Co-operation With Ireland
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-4899, in the name of Dennis Canavan, on behalf of the European and External Relations Committee, on the committee's third report in 2006, "Report on an Inquiry into Possible Co-operation Between Scotland and Ireland".
Over many centuries, migration in both directions between Scotland and Ireland has forged strong links between two countries that are geographically close and have much in common. There are many Irish people with Scottish roots and there are many Scottish people with Irish roots. My grandfather was born in County Tyrone in 1879 and came to Scotland at the age of five. He and his family were what nowadays we would call economic migrants. For my granddad, economic migration meant leaving school at the age of 10 and working down a Scottish coal mine at the age of 12. I am very proud to be a Scot born and bred, but I am also very proud of my Irish roots, and there are many thousands of Scots who have a similar experience.
The people of Scotland and the people of Ireland have much in common in our history and our heritage. We also have much in common in terms of our vision for a better future. As a consequence, there is considerable scope for co-operation between our two countries in areas such as cultural exchange, tourism, sport, education and transport, with significant social and economic benefits for the people of Scotland and Ireland.
The evidence that I received during the course of this inquiry indicated widespread support for co-operation between Scotland and Ireland. The fact that I was given the opportunity to meet Irish Government ministers, including the Taoiseach, is a sign that the matter is a high priority for the Irish Government. The First Minister has also expressed strong support on behalf of the Scottish Executive.
Some excellent co-operation is already happening, such as Colmcille, or the Columba initiative to promote Gaelic heritage, and the work of the Ulster-Scots Agency in promoting the Ulster Scots language and culture.
The peoples of Scotland and Ireland can learn a great deal from each other. In Ireland, there is great admiration for the Scottish higher education system, and many Irish students attend our universities. In Scotland, there is great admiration for the success of the Irish economy. Perhaps some Scottish businesses could benefit from working with Irish partners. However, the benefits of co-operation are not simply economic. Co-operation could encourage social cohesion and help mutual understanding of different cultures and beliefs. During my visit to Northern Ireland, I found that some people in the unionist community were still rather hesitant about bilateral co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, but if Scotland were also included in the co-operation programme, unionists might be more enthusiastic about participation, because such trilateral co-operation would involve the east-west strand as well as the north-south strand of the Good Friday agreement.
I also found that there is considerable interest in the Scottish Executive's efforts to eradicate sectarianism. Much of the sectarianism in Scotland and Ireland is linked to the history of migration between them and the resultant distrust between different communities. Co-operation projects involving people from different traditions and different faiths present an opportunity for teamwork, confidence building, the development of respect for each other and a better realisation that people can have different beliefs but nevertheless have much in common.
There are many good reasons for a programme of co-operation between Scotland and Ireland and, for some projects, there might be the added bonus of access to funding under the European Union co-operation objective that is to replace Interreg at the end of the year. Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland already have experience of accessing Interreg funding for a programme of cross-border co-operation. From next year, some parts of Scotland will be able to participate with the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland in qualifying for cross-border co-operation funding because, in places, the Scottish coast and the Republic of Ireland coast are less than 150km apart, which is one of the qualifying criteria for such funding.
On that point, does the member agree that a Campbeltown to Ballycastle ferry might increase co-operation between Scotland and Northern Ireland and that the fact that the Executive has held up such a service for eight years is not a good thing?
I agree entirely. I make specific reference to that ferry link—which I hope will be restored—in the report.
I am pleased that the Executive responded positively to most of the recommendations in the report, but I want to clarify an important point regarding the Executive's response to paragraphs 39, 40 and 41. The draft of the report that left my office referred to a programme of co-operation between Scotland and Ireland, but—apparently as the result of an administrative error—the published report refers to a programme of co-operation between Scotland and the Republic of Ireland. I wish to make it absolutely clear that what I envisage is a programme of co-operation between Scotland and Ireland as a whole—in other words, a tripartite programme of co-operation between Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
I hope that the discussions that are to be held in St Andrews later this week will lead to the re-establishment of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Northern Ireland Executive, which would undoubtedly facilitate such co-operation.
At the start of my speech I referred to the shared history and heritage of Scotland and Ireland. We cannot recreate the past and we cannot live in the past, but we can learn many lessons from the past that will help us to build a better future. If the recommendations in the report are implemented, they will help the people of Scotland and the people of Ireland to work together to build that better future.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the conclusions and recommendations contained in the European and External Relations Committee's 3rd Report, 2006 (Session 2): Report on an Inquiry into Possible Co-operation between Scotland and Ireland (SP Paper 607).
I welcome the European and External Relations Committee's debate. If I may, I will take the opportunity again to outline the Executive's support for future co-operation with Ireland. I warmly welcome the committee's recent inquiry and subsequent report on the subject, and pay tribute to Dennis Canavan for the hard work that he has done and the enthusiasm with which he approached his task. I did some work on the issue in the summer, and I seldom came across anyone who had not previously spoken to Dennis Canavan or who was not scheduled to speak to him in his role as rapporteur to the committee.
Like Dennis Canavan, I have ancestors from Ireland: in my case, they come from Antrim in Northern Ireland. Given the strong historical, economic and cultural links that exist between Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, I and other Scottish ministers are committed to encouraging co-operation and joint working throughout the Executive's policy portfolio, wherever opportunities for mutual economic and social benefit exist.
As a result of work with the Irish consul general in Edinburgh, several areas have been identified in which Scotland and Ireland confront similar challenges and in which potential exists for further co-operation and idea sharing. A prime example of that is the First Minister's visit to Dublin in August 2004, when he discussed the Irish experience of the implementation of a smoking ban on that island prior to the implementation of a similar ban in Scotland. The First Minister has been invited to Dublin later this year, where he intends to meet the Taoiseach and consider policies that have been identified as relevant to Scotland and Ireland.
I was in Northern Ireland recently to meet members of the North/South Ministerial Council to promote the proposed EU cross-border programme and to visit Northern Irish colleges of education to encourage joint working between the further education sectors in Scotland and Northern Ireland. We can benefit mutually from closer co-operation.
As many members will know, I too can claim some Irish roots—perhaps more direct than most. In light of the debate that we have just had on the food supply chain, does the minister agree that the food production and agricultural sectors are areas of possible co-operation? What discussions, if any, has he had on that?
I agree. I can identify two areas of co-operation that relate to the food chain. The first is, of course, agriculture, but I include fisheries in the equation, too. I will come on to the matters that we consider to be suitable for cross-border co-operation.
The Executive is an active participant in the British-Irish Council, which was established under the Good Friday agreement in 1998 and which aims to promote co-operation on a range of issues of mutual interest, from transport and tourism to environmental issues and social inclusion. In November 2002, Scotland was proud to host a successful summit on social inclusion at New Lanark. Social inclusion is one of the matters on which we lead in the council.
As members of the European and External Relations Committee are aware, and as Dennis Canavan said, we now have an opportunity to develop the new EU programme for extending cross-border co-operation. I and other ministers have outlined our strong support for the development of the programme, so I am pleased to report good progress. Executive ministers and officials have been involved in detailed discussions with Irish colleagues and Scottish partners on the programme themes and financial allocations and we expect a draft programme to go out to consultation in the next few months.
The programme will provide about €200 million, which will help bring substance to our efforts to encourage joint working on a range of issues, including enterprise and business development—particularly research and innovation—tourism, natural and cultural heritage, renewables, maritime and coastal zone management and, as I said, agriculture and fisheries. Those are all matters on which we have shared interests with Ireland and Northern Ireland and on which we can begin to share new ideas and best practice.
A crucial feature of the tripartite programme is that it will provide an opportunity to develop links between partners from the three areas, which will encourage further co-operation and develop further economic and social ties. It is crucial that partners, as well as Governments, continue to make efforts to facilitate the programme. Opportunities also exist under the continuing transnational, northern periphery, north-west Europe and Atlantic coast programmes.
I welcome members' views on those issues, as we are identifying priorities for the EU programme on cross-border co-operation. I will listen closely to the debate and respond to any points that arise.
I thank the European and External Relations Committee sincerely for agreeing to undertake an inquiry into possible co-operation between Scotland, the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. I congratulate Dennis Canavan on the good job and all the hard work that he did as the committee's inquiry reporter. His report has come just at the right time. I accept that the Scottish Executive, including the First Minister and Allan Wilson, the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, has done much work on the matter. However, we must ensure that the improvement in the links and co-operation between Scotland and Ireland that began in the period after devolution is given new impetus.
Although Scotland and Ireland have a long shared history, with deep and intimate links, for too long those connections were not given the appropriate attention by academia or Government. Our pasts are deeply entwined, from the time of the wars of independence, to the mass migration of Protestant Scots to Ulster in the 17th century, and the flow in the other direction, to which Dennis Canavan has referred, when people moved from all over Ireland to Scotland in the 19th century. Indeed, it was an Irishman, Francis Hutcheson, who was born in Ireland and moved to Glasgow, who was much of the driving force behind what Adam Smith and David Hume achieved in the Scottish enlightenment.
Inevitably, the more closely we examine our relationship, the more deeply and intensely we see our similarities and the things that we have in common. That can only help us to work together more effectively as ancient Celtic peoples and together shape a future that best suits all of our needs.
In the light of the continuing expansion of the European Union, the report has come along at the right time. It is true that Scotland will not benefit to the same degree in the future and that Ireland will not benefit from EU structural funds but, as the old saying goes, every cloud has a silver lining. The minister and Dennis Canavan have referred to the co-operation programme that will come into being following the end of the Interreg programme. As the European Union expands and we need to maintain its cohesion, co-operation between neighbours will become a prerequisite to avoiding unnecessary conflict.
That changing picture provides us with an incredible opportunity to be more imaginative in accessing the new co-operation objective, allowing Scotland to take part in the cross-border programme for the first time. In its evidence to the European and External Relations Committee, the Scottish Enterprise network said:
"In general terms, we feel future benefits to Scotland through the Territorial Co-operation programmes could be increased by adopting a strategic, pro-active, partnership based approach and the SE Network would seek to play an active role in this."
We can all share that view. We also heard from Donegal County Enterprise Board, which said similar things. There is a will on both sides. However, we need to examine how best we can be flexible with the 150-mile rule of the new co-operation programme to find other ways to help spread the benefits throughout Scotland.
The Scottish Enterprise network mentioned heritage trail work and tourism. We could learn something from the private sector. If we look at any website, whether it is advertising castles or golf, Scotland and the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland are almost marketed as one destination. Perhaps we can work jointly to sell that idea of the Celtic peoples working together much more effectively throughout the world.
Finally, on the St Andrews talks, the clock is ticking. I sincerely hope that we can find a way to re-establish power sharing in Ireland and that all sides will go that extra mile to ensure that that can happen. Everyone is holding their breath and hoping that that will be the outcome.
I apologise for the fact that Phil Gallie, the Conservatives' representative on the European and External Relations Committee, is not here. He is at the conference in Bournemouth, where he will be proceeding in his normal manner to spread joy and enlightenment everywhere.
On a serious note, I sincerely congratulate Dennis Canavan who, acting as rapporteur, has produced an excellent report that the Conservatives can completely sign up to. A great deal of work, time and effort has gone into the report, which is presented logically and cogently. Although I speak as one who is unable to trace any Irish ancestry, I know that there are deep-rooted connections between Scotland and Ireland, which manifest themselves in a number of ways. Dennis Canavan has dealt to some extent with the cultural connections and we have seen the ways in which we co-operate, for example in events such as the pan-Celtic festival of song and dance, which has participants from Scotland and Ireland. In Glasgow, we have the Celtic connections folk festival every January. That involves people not only from Scotland and Ireland but from Brittany and Wales and provides much enjoyment. The cultural connections exist and we must consider how to expand them.
We have been envious of the progress that the Irish economy has made over the past 20 years. The Irish have not been shy about exploiting EU grants, nor should they have been. They will have a problem as those grants dry up due to EU enlargement, but they have built an active and outward-looking economy and we, as their close neighbours, should seek to share in the wealth that many enterprising Irish people have worked to create.
If we are to expand trade with Ireland, we must improve transport by improving the A77 and A75 routes. I hope that the Executive will take that firmly on board. The Irish have done extremely well out of EU grants, but it is unlikely that the same level of support will be forthcoming and it seems that we will be unable to grant fund any of the proposed transport improvements. However, it is vital that those transport links should be not only maintained but improved and I look for the Executive to commit to doing that.
All the report's recommendations are eminently sensible. Dennis Canavan is entirely correct about the social benefits of co-operation between Scotland and Ireland. Sectarianism in Scotland is not the problem that it was 20 or 30 years ago, but we still have historical sectarian difficulties. They are caused by a mistrust of the different communities and will improve if there is trilateral involvement. Scotland can play a part in ensuring that the Irish settlement, which now seems to be working, continues to work for the benefit of the people of Ireland and has spin-off benefits for Scotland.
The report is a job worth while. Dennis Canavan has not often heard me praise him and has heard me agree with him even more seldom, but there is a lot in his report that should be commended to the Executive. I hope that it will act on the committee's recommendations.
This is a welcome debate on a welcome report. I add my congratulations to Dennis Canavan who, as the committee's inquiry reporter, set about his work in a genuinely determined and committed way. The product is a report that has been well received and endorsed by all parties.
As we have heard in the debate and as the committee bore in mind, there are important historical ties between Scotland and Ireland—north and south. We identified, not least through Dennis Canavan's prompting, the opportunity that reform of the structural funds offers to build on the good will that exists and on a number of initiatives that are already in place. Paragraph 19 of the report, which refers to some potential projects, records that co-operation between local authorities already takes place and lists initiatives that can be built up over a range of subjects.
Co-operation should not be confined to local authorities. As the report indicates, there is a role for bodies such as VisitScotland, sportscotland and our colleges and universities, as well as at governmental level. It is important that all those bodies participate in the genuine willingness to engage that has been expressed in the Parliament.
The committee was unanimous in calling for an extension of co-operation and on potential partners to take advantage of the opportunities that are afforded by the European Union's structural fund programme for 2007 to 2013. I would like to emphasise the point that Dennis Canavan made. The co-operation that the committee is calling for should be between Scotland and Ireland as a whole, not just the Republic of Ireland. Indeed, there is already co-operation between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland and some of that could, perhaps, become tripartite. The idea was not to break off one part of Ireland. The essence of the work was that there should be co-operation with the south of Ireland and Northern Ireland. I think that the minister reflected that in his speech. When I met Commissioner Hübner last year, when I still had ministerial responsibilities, I detected a fair wind coming from the Commission for that kind of engagement.
I will identify three important points. First, we will consolidate friendship and, perhaps, bring about a better understanding between the different traditions that exist in Scotland and in Ireland. Secondly, in a small but important way, the co-operation that we are proposing can play some part in underpinning the peace process. Like Allan Wilson, I have participated in meetings of the British-Irish Council, which was created as part of the Good Friday agreement. Although it got off to a slow start, I was able to attend meetings that discussed telemedicine and languages and involved the sharing of experience on tackling drugs and the use of information technology in government. As Allan Wilson said, the Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales have taken the lead on social inclusion. A lot of learning, based on people's experiences, has been shared, which has all been to the good. Thirdly, we can lever in resources that we might otherwise lose.
As the report makes clear and as the minister said, under Interreg IIIB, a number of schemes are already in operation. In the northern periphery, which includes my constituency, 32 projects have involved the Highlands and Islands area. Next week, under Interreg IIIB, there will be a conference in Orkney dealing with sustainable tourism.
Although we have not been able to participate in Interreg A, opportunities to do so are now opening up to us. As the committee indicates in its report, the Commission has also proposed the inclusion of parts of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and additional parts of Scotland in the next northern periphery programme. There are a series of projects that will give us another string to our bow. I hope that the various bodies that are involved and the respective Governments will take full advantage of those projects as I believe that they will be of mutual benefit.
I congratulate Dennis Canavan and the committee on producing the report. Dennis and I have a few things in common. For example, he represents the constituency in which I was born and I represent the constituency in which he was born. Occasionally, we find ourselves at the same football match. However, regrettably, I usually find that my team—Cowdenbeath nil—is being thrashed by Falkirk. I applaud Dennis Canavan's commitment to all things European and international. He is known here in Scotland and in Westminster for his commitment over many years in that regard.
I would like to state my strong commitment to all things European. This is my first chance to speak in the chamber since last week's announcement of the entry to the European Union of Bulgaria and Romania. I applaud that development.
Thinking of the comments of some of our members, particularly Bruce Crawford, I must say that, since 1999, the Executive and the Parliament have been committed to EU matters, particularly with regard to co-operation. We do not say often enough in the chamber just how much our local authorities have shown commitment to Europe. When I first entered local government, I often thought that the work that Strathclyde Regional Council did was inspirational. It pointed the way for us in terms of programmes and co-operation. We in Fife learned from that and predicated our work on the idea that we would take that route.
In the Parliament, I have tried to establish something that we call the friends of Europe, which is an informal gathering of people to hear speakers talk about how we can become more engaged in all things European. I hope that we will be able to welcome to future meetings of our group Irish citizens who might like to join us.
Having read the report, I have one or two particular concerns on which I would like the minister to reassure me. Paragraph 30 states that Dennis Canavan produced an interim report because he was
"concerned that the Scottish Executive might not be giving adequate priority to pursuing Scottish participation in relevant programmes with the Irish and UK Governments."
I listened carefully to what the minister said and I am delighted that we will now have €200 million instead of the €80 million that is mentioned in the report, but that is a challenge for the minister and his officials. If there is one thing that they need to consider, it is how we can alert the voluntary sector, local authorities and agencies throughout Scotland to the opportunities. That, too, is mentioned in the report.
I was interested and pleased to note the range of potential projects, particularly
"the up-grading of trunk roads and ferry services between Scotland, the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland".
That would provide huge social and economic benefits. On the subject of ports, I give a plug—as my colleague Christine May did in the previous debate—for the Forth road bridge, which is a vital trans-European route. We hope that all colleagues will support our plea not only for a new bridge but for the removal of bridge tolls to bring equity and social justice to our part of the world.
Today is a particularly suitable day for the debate because the independent monitoring commission issued its report today and said that, as far as it is concerned, the Irish Republican Army has forsaken terrorism. That is very good news for the people of Ireland. I just hope that the Democratic Unionist Party responds a little more positively than it has done to date, because that is an important step forward.
I have to confess that, before I became a member of the Scottish Parliament, I had little connection with Ireland. Indeed, I had never visited Ireland. Since becoming an MSP, I have been fortunate enough to visit Ireland on a number of occasions, not least as a member of the Parliament's delegation to the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body. I also participated in a parliamentary visit to the Oireachtas when David Steel was the Presiding Officer, and I visited Ireland with the Local Government and Transport Committee when it considered proportional representation, among other things. Even the Procedures Committee, when it considered the private bills procedure, managed to visit Ireland to see how things are done there. During the October recess, I am privileged to be visiting the Oireachtas with the current Presiding Officer, George Reid, at the invitation of the Ceann Comhairle.
Those opportunities for us to learn about how things are done in Ireland—and also for politicians in Ireland to learn something from us—are valuable. I believe in international exchanges and visits because we can learn and teach a great deal during them. In the BIIPB, we have participated in a number of inquiries in which co-operation is important. We have exported our model of special education—the additional support for learning model—because it was seen as valuable in Ireland during attempts to modernise special education provision there. Northern Ireland has particular problems with special education because it is stuck with the model that was imposed by the Westminster Government, which has not helped, but it too is examining the Scottish model to see how things can be improved.
Recently, the BIIPB committee that I serve on completed an inquiry into life chances in Belfast. The committee will report to the next plenary session of the BIIPB in Belfast next month. The inquiry shows that there are a number of great concerns about the life chances of people in deprived communities in Belfast, but it also shows that, despite the divisions, there is much more that unites people in Belfast than divides them. To be frank, when we are in those communities, looking at their problems and speaking to the people, we cannot tell whether we are in a Catholic community or a Protestant community. The problems are the same and the people are the same. It seems a shame that they are divided in such an unnecessary way. I hope that, through our work with the BIIPB and other agencies, we can help to break down some of the divides in the community.
We must also take advantage of Interreg. The 150km rule is bizarre and excludes most of Scotland because we do not have another country within 150km of our coast. It is a daft rule, but we must be imaginative in using the money and taking full advantage of it. In particular, I would like us to examine with the Governments in both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland the possibilities of a transnational route. We could take freight from Ireland on to ferries, offload it on the west coast of Scotland, take it by train to the east coast, and then stick it on a ferry at Rosyth and take it to Europe. That would be a great opportunity, and co-operation could work.
I hope that we can develop the work of the British-Irish Council—along with the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body, which is supposed to be its parliamentary wing—to increase co-operation not just between Ireland and Scotland but among all the islands and nations in the United Kingdom and Ireland. There is a great deal that we can learn from and offer one another.
I join others in commending Dennis Canavan for his work on the project and the European and External Relations Committee for its involvement in what is a worthwhile initiative.
In his speech, Dennis Canavan referred to the overwhelmingly positive response from those who had discussed the initiative. I am not surprised, because it falls into the category of being almost so obvious that we wonder why more was not made of it sooner. As many have said, the links between Scotland and Ireland are of long standing and there is much that can be made of them. Those links are already particularly strong between the south-west of Scotland and Northern Ireland, and they could be further enhanced to the benefit of both communities.
I was interested in what the minister said about the exchange of lessons among Northern Ireland, the Republic and Scotland. He was right, and in some respects devolution was meant to be about that—trying different things in different areas, discovering what works and sharing best practice. That is healthy.
I have a specific question on the €200 million funding programme, which the minister may be able to deal with later. As I understand it, the €200 million is the funding for all of the programme rather than Scotland's share. If it is not tempting fate too much, will the minister tell us about the Executive's ambition? How much is it seeking to squeeze out of the programme to benefit Scotland? As others have indicated, it is a potentially significant funding programme of which we should take maximum advantage.
Others have mentioned transport links, which are crucial in increasing co-operation among the Republic, Northern Ireland and Scotland. I cannot let the chance pass without mentioning the opportunity to secure better links with the ferry terminals in the south-west, as well as Rosyth. Bill Aitken referred to the A75, and there is much that can be done to improve both road and rail links to allow greater freight transport.
Anecdotally, there appears to be a significant volume of Irish traffic on the Rosyth to Zeebrugge ferry. There is a great opportunity to enhance the transport links and get freight going by sea, rather than winding a tortuous route over land. If we did that, many communities on the A77 would need to see significant investment on the road infrastructure, as there is already concern about the volume and nature of traffic and the impact that it has on local communities. If we want to make the most of that opportunity, we need to look seriously at investment. The same applies to the A75.
Others have talked about the broader links between the UK and Ireland, and we should do anything that we can to alleviate the tensions on the island. We should not necessarily expect to do much, but anything that we can do, we should.
There are many lessons that we can learn from Ireland—members on the other side of the chamber would have a lot to say about that. I have some sympathy with the argument that we can learn from the Republic of Ireland, but that is not for today. The report was a lot of work and makes many good suggestions. The biggest danger is that the report will become lost in the general good will towards it and that we will not take enough specific action. I hope that the Executive will take on board strongly the recommendations and that tangible actions will result from the report.
The report is short, as is the debate, but it is focused. Dennis Canavan and all those who were involved in producing the report are to be commended for it. The debate has been consensual, which shows the level of support and the opportunities for us.
To an extent, it is tragic that a variety of circumstances in recent and more distant history have resulted in our being where we are. Seeking to create a bilateral or tripartite situation is taken for granted in the nordic countries, the Benelux countries and the Baltic states. We are dealing with the issue belatedly. All those countries have had significant problems in the past. The relationship between the Danes and the Swedes, never mind that between the Lithuanians and the Livonians, has been equally problematic, never mind the Dutch Republic and elsewhere. However, it is to our credit that we address the issue.
As many members have said, co-operation is not simply about addressing our past and learning from it through social integration and supporting the peace process in Northern Ireland, but about the present and the future, because huge opportunities exist. We cannot change our geography—we are where we are. It is up to us to work with our neighbours. With the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland, we have not just the shared family histories on which many members have commented, but shared interests and similar community sizes and rural peripheralities. We must work at addressing those matters, so it is heartening that members throughout the chamber have supported the idea and that the minister is prepared to pick it up and run with it.
Transport links are key. We should not underestimate the problems. To an extent, we in this country have taken for granted the North channel. We must realise what competition is coming. Anybody who has travelled via Holyhead or Swansea in recent years will be aware of the huge improvement in the infrastructure there. Unless we take steps to address the infrastructure in south-west Scotland, we may wake up one morning to find that transport goes through Holyhead and the M62 corridor rather than the more difficult but shorter sea journey across the North channel. We must take that on board and not take the North channel for granted.
We must address the peace process. There is much ignorance in Scotland about our history, which we must examine.
Huge opportunities exist. Given the constituency that he represents, the minister will be aware of discussions—I remember being involved with people who were participating in them—about the opportunities that would come from having a deep-sea port terminal at Hunterston. I was told that 70 per cent of containers to the Irish Republic—we envy the manufacturing base there and its exports—went through Rotterdam. Ports in Scotland should seek to access some of those opportunities.
Another issue is marketing and how we promote ourselves, which I have come across recently. A huge marketing opportunity in the United States involves what is described as the Scots-Irish community there. To whom do those people belong? Are they Irish, Northern Irish or Scots? Rather than becoming involved in a turf war about who has the greatest claim to those people, we should co-operate.
The market in America is huge, because the Scots Irish are significant in American history. They include not just Presidents Andrew Jackson and Ulysses S Grant, but people who fell at the battle of the Alamo, such as Sam Houston from Armagh, Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie. Many such people were born in the north of Ireland or elsewhere on the island of Ireland, but they came ultimately from people who had left Scotland.
We have a huge opportunity to co-operate on selling Scotland and, indeed, on selling visits to the Ulster American folk park, for example. We have our share in the Scots Irish. They started to depart from Northern Ireland after they had left Scotland, in the 17th century. They started to leave when, shortly after his accession to the throne, King William III reneged on his commitment to the Presbyterian faith. Whatever people such as those with some sectarian predilections in Scotland may think, they had left and gone to America before the Orange order was established. The Scots Irish offer another subject for co-operation on marketing.
We wholly support the report and will work with the Executive and the minister in any way that we can to have it implemented.
I agree entirely with what Kenny MacAskill said about the consensual nature of the debate; I would like to continue that consensus.
Recently I met a group of North American congressmen from the energy committee—a very high-powered committee—who were en route to the middle east. They spoke of the Scots-Irish diaspora and made no distinction between the two; nor should they, because we are the same people, divided by history perhaps, but united in our common humanity.
I am grateful for Dennis Canavan's clarification of the typographical error to which he referred, which misrepresented his views and those of the committee and led to my response. We would all agree that we have no plans to introduce separate programmes; we require to participate in a tripartite manner with existing cross-border programmes between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland because we would get maximum value from the consequential programme for Scotland. In that context, I say to Derek Brownlee that we are talking not about shares, but about getting the maximum possible value from broadening and widening our participation in existing cross-border programmes.
As I have said, the draft programmes are likely to support a range of activity. Current thinking on the programme structure is that the two priorities will be economic development such as innovation, business support, small and medium-sized enterprise development and small-scale infrastructure, along with the sustainable management of resources such as tourism, the environment, renewables, marine and coastal zone management, and natural and cultural heritage.
It is a pity that Jamie McGrigor could not wait for the rest of the debate before he made his intervention. Regardless of their political persuasion, everyone in the chamber believes that the Campbeltown to Ballycastle ferry service is a good thing. The infrastructure is in place and the Executive has been trying desperately to reinstate the service. The new programme might give that initiative some welcome impetus.
Bill Aitken and Helen Eadie referred to transport infrastructure such as roads, bridges and ferries. Eligibility for the programme is limited, as is its scope, but its key elements are to assist the flow of goods, people and connections, so it might well be possible to address some of those issues.
Bruce Crawford raised a relevant question about the areas that will be eligible. Parts of the west of Scotland such as Dumfries and Galloway, south Ayrshire, Argyll and the isles are all included in the eligible areas for the programme. In addition, we are making strenuous efforts to persuade the Commission to include North Ayrshire, East Ayrshire and the Western Isles.
Might it be advantageous to have discussions with the Department of Trade and Industry about how Scotland can access the same fund for connections into France, Holland and other countries with which we would not normally have any contact?
Very much so, and that links to the point that Bruce Crawford's colleague made about the wider Scots-Irish diaspora, as well as points that were made by my good friend Bill Aitken about cultural initiatives. The Columba initiative that was mentioned by Dennis Canavan is one good example. It was set up by my colleague Brian Wilson when he was in the Scottish Office and it sought to bring together our cultural heritage and rejoice in the broad range of Celtic culture.
Our anti-sectarianism initiative is a good example of an area in which the Irish believe that they can learn from us because of the historic roots of the conflict on that island.
The Irish economy has had its successes, but we know that it has the same—if not more—acute problems with worklessness and employability, so the Irish look at our workforce-plus proposals and our wider proposals on employability to see what benefits could accrue to them in a cross-border context.
We have been given an excellent opportunity to deepen our ties with our Irish neighbours. We are pleased that structural funds have given us a good facility for achieving that. As the EU becomes larger, it becomes more rather than less important for nations such as Scotland to develop cross-border links and co-operation with other like-minded nations elsewhere in the UK. That enables us to share our good experience and learn from their good practice. That system is mutually beneficial and we will support it and push forward in consultation and co-operation with colleagues from all parties in the chamber.
It is evident from this afternoon's speeches that there is a great deal of interest in and good will towards the principle of future co-operation among Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, particularly within the EU co-operation programme. In summing up on the committee's behalf, I want to thank the committee's clerks, past and present, and the staff of the Scottish Parliament information centre. I congratulate Dennis Canavan on bringing the matter to the committee's attention and on the hard work that he put into the drafting of the final report.
As Jim Wallace mentioned, part of the catalyst for the committee's interest was the overall reduction in the structural funds budget. That made it all the more important to maximise the opportunities that the funds present. With the proposed budget of approximately €200 million that the minister confirmed today, the co-operation programme will have a not insignificant amount of money.
It was evident from members' speeches that the committee's topic for debate was worthy of consideration. I think that it found resonance not only among members in the chamber, but among those who work on projects on the ground and respondents to the inquiry. I will say a little bit more about them in a moment.
As was made clear in the debate, co-operation is about not just the economic opportunities—important though they are—but our cultural, traditional and social links. As Dennis Canavan rightly pointed out, we have much in common with Ireland and Northern Ireland. Over many centuries, migration in both directions across the Irish sea has forged strong connections between Scottish and Irish communities. Members from all parties have agreed this afternoon that, as a consequence, we have considerable scope for co-operation projects such as cultural exchanges and in matters such as tourism, sport and transport.
Indeed, some excellent co-operation is already happening. As Dennis Canavan mentioned, the Columba initiative was set up in 1997 to foster support for the Gaelic language and to raise awareness of our shared Gaelic heritage. That is an important development.
Many respondents to the inquiry suggested that certain types of co-operation projects could encourage social cohesion by helping to develop mutual understanding and tolerance of the different traditions, communities and beliefs that exist in Scotland, Ireland and Northern Ireland. As paragraphs 17 and 18 of our report state, the committee believes that the partnership and teamwork that are involved in delivering projects on the ground could also have the capacity to encourage people—as Jim Wallace pointed out—to look to what they have in common rather than to their differences. At a time when we hope to eradicate sectarianism, projects that involve partners from all communities and all beliefs should be very much welcomed and supported by the Parliament.
Let me say a word about co-operation that is already going on. As a number of members highlighted, local authorities can participate in projects and make a positive contribution to them. I was most impressed by the recently published joint submission from the Scottish partners and the Special EU Programmes Body, which members will find worth reading. The joint submission details how the Scottish partners could contribute and what the broad themes might be. It notes that the themes that are being developed and which are emerging from the consultation process in Ireland include maritime matters, tourism, connectivity—which was mentioned by Bill Aitken and Helen Eadie—sustainable communities and competitiveness. Such themes would maximise the opportunities for Scottish participation. It is worth mentioning that the document lists all the joint partners, which in essence are composed of community planning partnerships, local economic forums and local authorities in the areas in which we want to encourage participation in the programme of co-operation.
In paragraph 45 of its report, the committee recommends that the areas in Scotland that are eligible for cross-border funding should be extended to include North Ayrshire and East Ayrshire, as well as the Western Isles, to ensure that maximum use is made of flexibility in the eligibility criteria for cross-border funding in respect of adjacency. This is the first time that such flexibility has existed. The minister reaffirmed that the Executive is vigorously pursuing the matter, with both the UK Government and the European Commission, to ensure that those areas will be able to participate on grounds of adjacency.
This is the first time that Scotland will be eligible to participate in the programmes. I cannot help but reflect on the fact that, without the Scottish Parliament, we would not have made progress in raising the issue. This is a good example of co-operation between a committee of the Parliament and the Scottish Executive in promoting Scotland's interests. Clearly, there are opportunities for us to build on the geographical proximity and historical and cultural links between Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, to maximise the economic linkages and social cohesion about which members have spoken this afternoon, and to deliver mutually beneficial co-operation. There is real will on all sides to make that happen. I commend the report to the Parliament.