Official Report 516KB pdf
Item 3 is for the committee to hear from His Excellency Pasquale Terracciano, the Italian ambassador to the United Kingdom. We are going to discuss the Italian presidency of the Council of the European Union.
I welcome you warmly, ambassador. We held a reception last night and I hope that you had a warm welcome there. I also welcome the ambassador’s guests to our public gallery. They include Graham Blythe, the head of the European Commission office in Scotland, and Jackie Minor, who is, as he put it, his boss.
Ambassador, I believe that you have some opening remarks.
Thank you, madam convener. Good morning to all distinguished members of the Scottish Parliament. I have some introductory remarks on the priorities of the Italian presidency and on what we have achieved so far.
While presenting the priorities of the Italian presidency of the Council, Prime Minister Renzi stressed that it is a unique opportunity to discover the true soul of Europe and the profound meaning of our life together. With this spirit, Italy has engaged enthusiastically in this particular and atypical presidency that takes place against a background of deep institutional change and at the beginning of a new legislative cycle. Despite the objective limits of this transitional phase, it is a key period for setting the strategic priorities for the EU institutions for the next five years. The Italian presidency is acting as a catalyst for policy change to allow Europe to return to a path of sustainable growth and restore citizens’ confidence in the Europe project. We want to turn the present phase, the beginning of a new political cycle, into a fresh start for Europe.
During the past three years, all EU member states, including those who are in and out of the euro, have been focusing on assuring fiscal consolidation and deficit reduction. At the national level, we have initiated important structural reforms in order to recuperate competitiveness, but that is not enough to address the deep malaise of our peoples, who were dramatically affected by the recession and now fear for their future and the future of their children. The malaise is so deep that it resulted in the rise of europhobic parties all over Europe at the last European elections. The motto of the Italian presidency is, “Europe, a fresh start”. Our main aim is to create a better, stronger and more effective Europe.
10:30We have reasons to be confident. In June, the European Council started to address European citizens’ concerns by agreeing the “Strategic Agenda for the Union in Times of Change”, which was presented by the new President of the European Commission, President Juncker. We considered that to be an important achievement at the political and institutional level. For the first time, the appointment of the new President of the European Commission has been clearly linked to a number of strategic priorities that have been agreed by member states. At a time when the candidate to the top job of the Commission was selected on the basis of a process that some member states considered to be controversial, it was necessary to reaffirm the central role of the member states in the signing of the working agenda at EU level to facilitate a common and coherent organisation of the work among the EU institutions.
There are basically three priorities of the Italian presidency: a job-friendly Europe delivering economic growth; moving Europe closer to its citizens in the area of democracy, rights and freedom; and a stronger and more global role for Europe in foreign policy. Now that we are in the middle of our presidency, the time is right for a state-of-play assessment of what has been achieved so far in those three areas and what remains on the agenda for the next three months.
I will first speak about growth and jobs. With more than 26 million people unemployed in Europe, the Italian presidency is focusing on creating more jobs and fostering growth as the two main drivers of EU economic policy; implementing the youth employment initiative; relaunching the EU 2020 strategy; deepening and strengthening the economic monetary union; boosting competitiveness in the EU; implementing the digital single market; promoting an industrial renaissance; and achieving an EU common position on the 2030 climate and energy package.
It should not come as a surprise that, on almost every single topic that I have just mentioned, today more than ever, Italy and the UK share a similar approach to the policies that are needed at EU level to deliver economic growth and jobs and to move Europe closer to its citizens. That is especially true of the need to fully exploit the potential of the single market in all its dimensions, including the market of products, the market of services and the digital single market. We need to reduce unnecessary administrative burdens and cut red tape for SMEs; support open and fair trade and strategic partnerships; and make progress in the economic monetary union while respecting the integrity of the single market and preserving transparency and openness towards non-EU countries. We need to promote climate and energy policy on issues such as affordable energy for companies and citizens, secure energy for our countries and green energy as an engine for growth.
Although we recognise that the specific concerns that the United Kingdom has raised about the future development of the EU will need to be addressed, as stated at the European Council last June, the Italian presidency thinks that, today, the EU must be flexible enough to be able to support and to act as a multiplier of national Governments’ efforts through effective European policies and investments. The UK is an essential and indispensable partner in the achievement of those goals given the decisive added value that the UK has always provided in key moments of the life of the EU. As Prime Minister Matteo Renzi recently stated in the European Parliament,
“A Europe without the United Kingdom would not simply be a less rich Europe, it would be less Europe, less itself”.
Together, we can work effectively to shape a better and smarter Europe that is less intrusive and more efficient.
I move on to progress that has been achieved on growth and jobs. The Italian presidency is focusing all its efforts on tackling the scourge of youth unemployment, including through an effective implementation of the youth guarantee scheme. Given the alarmingly high level of youth unemployment, in Milan yesterday, the Italian presidency hosted a European summit on unemployment and growth as a follow-up to the summits that were previously held in Paris and Berlin. Following a clear European road map, the Italian presidency is working in all Council formations to redirect the action of the EU towards the strengthening of the real economy.
Our objective is to boost competitiveness while tackling social exclusion and enhancing the social dimension of the EMU. On those issues, the presidency is promoting political debates within the sectoral councils, with a view to a final report by the presidency as a contribution to the review of the EU 2020 strategy. The report will also address the need for closer links between the EU 2020 strategy and the European semester, and for a better balance between the real and the financial economy.
We are pressing to start the new legislative cycle with a clear strategic commitment to completing the single market. Information and communication technology and digital technologies are powerful tools to modernise our economies while creating highly qualified jobs. On 8 and 9 July, Italy hosted the high-level Digital Venice conference, with the participation of important political and business leaders. The conference sent out the clear message that boosting competitiveness in Europe can be achieved only by developing the digital agenda and by completing the digital single market and integrating it in the EU 2020 strategy.
The Italian presidency is working hard on the political framework for climate and energy for 2030, in order to agree an EU common position at the October European Council.
The second objective is to move Europe closer to its citizens. The strategic agenda for the EU states:
“The May 2014 European elections open a new legislative cycle. This moment of political renewal comes precisely as our countries emerge from years of economic crisis and as public disenchantment with politics has grown. It is the right time to set out what we want the Union to focus on and how we want it to function.”
Italy entirely and whole-heartedly subscribes to those words and considers the second set of priorities as the core of our presidency. It might be articulated as follows: a more effective mode of operating for the EU institutions; a common policy for immigration and asylum; better management of the EU borders; strengthening European judicial co-operation; and the protection of fundamental human rights, inter alia the principles of non-discrimination and gender equality.
Our main objective is to minimise the perceived gap between European citizens and EU institutions in order to push for a better and more democratic Europe. The EU should be deeply rooted in the principles of attribution, subsidiarity and proportionality. As a consequence, it should be less intrusive in all those sectors that could be better dealt with at national, regional or local level.
That is why, since August, the Italian presidency has been promoting at the general affairs council a common reflection on how to reform effectively the working methods of the EU institutions within the council. We are looking at issues such as subsidiarity and the proportionality principles; the relationship between euro ins and euro outs; the role of the national Parliaments; how to ensure the effective and complete implementation of European Council decisions; and a more decisive push towards the simplification of EU rules.
On the issue of rights, a stronger role for the EU in the Mediterranean is paramount in order to prevent new tragedies there. Last July, the justice and home affairs informal council recognised that more solidarity among EU member states is needed and that the borders of each member state are to be considered as an EU border. We have also appreciated the political endorsement of the start of a new joint maritime patrolling operation from 1 November this year—operation Triton—which will be led under the aegis of a strengthened Frontex agency.
The Italian presidency is at the forefront regarding human rights and fundamental freedoms, non-discrimination and gender equality. In our view, all those principles represent the cornerstone of the European construction. With that in mind, the Italian presidency has relaunched the negotiation on the scheme for the directive on non-discrimination, and important progress has been registered on the directive that is designed to improve the gender balance in Europe’s company boardrooms. Furthermore, on 23 to 24 October, the Italian presidency will host in Rome the conference on the Beijing platform for action of the world conference on women. In November, Italy will inaugurate a week of rights to assess strategies targeting discrimination in Europe.
The third and final priority is a stronger and global role for Europe in foreign policy. Italy is convinced that only a stronger position for the EU on the global stage can help us to get out of the economic crisis. At the same time, economic growth has to be based on our shared European values, thus becoming a new model at international level.
Last July, the informal justice and home affairs council provided a follow-up to the results of the Mediterranean task force and stressed the key role of closer integration between the external and the internal dimension of migratory policies by strengthening dialogue with third countries of origin on the transit of migrants. The Italian presidency has scheduled three ministerial meetings at the end of November that will be devoted to migratory issues: the fourth Euro-African ministerial conference, with the participation of north-west African countries on migrations and development in the framework of the Rabat process; the joint conference of foreign and interior ministers; and the first ministerial conference of the Khartoum process with countries in eastern Africa. All those events will highlight the key link between migrations and development, as well as the key role of the relation between migrations, security and trafficking of human beings.
Italy also encourages the regional dimension of the EU neighbourhood policy and supports AMICI—a southern Mediterranean investment co-ordination initiative—which aims to rationalise European aid to the southern regions. The Italian presidency strongly supports the on-going negotiations on TTIP—the transatlantic trade and investment partnership—since trade and foreign investments are an integral part of our strategy for external action.
As regards the comprehensive economic and trade agreement—CETA—with Canada, the debates promoted during the Italian presidency resulted in the conclusion of the negotiations in August and the presentation of the agreement at the EU-Canada summit on 25 September. We are also finalising partnership agreements with countries in western Africa.
Italy fully supports the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the constant and coherent commitment with Asian-Pacific partners on all global and regional challenges. In mid-October, the Euro-Asia region will be at the centre of attention not only at the Asia-Europe meeting—ASEM—summit, which will be hosted in Milan on 16 and 17 October, but on the occasion of a number of other related events such as business forums, civil society meetings and cultural events. It will be a unique opportunity to promote the growth and development of the two regions and reinforce the dialogue on political and economic co-operation as well as social and cultural exchanges.
Finally, we will host expo 2015 in Milan, from May to October 2015. The Italian presidency is paying special attention to the issue of sustainable development. The main focus during the informal agriculture councils was the issue of food security and the possible positive synergies with Expo Milano 2015, the theme of which will be “Feeding the Planet, Energy for Life”.
That concludes my presentation, madam convener. Thank you for your attention.
Thank you very much for that comprehensive account of the on-going work.
I impress on people the point that mobile phones should not be used in the committee room, because they interfere with broadcasting. I do not think that our broadcasting people like the buzz in their ears when phones are being used.
Ambassador, you mentioned many priorities. One of our focuses in Scotland is on youth unemployment, and I am sure that a number of my committee colleagues will go into that. You mentioned at the beginning of your presentation the meeting in Milan yesterday. We were looking to try to get an update on that, but we could not find anything concrete about it. I do not know whether you are in a position to give the committee an update on the purpose of the meeting yesterday and perhaps some of the outcomes.
10:45
The purpose of the meeting was to take stock of progress in implementing the youth employment initiative. It was not a summit, but more of a high-level conference, because we do not yet have the final data of the interim report that is expected on the implementation of the initiative. It was a more theoretical stock taking of the experience so far.
In spite of the fact that major decisions were not expected, some interesting movement was registered. The youth employment initiative was launched with front-loading funds totalling €6 billion that had already been allocated in the budget. To apply the initiative to all young unemployed Europeans, we would need around €23 billion, if my recollection is correct, so we are short by €17 billion.
The way to fill that gap is to use national resources and to redirect structural funds such as the social fund. That poses a challenge for many European countries, because if countries match the European funds with national funds they will risk overtaking their growth and stability pact limits. I have been told that there has been a less marked division between the more fiscally orthodox countries and those countries that want to respect the goals but also want a degree of flexibility, because if they have to match funds for the European youth initiative they think that perhaps those funds should not be considered as part of the deficit, and that special consideration should be given. A solution did not emerge, but I am told that the debate was constructive, and there is now a general comprehension that, if we want those programmes to work and if we need to complement European funds with national funds, a degree of flexibility has to be considered.
It is always a tricky balance. Many years ago, I used to run a project that was funded by structural funds, and it was difficult enough to get match funders, so I can understand that concern. Alex Rowley has further questions on that theme.
Thank you for coming along this morning, ambassador. The situation that you have described raises the issue of how to achieve growth as we come out of recession, and the difficulty of looking at growth and imposing austerity measures on countries. In the UK economy, austerity measures have had an impact on public services and jobs, and instead of reducing debt, our debt has actually continued to rise. Where is the balance between austerity and achieving economic growth?
The line that has been taken by the Italian Government is quite clear; we are going to respect all the parameters and obligations. For example, we will be keeping our deficit below the 3 per cent ceiling, so that we will be able to say that the rules should be reconsidered in a more flexible way.
We think that if we did not respect the present obligations, there would be a credibility issue. Some countries, in particular in the southern periphery of Europe, are reluctant to respect obligations. We say that we are going to respect obligations. That is costing us a deep recession—we are still in recession now. However, at the same time, that will give us the moral authority to say that we should reconsider some of the parameters that were set in a different Europe in different conditions.
You will know that we added further constraints with the fiscal compact. Italy has a balanced budget, because we have been running a primary surplus for the past 20 years and the deficit has been below 3 per cent. However, we should do more, because we have the legacy of the past. We have a huge debt, which is now 132 per cent of gross domestic product, although we have managed that huge debt. While other countries doubled their debt during the recession, ours went from 124 or 125 per cent of GDP to 132 per cent, so it was a marginal increase. Furthermore, that increase was due also to the facts that Italy contributed 17 per cent to the rescue programmes of other southern periphery countries and contributed to the setting up of the European stability mechanism.
Anyway, the fiscal compact says that, as of next year, countries should reduce by one tenth their debt to GDP ratio. Today, that would mean a huge fiscal adjustment equivalent to four percentage points of GDP. When the fiscal compact was conceived, the process of reduction of debt would have translated into a readjustment of 0.5 per cent, because it was calculated at the time that we would have 2 per cent inflation and 1.5 per cent growth. With that 3.5 per cent, we would have been left with an adjustment of only 0.5 per cent to reduce the debt in line with the fiscal compact. However, we now have deflation and no growth, so what was 0.5 per cent is now 4 per cent. Therefore, those earlier figures should perhaps be adjusted according to the changing economic reality. Again, it is a matter of credibility. We will respect the figures, but we make the case that they should probably be reconsidered.
You talked about the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. In Scotland and across the UK, there is concern about the implications of that agreement, especially for the national health service. There is a strong body of opinion that the national health service in Scotland and the UK should not in any way be included in any such agreement, if one is reached. What is your view on that?
The question implies that the private health sector will somehow be covered by the agreement. To my knowledge, here in Scotland you should be quite safe from that point of view, because the private health sector plays a very small role here. Nevertheless, in the agreement particular concerns can be taken into consideration. Italy has a different concern, which is protection of the geographic origin of products, and France has the cultural exception.
The way forward is to take into consideration all the local and national concerns, but without going so far as to engage in so-called carving out, which involves completely excluding a sector from the agreement. That is the way to empty the agreement, because everyone will just take a chunk out and put it aside. The agreement has to remain comprehensive, but each party can legitimately ask for a guarantee on specific issues of concern. Those guarantees can be fairly easily arranged.
Your opening remarks comprehensively set out the priorities. I was particularly struck by your commitment to human rights, which is of great concern to the committee. I welcome the fact that you mentioned the issue of gender balance on European boards. I should say that, earlier in the meeting, I mentioned that I was a little bit disappointed that the current cohort of commissioners does not have a gender balance, although I do not expect you to respond to that; it was just a comment.
I want to examine an area that is of great concern to us, as we face a UK election next year. There has been a rise in the polls, and in representation, of Europhobic parties, and the UK could be facing an in/out referendum on Europe. Scotland, traditionally, has been much more Europhile than the rest of the UK. Indeed, the Conservative member of this committee, who is not here today, is a Europhile, which makes him perhaps unique in his party at the moment. Given the situation that we are facing in relation to the general election that will soon be upon us, can you give us some practical examples of what help could be given in terms of your priority about European citizens’ confidence in European membership, and what you can do to explain to citizens the benefits of European membership?
On gender balance, as you know, the presidency has no role in forming the new European Commission. Any blame should be put at the feet of Jacqueline Minor’s boss, Mr Juncker. It is, honestly, a very difficult issue. There are so many balances to strike—north and south, east and west, smaller countries and bigger countries, left-wing parties and right-wing parties and so on.
It is a shame that gender balance was not at the top of the priority list but was just one of various considerations. I have always applied gender balance in the offices for which I have had responsibilities in my career, and the best colleagues I had were always ladies. When I was the chief of staff and private secretary to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, I was the first one who got a gender balance in the private office. I also accepted that one or two women were going to go on maternity leave. That was considered to be a big scandal, because people do not normally give those extremely tough jobs to women who are going to disappear for a couple of months. However, I took the risk and I think that I was rewarded—the woman in question even worked from home, as she was grateful for having been included in the office.
11:00On the issue of how to counter Europhobic movements in Europe, you can do many things regarding the institutions, the role of the European Parliament and national parliaments. However, the main issue is getting Europe to do what is important for European citizens. If we can show that Europe is playing a concrete and positive role in fostering growth and creating jobs, we will be answering the demand for security. What do our citizens ask institutions for? Security. They want economic security, in terms of growth and jobs, and more traditional security, in terms of borders, migrations, terrorist threats and all that. The effort now should be to get Europe back to the core business of responding to the demands that come from its citizens. For too long, we have been discussing issues such as austerity versus flexibility and the systems by which we select the President of the European Commission. That has been at the centre of our debate. Now, we have to find a way to put Europe in a condition to make a real contribution to growth and job creation.
I would like to carry on with the theme that Clare Adamson raised. You said that Italy’s three priorities for the presidency were being job-friendly, being closer to European citizens, and strengthening the role of the European Union in relation to foreign policy. We could argue that the second priority could be most important, because of the issues that you have mentioned and the rise of Europhobic parties in the EU.
As we know, Italy is a founding member of the European Union, and is held in great respect in Scotland because of the role that it has played over many years. I certainly believe that Italy can play an important role in reaching out to citizens in the EU. How can we connect more directly with citizens on the ground? If you look at the distance between citizens and government institutions, there is a greater distance between them and the institutions of the EU than there is between them and those of their own national Parliaments. How can we bridge that gap and bring the European Union institutions closer to ordinary citizens, so that they understand what is going on there and the benefits that the EU can deliver for ordinary people?
The answer lies in reform of the EU. We should show that the European political class has understood that there is such a gap. For example, if you manage to give some concrete substance to the principles of attribution, subsidiarity and proportionality, you will create a better connection between the different layers of governance in Europe—the European, the national, the local and so on. Again, too many times we have had meetings in Europe where we end up having a talking shop and speaking about proportionality and subsidiarity but do not get to the drawing board to design something concrete. We end up agreeing that something should be done but no project comes out of it.
That connects to what I was saying before. The economic crisis, the recession and unemployment help us to focus our minds. Take the youth employment initiative, for example. As I said, it has been calculated that the cost would be €23 billion. However, if you do not apply the effort to make it real, the cost in terms of the benefits that will need to be paid and the loss of revenue that will occur because people are not working will come to €153 billion. Therefore, it makes economic sense to make the youth employment initiative real. To make it real, we need all the layers to work together.
Why should that work now when it has not worked for the past 20 years? It should work because citizens are really fed up. In my country, you can sense that people want change and are convinced that we need to change if we are to secure a future for ourselves and our children. That global focusing of the mind can make a difference and help to bridge the gap.
Living in Scotland and the United Kingdom, I see that the media—particularly the newspapers in the UK—are very hostile to Europe, and the population pick that up, which leads to some other circumstances that you mentioned. Is there a role for digital technology in reaching out to ordinary citizens in Europe to provide a counterbalancing positive message?
I think so. At national and local level, we can use ICT to reach out to our citizens. We can make all administrative and even judicial processes quicker and more transparent using ICT.
ICT is one of the three major legs of the connecting Europe project—the others are transport and energy. If we manage to make that project reality as quickly as possible, we will have better transport connectivity, more energy security and, certainly, less expensive energy for citizens and businesses. In addition, ICT can make the polity in Europe work better in general and it complements e-commerce, which is an important part of the single market.
The future of commerce is e-commerce. Right now, we have 28 different markets. We should make a single market. People would then be able to acquire goods and services at lower prices. If we achieved that, we could easily show that there is a good side to Europe and not only a negative side. The problem is that it is always easy to look at the negative. The press usually looks at the negative news and not the positive, so there should be an effort to shed light on the positive side of Europe. That could be achieved more easily through ICT.
That is encouraging.
My other question is on Italy’s priorities and the digital single market that we are about to go into. Does Italy consider trying to flatten out the cost of mobile telephone charges throughout the European Union to be a priority? Those charges vary considerably. Is there a move from the Italian Government to do some work on that?
Yes. We have proposed to abolish roaming charges throughout Europe, for example.
Oddly enough, we managed to create a single market for goods relatively quickly, but the service sector, which was more modern in a way and should have come first, is lagging behind. For once, southern Europe—if I may say this, as I come from there—has been first in the class, as we have been opening up our service industries completely.
Countries that we would not expect, such as Germany, have not opened up their service industries, and I think that they should do that. It is high time that Germany opened up its service sector, and that would create an imitation effect. All the countries that usually follow the German line would feel obliged to open up as well, and then they would have to invest. The service sector not being open, by definition, is not efficient. Opportunities would be created for other countries, because they could export services, but Germany’s investment in its own market would also create demand and foster and promote growth, first at the German level and then at the European level. That would be a virtuous stimulus, Rather than just deficit spending, there would be productive investment that would be in the enlightened self-interest of Germany itself.
The example of mobile phones is an important one, because it is less easy to explain to people that opening up the service sector will lead to cheaper insurance policies and a better service in the insurance sector, which is very closed in many countries. Speaking about mobile phones creates popular pressure, because people say, “I want to spend less. I don’t want to pay roaming charges when I go on holiday in Spain or Greece. Why should I pay these outrageous bills when I know that, in the States, they pay a tenth of the amount?” Actually, mobile phones do not work very well in the States, but that is another story.
Thank you very much.
Our final question of the day comes from Rod Campbell.
I have three separate questions. First, there are pressures on the European Union from migration from outside, and human trafficking is an important issue. You referred to the three ministerial meetings. What is the European Union plan and what is the objective of the discussions?
We wish that there was a clearer plan. To be honest with you, the truth is that we have been left quite alone to face the tragedy. We had 100,000 migrants arriving on Sicilian shores only this year, and to face that we have Frontex, an agency with limited means, so we had to create a national programme called mare nostrum to rescue migrants, who were drowning by the thousand in the Mediterranean sea.
We are pressing to persuade the European Union that there is an external border that is of common interest and should be managed at a common level. It should not just be the Italian navy that is patrolling. In fact, there is progress with the new operation Triton, which means that for the first time the Italian navy is not being left alone to tackle the issue and cope with the continuing tragedy.
We are working together on development aid, but what happens in the Mediterranean is the last phase of a process that starts in sub-Saharan countries, from where desperate migrants cross the desert to reach the Mediterranean shores and jump on the first boat in an attempt to reach Sicily. The people who traffic in human beings willingly use boats that will not be able to reach their destination but will probably sink in the Mediterranean sea, because then they just disappear.
Migrants are taken on board and brought to centres in Lampedusa, elsewhere in Sicily or Calabria—to southern regions of Italy.
11:15We must work with the countries of origin—through the Rabat process, for example—to co-ordinate aid better and create economic opportunities and jobs in those countries, which discourages people from leaving their homes to look for a better future. In the transit countries, such as Libya, Tunisia and Algeria, persuasion is needed. Pressure from the whole of Europe is needed—Italy is not enough—to persuade those countries to make agreements with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and create centres on the shores of those countries where people arrive. At such centres, people can be assisted with European funds and we can try to send them back to their homes, where we hope that development aid has in the meantime created opportunities for them.
Economic migrants could be distinguished from refugees who come from Syria and other areas of war, and applications could be dealt with in places such as Libya and Tunisia. People who received asylum could travel normally and safely to the country that was to receive them.
There are three aspects: the country of origin, where we must work together to create opportunities; the country of transit, where centres for migrants should be created; and patrolling of the Mediterranean Sea. It is not possible for just one country, with the occasional help of Malta or Greece, to cope with such a big issue. We are pressing other partners to make it a European priority. All political pressure is welcome to create awareness of the scale of the phenomenon.
You mentioned Syria, which leads to my next question. As the president of the EU, is Italy taking a lead on the Islamic State and Syrian problems or is that not really registering on the radar?
The United States has taken the lead. At the European level, we have a complementary role. This is a typical case in which having a single foreign policy is difficult, as countries have different national policies.
Italy supports the US action. We support the US politically in Syria and, with other European partners, we support its strikes in Iraq. We are not taking part in strikes, but we are doing refuelling, humanitarian aid and training. If there was general European participation, we would not be averse to considering military strikes in Iraq.
I ask for clarification about TTIP, which we have talked about. Did you suggest that, because the NHS is predominantly in the public sector, we should not have concerns about the impact of TTIP on the health service? Increasing elements of the NHS south of the border are private. I might have picked you up wrongly—will you clarify what you said?
It is not for me to describe the state of the art in your health service. I know that the private sector has a greater role in England, but it is still marginal. I gather that the Scottish Parliament has competence over the health sector, so I think that you already have control of it. It is up to you to guarantee to your citizens their rights and to protect those rights. You are lucky enough to have this beautiful Parliament; you will certainly be able to protect your citizens’ rights.
I will leave that there.
We have explored many areas. As you will have seen, ambassador, the committee is active and members take great pride in their role on the committee. On the committee’s behalf, I thank you very much. I also thank all who were involved in last night’s lovely concert, which we all enjoyed.
I close the meeting and remind colleagues to stay behind for the official photograph with the ambassador.
Meeting closed at 11:20.