we were always a step behind. That led to low interest in regional government.
After 1994, the situation changed slightly. The Maastricht treaty allows for co-determination, so we are able to find out more about the work of the committees. The second option is that the federal Government can decide with the regional states which region will chair discussions with the federal Government. It could be one minister from a region who deals with the federal Government. Certain topics are discussed and decided by the federal Government and the region in conjunction.
Irene Oldfather asked whether delegates could decide things themselves or whether they are tied to parliamentary decisions. Our interests within a region are independent of the federal Government. Usually members of the European Parliament, who belong to different parties, look after regional and local interests. That is the arrangement in our region. There are fewer arguments within parties, but on certain decisions delegates must hold the party line or decide to go against it. There is, however, no imperative mandate.
(simultaneous interpretation) I would like to say one or two words about the flow of funds from the federal Government to the regions. The east of Germany, including Sachsen-Anhalt, is an objective 1 area. The recipients of objective 1 funding were decided jointly by the federal Government and the regions. The financial framework for the funds for regional development and for the social and agricultural funds is detailed for every year until 2006. In principle, there are no arguments, with the exception of one point that is under discussion. The federal Government uses a small percentage of funds for transregional roadworks—the creation of new infrastructure. That is on the assumption that the old east needs proportionately more roads than the western region. A small proportion of the funds is kept by the federal Government for such work.
The spending plans that are on the table at the moment are not affordable, so cuts must be made. On the other hand, we are trying to find more funds to allow the work to go ahead. The current situation is that the funding shortage will not be to the detriment of the region. We have an operational programme for which funding has been decided. Five target groups will benefit from three funds: the structural fund, the regional development fund and the social and agricultural fund. Small to medium enterprises are one group that is being funded.
Germany is in the middle of a restructuring process, the speed of which is probably unknown anywhere else in the world. As a result of that, unemployment is around 22 per cent. Our region has the highest unemployment figures in Germany, and has had for the past few years. That is because we had large-scale industries: petrochemical industries, lignite and mining industries. The introduction of the deutschmark—overnight—reduced the efficiency of certain sectors of the industry.
It is important that we develop small and medium enterprises, create new structures and modernise businesses and enterprises. We must also promote research and technological development. We heard earlier that that is necessary because the speed of innovation is not sufficient in our country.
Apart from looking after small and medium enterprises, we must take a number of measures to improve the infrastructure. We must, for example, work on the transport infrastructure and the environment, especially in the old industrial regions, where we have large-scale pollution. I think that there are similar problems in Lanarkshire, where there is also pollution from old industries. We want more emission control and less air pollution.
We want to use the social funds to create more jobs. We currently have between 280,000 and 290,000 people who are unemployed and actively looking for work. We will use those programmes to retrain people and help them to get qualifications. We will also clean up the pollution caused by the old industries.
Currently, we have a relatively clear idea of which areas we will concentrate on. We are also clear in our minds about where the funds will come from. One problem, which Ms Budde mentioned, is that the decision-making structures in Brussels cause difficulties. I do not know whether this is our problem or a problem in Brussels. Brussels always says that it is our problem and we say that it is a problem in Brussels and that the decision-making process is not sufficiently transparent.
This process must go faster for regions that receive objective 1 funding and are in the process of restructuring. I do not know how successful we will be, but it is important to exchange information at the international level; for example, to find out how this process works in your country.
I will ask two general questions. Your Parliament was set up with high expectations, as was this Parliament, but we have seen people from the former East Germany being interviewed on television who say that their expectations have not been met. Do you have any advice for us on managing the expectations that people have of a new Parliament?
You already explained that, like this Parliament, your Parliament has members who were directly elected, mainly SPD members, and members who were elected on a list. Do you differentiate between members who are directly elected and those elected on a list? Do you have different job descriptions? How do you manage that?
(simultaneous interpretation) I will begin with the second question. There are no real differences. How a member of Parliament is elected is of secondary importance; all members have the same rights and duties. It would be possible for those who are elected directly to be treated differently within their parliamentary group, but I do not know of any group that makes that distinction. Once you are a member of Parliament, you are a member of Parliament, and that is that.
The 10 years since the reunification of Germany have shown that it is very difficult to learn democracy. That applies to members of Parliament, but also to the population in general. It is not always possible to fulfil everyone's expectations, because—to make it more abstract—those expectations range from getting rid of a little bit of dog poo in front of somebody's door to providing somebody with a job. People do not understand why a Parliament cannot decide that a business will not go bankrupt.
We have to learn about the powers of local authorities and Parliaments and the learning curve is very steep. After large-scale restructuring, expectations are even higher—much higher than the system can satisfy. The only chance might be that people, especially children, who grow up under a new democratic system will learn that democracy is not just about living and taking, but about participating. Then you might have the opportunity to see what a Parliament can and cannot do. In East Germany, our expectations were far too high.
At least two other members of the committee want to ask questions, but we do not have much time. Do our visitors have any questions for the committee before we close?
(simultaneous interpretation) We were surprised to learn that your meetings are open and that the Official Report can be read on the internet. We find that very strange. Our committee meetings are not open and the publication of any record is very restricted. We hope that that means that the arguments take centre stage and that members cannot use meetings as a means of self-promotion. Public discussion takes place in the plenary sessions. I would be interested to hear of your experiences of your open system.
The response from members of the public is very good. People welcome the opportunity to read about what we debate. I know from many comments made to me about this committee and others that individuals and organisations look at the Official Report of the committees in great detail. They do so to learn, but also to hold us to account for what we do in Parliament. The fact that we are open and that the information is available very quickly is one of the successes of the Parliament. By tomorrow, everyone—not just people in Scotland—will know what we have discussed today. People from other parts of the world read about what is happening in the Parliament. Most of us think that it is a very good initiative.
I am a cynic and a member of the Scottish National party.
Are the two facts connected?
You have to be one to be the other. While I endorse what the convener has said about people in Scotland endorsing the openness of our Parliament, politicians also have to deliver on jobs and on economic reform. People might appreciate being able to read about what politicians have said, but they will only love politicians if they actually do something. In Scotland, we are on a limited time scale. We have to improve the quality of life in Scotland or else the population will become a little impatient with us. In a global economy, life is hard and people do not have time to listen to politicians.
That was an interesting response to a question about recording the procedures.
(simultaneous interpretation) Are there any meetings that are not in public? I could imagine that internal discussions have to take place, for example, if the committee is dealing with restricted materials or if it is talking to businesses about sensitive matters.
This committee has held no meetings in private. I cannot think of any reason why we would have to. I am aware that committees will come together before a meeting to discuss what line of questioning to take in the meeting, but such occasions are few and far between. However, the committee would be bound to respect any wish for confidentiality that was expressed by the people who were being interviewed. The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee might find itself in that situation, as might the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, which deals with sensitive matters.
I am a member of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. Our arrangement differs from that in Sachsen-Anhalt in that the committee links the issue of lifelong learning with that of enterprise. We have met in private when we have been briefed by local development organisations as we felt that that was the best way to ensure a full and frank exchange of views.
Could I ask a brief question?
Margo, I have never known you to ask a brief question, but on you go.
Is the European Union a popular institution in Sachsen-Anhalt?
(simultaneous interpretation) It depends.
On behalf of the European Committee, I thank our guests for their presentation. As Bruce Crawford said, sessions such as this make the work of the committee worth while. It is important for Europe that people from different regions reach out the hand of friendship and work together. I hope that this is not the last contact that you will have with the Scottish Parliament. I know that you have some contact with colleagues in Scotland but perhaps, through this Parliament, we can find ways of co-operating on joint projects that will be of benefit to the people we represent. I am delighted that you have taken the time to visit us.
It has been suggested to me that I bid you farewell in German, but I fear that my German is so bad that I would insult you by trying. I thank the translator, who has been excellent and has helped us with our work, and I thank the broadcast service. I do not know whether any committee has used this facility before, but it is the first time that we have tried. I hope that we can do it again with other colleagues from the European regions.
I ask the committee to wait behind at the end of the meeting so that we can have a photograph taken with our friends, who will make themselves available for questioning by anyone who did not have the opportunity to question them.
I thank the committee and I invite you to Sachsen-Anhalt to learn how our Parliament and committees work. Apart from going to a place, the best way to learn about somewhere is to read about it and look at pictures of it. We have brought small books for the members of the committee and a big book for the convener. We brought small books because it is hard to bring heavy books from Sachsen-Anhalt, but if you visit Magdeburg, we will give you thicker books.
Thank you for giving us the time to speak to you. I hope that we can continue this discussion in Magdeburg.
Thank you very much.
Meeting closed at 16:18.