The next item on our agenda is consideration of a paper on INTERREG III. Colleagues will recall that that programme for interregional co-operation was discussed with representatives of Saxony-Anhalt when we met them in Brussels. There may be scope for closer co-operation between Scotland and Saxony-Anhalt. Later in the meeting we will discuss a paper relating to that.
That is correct.
We qualify only for strands B and C of the programme. It would make sense for us to consider proposals for expanding the part of the budget that relates to strands B and C and that would benefit Scotland. I am open to hearing colleagues' views on the matter. In Brussels we discussed with representatives of Saxony-Anhalt producing a joint lobby paper. I am still open to that proposal, if members agree to it.
I am sorry that I was unable to accompany the committee on its visit to Brussels. It seems that members had an interesting agenda and I am sad to have missed out on that.
Perhaps we should ask for written submissions from those involved and consider them in relation to our inquiry. We could dovetail that on to the end of our discussions with the CPMR and the partnerships. We could take a look at some of the alliances, consider the written submissions and see whether there is scope for further development. Would that be acceptable?
I would be happy with that.
I note that Ben Wallace has lodged a number of questions on INTERREG. Do you have any comments, Ben?
I was going to raise the matter later, when we talk about working with other Parliaments, such as the one in Saxony-Anhalt. Things are still at a preliminary stage in determining how much the United Kingdom will get. Before we decide our priorities and how we treat INTERREG, we should be aware of how much money is available. I do not have any other comments to make on the paper that is before us. We are still waiting for some of the answers, but the information is useful.
The obvious point arising from Ben Wallace's questions relates to the location of the secretariats dealing with different parts of the schemes. They are in Poitiers, Copenhagen, Viborg and Lille. It is obviously incumbent on us and on the Executive to ensure that any interests in Scotland that want access to the schemes should have communications facilitated.
In the past, we have been able to draw down quite a lot of money from structural funds generally, and perhaps we have somewhat neglected some of the Community initiative programmes. However, now that the balance is likely to change, it is important that we get involved in those programmes, but John Home Robertson's point is valid.
The amount of money available is tiny in comparison with the big budgets. However, if there is a possibility that the big budgets might not be coming to us, we should take a first-principles view of what is available. That will require different ways of working. We clearly do not have common boundaries, unless we regard the North sea as a common boundary, and that means that we have to do things differently. That plugs back into the debate on regional policy and eligibility. We want to work across regional and national boundaries, but there will be a lot of pressure on the new accession states. That is quite right, but it means that we need to think differently about how we might work with them on projects that involve technology transfer or passing on expertise that is still beneficial to us. I am thinking of environmental clean-up technologies, as I know that some Scots firms are doing a lot of that sort of work in eastern Europe. We must rethink how we put our time and energies into such matters. The idea of tacking the issue on to the end of our work on regional policies is a good one.
I notice that the East of Scotland European Consortium mentions in its submission the possibility of further development of INTERREG post-2006. That fits in with some of the more general issues.
Sarah Boyack makes an important point about the amount of money involved. It is a question of the extent to which our role is to do with making legislation and creating policy so that we get more and more money. Is there another part of our role that involves helping communities in this country and in partner countries to come together? Work is being done on the ground by organisations such as the North Sea Commission and the Atlantic Arc Commission. Perhaps we could devise a way of engaging with those organisations and creating a dialogue so that we can understand the difficulties in which they operate. The work that those organisations do is important, as it involves engaging people in each of the EC partner countries. If we can be part of that, we will develop better links. I know that time is always a constraint—there is never enough of it—and that the amounts of money are small, but we are talking about more than money; we are talking about bigger issues, about people and about how we link everyone together.
Some interregional partnerships open the way for other opportunities, which is an issue that we might touch on when we discuss the Saxony-Anhalt paper. Obviously, as well as pursuing this issue, we also need to think differently. However, it is important that we make those regional connections. Perhaps that might act as a catalyst for other opportunities in the east where countries might be able to access some of the available funding.
Following on from John Home Robertson's comments, I wonder whether we should ask for a little more detail on each of the four programme areas. That might allow us to have a closer look at the matter.
We will ask for further written information and bring it back to the committee, along with written submissions on structural funds from the programme partners. I hope that we will then be in a position to take oral evidence from those partners at the next committee meeting.